Wrong - sorry, but you should study the example again, because "brand loyalty" is just a minor factor in the profits.
The point is that it is not beneficial for ULA to sell rockets at a loss, brand loyalty is only an example to show that ULA can't indefinitely sell rockets at a loss, no matter how popular the company becomes.
Explain the analogy rather than simply writing "wrong" and leaving it open to interpretation.
More important is, that all such companies earn most of their money by selling games - every overpriced game for a console brings more profit to the console manufacturer than it costs for selling the console at a loss.
That's pretty much what I wrote, consoles don't necessarily make the profits.
SpaceX does also not sell rockets. Neither does ULA. Another error of you.
SpaceX is profitable yet their product is cheaper.
Making the distinction between "selling rockets" and "selling launch services" is splitting hairs; of course I mean selling launch services than just selling huge metal cylinders. "Launch services" is verbose.
Both sell launch services. And if you look at the effort needed to deliver that service to the customer, you can easily see that there is a lot more behind than just the costs of the launcher. Its about solutions. The rocket may be single use, but the service that you offer should be a managed process, that you can repeat with predicted quality.
Don't misunderestimate me.
Losing money forever would strategically be a bad bad error. But operationally, you can afford selling one product at a loss, if another product compensates
That's pretty much what I wrote with respect to the console analogy, consoles don't necessarily make the profits. Both the Atlas V and Delta IV are expensive, so ULA does not have any way to compensate. Delta II launches are winding down.
or you need to invest such money for market introduction. Losing money is never a good strategy, but part of the tactics in business. Investing money into a scenario that may or may not happen is always including that the money is lost without profit. You have to take such risks in business.
What ULA seems to be doing now is keeping the Atlas V viable until Vulcan is ready to replace it.
Thus: Always keep in mind when SpaceX talks about Kerbal Business, that they actually have a different product to sell to their paying customers and that such PR is only needed to keep a positive cash flow into SpaceX from investors.
The expendable Falcon 9 is making money and is relatively affordable. SpaceX is doing fine with what they actually have now, but ULA has to catch up.
While what SpaceX promises is indeed fanciful, some of it could happen and might really
undercut the current competition. It does make investors happy, but I wouldn't bet against Elon Musk.