I don't understand this argument. How does it make the subscription any less subsidised if the losses are only because developing the product is just so darn expensive?

Feels like arguing that it's not clear if Bugatti's losses came from selling the Veyron instead of designing and developing the Veyron.

The equivalent is when Amazon was running a loss because they were spending all their money on building warehouses. It exactly make sense, but that's the argument.