3 ms·

I kinda think DoubleClick should count, although I don’t know how dominant they were: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi

I kinda think DoubleClick should count, although I don’t know how dominant they were: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick Honestly I also think Bloomberg should count. I also wouldn’t go so far as to call them “major” but Mongo is headquartered in NY. Interesting list: https://www.builtinnyc.com/2017/11/07/nyc-top-100-tech-companies-2017 https://www.builtinnyc.com/2017/11/07/nyc-top-100-tech-compa...

rsj_hn 8y ago
I would count doubleclick. I missed it because when I looked at my various lists, it didn't account for acquisitions. Google bought doubleclick, but yes it was market dominant when Google bought it. Thanks for your list, which is interesting. No way would I consider 'vice media' or 'buzzfeed' to be tech companies. We are well past the stage where delivering something over the web makes you a tech company -- a tech company uses some advance in technology to gain a key competitive advantage. So you can argue that the Bloomberg terminal was bloomberg's key advantage and thus makes Bloomberg a tech company, assuming they were the ones who invented information terminals or did some technological innovation to radically improve them. But there is nothing like that in vice media or buzzfeed. These are media companies. That also means the definition of a tech company changes over time. If I start a company selling books online today, that's not a tech company. Even though Amazon was a tech company doing just that in the past. Take Blue Apron -- what exactly is technical about it, other than they have a website? Take, as a comparison, Amazon. You can say "both Blue Apron and Amazon sell stuff over the web". But selling stuff over the web in 1998 was technically innovative whereas doing the same in 2018 is not. And you can tell that Amazon is a technology driven company by looking at AWS and all of the innovations they have created since then as well. Amazon makes money by inventing new technologies, whereas Blue Apron makes money by selling prepared meals. That's not a slam on Blue Apron, because there are many drivers of a company. Maybe Blue Apron has the best chefs. Maybe they have the best quality food. Maybe they have the best customer support. Maybe the best prices. There are lots of legitimate business approaches other than focusing on technological innovation to gain a market edge. Similarly, nowadays every taxi company has smartphone based dispatching. But that's not going to convert taxi companies into tech companies, but Uber will remain a tech company and it continues to rollout other tech innovations even as others catch up to them with smartphone dispatch.
- rrdharan 8y ago
  Yep, I agree with all of these points. Casper and Capsule also come to mind (both headquartered in New York, probably get lumped into these kind of lists, and probably aren't really tech companies). But there are other ones that "feel" more like tech companies, just nothing quite nearly as big as DoubleClick. e.g. Songza (acquired by Google), Cockroach Labs, Vimeo (acquired by IAC but still operating independently) have not (yet) been mentioned. EDIT: I see Vimeo was covered below.

rsj_hn 8y ago

I would count doubleclick. I missed it because when I looked at my various lists, it didn't account for acquisitions. Google bought doubleclick, but yes it was market dominant when Google bought it. Thanks for your list, which is interesting. No way would I consider 'vice media' or 'buzzfeed' to be tech companies. We are well past the stage where delivering something over the web makes you a tech company -- a tech company uses some advance in technology to gain a key competitive advantage. So you can argue that the Bloomberg terminal was bloomberg's key advantage and thus makes Bloomberg a tech company, assuming they were the ones who invented information terminals or did some technological innovation to radically improve them. But there is nothing like that in vice media or buzzfeed. These are media companies. That also means the definition of a tech company changes over time. If I start a company selling books online today, that's not a tech company. Even though Amazon was a tech company doing just that in the past. Take Blue Apron -- what exactly is technical about it, other than they have a website? Take, as a comparison, Amazon. You can say "both Blue Apron and Amazon sell stuff over the web". But selling stuff over the web in 1998 was technically innovative whereas doing the same in 2018 is not. And you can tell that Amazon is a technology driven company by looking at AWS and all of the innovations they have created since then as well. Amazon makes money by inventing new technologies, whereas Blue Apron makes money by selling prepared meals. That's not a slam on Blue Apron, because there are many drivers of a company. Maybe Blue Apron has the best chefs. Maybe they have the best quality food. Maybe they have the best customer support. Maybe the best prices. There are lots of legitimate business approaches other than focusing on technological innovation to gain a market edge. Similarly, nowadays every taxi company has smartphone based dispatching. But that's not going to convert taxi companies into tech companies, but Uber will remain a tech company and it continues to rollout other tech innovations even as others catch up to them with smartphone dispatch.

rrdharan 8y ago
Yep, I agree with all of these points. Casper and Capsule also come to mind (both headquartered in New York, probably get lumped into these kind of lists, and probably aren't really tech companies). But there are other ones that "feel" more like tech companies, just nothing quite nearly as big as DoubleClick. e.g. Songza (acquired by Google), Cockroach Labs, Vimeo (acquired by IAC but still operating independently) have not (yet) been mentioned. EDIT: I see Vimeo was covered below.