Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

But then how could you call that 100 profit in any way? If you made at most like 30-50?


You are conflating two different types of profit.

Gross profit = sales or service revenue less the expenses directly related to producing that revenue (this does not include backoffice functions, R&D, rent, etc.)

Net profit, which is the total revenue of the business less all expenses of the business (so, this includes R&D, rent, and the "backoffice" like HR, finance, legal, etc.)

Larger businesses with multiple business segment may account for gross profit separately for each business segment, but the business only ever calculates one net profit item.

There's also unit profit, which is essentially gross profit but at the level of a single unit of goods or services (for services, a unit is usually a customer contract, for recurring services it would be each period of the contract). Unit profit is generally the revenue from that specific unit less the costs directly associated with producing that revenue. Most companies don't calculate unit profit as generally it's not meaningful unless you sell high-value items, like automobiles or planes.


Root post is taking about an upper bound, not about a precise guess. Context is what makes 100 a more fitting number than 40.


[flagged]


That makes no sense. Profit, by definition, is net. If you still have to pay costs out of some money, then it isn't profit.


It's absolutely essential to be able to differentiate between gross profit and net profit to establish unit economics, especially as the scale of a newly founded operation may drastically change relative to some amount of fixed capex or SG&A expense.


Of course. But here we're talking about the opportunity cost of the founders and other employees so gross profit isn't as relevant. Context matters and the context here is that the founders and employees would probably have a much higher take home split amongst all of them if they were to work in the wearables division of a large company like Google or Apple.


The difference between gross profit & net profit for companies like this is largely comprised of employee & founder salaries (SG&A and R&D). That delta is literally paying for their opportunity cost. Net profit is most relevant to shareholders.


Gross and net profit are each their own concept: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/what-are-dif...


What they call "gross profit" is not profit, by definition. It's certainly useful to track $revenue-$cost_of_goods, but you can't call that profit. People are free to use words incorrectly, but they shouldn't expect anyone else to go along with them.


Who chooses the "correct" use of words? Is it you? Wikipedia disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_margin. Maybe you should make your own encyclopedia.


"Gross margin" seems a suitable alternative term.


you mean some person on wikipedia disagrees with him.



What they call "gross profit" is an accounting standard, defined in GAAP, and a standard part of every financial statement.

If we're talking about profit from the lens of a unit sale, we're usually talking about gross profit and gross margin.


You can't run a business based on dictionary definitions.


You most certainly can, and you should.


Please hire an accountant asap if you ever start a business. Things don't mean what you think they mean in accounting. You are wrong and insist you are right despite multiple people pointing it out to you.


Chambers would like a word or several




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: