> Perhaps they made a profit on it even though it's now worthless.
Not a profit on 388 million, unless you use that magical "big business/hollywood" mechanic of attributing revenue to things that happened alongside the actual sale. You saw 1 ad for a tv and bought a tv? That's a 600$ attribution to that ad campaign!
They had at least a decade to get revenue and I'm sure they were paid by the studios and the theatres. I don't know the finances but it's well within the realm of possibility.
It was a loss leader to lure subscribers and that was during the wild overvaluation of properties. I'd bet the money I do have, that it made back a fraction of that (without using creative accounting). How many people do you think were influenced to use AOL (as it mentioned in the moviephone recordings "brought to you by AOL") because of moviephone? It's surely 0. Do you think the studios EVER paid for anything moviephone offered? That's a no. Moviephone's online portion (where you could actually order things) was acquired about 2 years after the AOL purchase. It was a dog the whole way, which you can tell by the synopsis on wikipedia (or having lived during the heyday). By 2000, something like yahoo movies was a superior way to get information and order tickets. Maybe they made a bit on The Phantom Menace, but they would often be oversaturated and you would get a busy signal during that time.
Not a profit on 388 million, unless you use that magical "big business/hollywood" mechanic of attributing revenue to things that happened alongside the actual sale. You saw 1 ad for a tv and bought a tv? That's a 600$ attribution to that ad campaign!