No, you're conflating "loss" (negative profit) with "cost". The first sentence acknowledges that plenty of tech companies IPO and are not profitable, so their revenue is below their costs. The second sentence is about losses (negative profit) exceeding revenue.
For a naive example, a company can have $1m in revenue and $1.1m in costs, therefore profit is negative 100,000 dollars - the company is unprofitable. However, they are not losing more money ($100,000) then they are bringing in ($1,000,000 is greater than $100,000) - though they are spending more money ($1.1m) then they are bringing in. This would not be a concerning amount of loss, many companies are deliberately outspending current revenue in order to increase future revenue/growth/market share, but could become profitable if they wanted to.
In this case, the person you replied to is remarking that the losses/negative profit
($192m, $130m) are greater than the revenue ($152m, $81m). This is a concerning sign, as the path to profitability is much further away.
For a naive example, a company can have $1m in revenue and $1.1m in costs, therefore profit is negative 100,000 dollars - the company is unprofitable. However, they are not losing more money ($100,000) then they are bringing in ($1,000,000 is greater than $100,000) - though they are spending more money ($1.1m) then they are bringing in. This would not be a concerning amount of loss, many companies are deliberately outspending current revenue in order to increase future revenue/growth/market share, but could become profitable if they wanted to.
In this case, the person you replied to is remarking that the losses/negative profit ($192m, $130m) are greater than the revenue ($152m, $81m). This is a concerning sign, as the path to profitability is much further away.