3 ms·

I'm not sure how to reconcile the fact that Intel, nVidia, TSMC, AMD don't seem to fit these criteria but are undoubtedly "tech companies".

• hamilyon2 7y ago
  Definition of tech company is flawed. Especially it does not fit tomorrow's companies.
• TeMPOraL 7y ago
  The definition is apparently made from rubber. Let's talk, for example, "Software offers infinite leverage" (infinite apparently meaning "able to serve the whole world", but I guess "infinite" is just a synonym for "somewhat large-ish" here). The article says this about Uber: "Uber is able to serve the entire world, giving it maximum leverage". Followed by this about WeWork: "WeWork is limited by the number of locations it builds out". Uber didn't start with the ability to serve the entire world, and that ability was earned not through software, but through lots and lots of money and aggressive regulatory arbitrage (i.e. breaking laws faster than regulators could react to). What's to say that WeWork can't spend money to grow into a worldwide service? I see this article as a list of interesting market features, but I don't buy that you have to have all of them to be a tech company, or that only companies with all of them will succeed.
  • varjag 7y ago
    Tech there seems to be a stand in for 'software assisted middleman service'
• wongarsu 7y ago
  AWS has marginal costs, as does Slack. Under this definition nearly nobody is a tech company
  • ahupp 7y ago
    In the article, each of the examples typically only his 4 of the 5 or so points. e.g, Netflix doesn't create an ecosystem.