4 ms·

I keep seeing this discussion and people arguing over that some definition is too limiting and that industry X is obviously also technology. But they are missin

by cdirkx 7y ago

I keep seeing this discussion and people arguing over that some definition is too limiting and that industry X is obviously also technology. But they are missing the point: yes hardware, manufacturing and media companies are also using tech or making tech, but in the context of the stock exchange and evaluating a companies potential this doesnt matter. In that context a "tech company" specifically refers to a company that is able to take advantage of new business models or ways of operation enabled by tech that allows them to scale and make large returns on investment. Thats it. Thats why they are attractive to investors, which in turn is why every company tries to convince people that they are also "tech".

PavlovsCat 7y ago
Then I would call them money concentration machines, with "tech" just being a new-ish fig leaf for something that's not new at all: > [Hobbes'] Leviathan was not concerned with idle speculation about new political principles or the old search for reason as it governs the community of men; it was strictly a "reckoning of the consequences" that follow from the rise of a new class in society whose existence is essentially tied up with property as a dynamic, new property-producing device. The so-called accumulation of capital which gave birth to the bourgeoisie changed the very conception of property and wealth: they were no longer considered to be the results of accumulation and acquisition but their beginnings; wealth became a never-ending process of getting wealthier. The classification of the bourgeoisie as an owning class is only superficially correct, for a characteristic of this class has been that everybody could belong to it who conceived of life as a process of perpetually becoming wealthier, and considered money as something sacrosanct which under no circumstances should be a mere commodity for consumption. -- Hannah Arendt, "Origins of Totalitarianism"
- cdirkx 7y ago
  Yes? The wish for companies to make money is indeed not new, however, the ways tech companies achieve this are. Technology has enabled extremely low marginal and transactional costs as the essay explains. Build once, sell an infinite number of times at nearly zero cost was not really a possibility before, thus in that sense companies that take advantage of this really are _new_.
amelius 7y ago
But anyone can take advantage of tech these days. If someone builds a CRUD website to make hotel reservations, is it a tech company? What if someone installs Shopify to sell goods, is it a tech company?
- cdirkx 7y ago
  If you are scaling up, profitable (or speculated to be very profitable in the future), and eventually get big enough to do an IPO, then yeah why not? Booking.com a CRUD website making hotel reservations, and called a tech company. What is missing however in the picture of "someone building a site" is the other points mentioned in the essay: network effects, building a platform and forming an ecosystem around you. Everyone can do it, but not everyone succeeds. This is why there is such a big rush within tech startups to be the first in a space.

by cdirkx 7y ago

PavlovsCat 7y ago

Then I would call them money concentration machines, with "tech" just being a new-ish fig leaf for something that's not new at all: > [Hobbes'] Leviathan was not concerned with idle speculation about new political principles or the old search for reason as it governs the community of men; it was strictly a "reckoning of the consequences" that follow from the rise of a new class in society whose existence is essentially tied up with property as a dynamic, new property-producing device. The so-called accumulation of capital which gave birth to the bourgeoisie changed the very conception of property and wealth: they were no longer considered to be the results of accumulation and acquisition but their beginnings; wealth became a never-ending process of getting wealthier. The classification of the bourgeoisie as an owning class is only superficially correct, for a characteristic of this class has been that everybody could belong to it who conceived of life as a process of perpetually becoming wealthier, and considered money as something sacrosanct which under no circumstances should be a mere commodity for consumption. -- Hannah Arendt, "Origins of Totalitarianism"

cdirkx 7y ago
Yes? The wish for companies to make money is indeed not new, however, the ways tech companies achieve this are. Technology has enabled extremely low marginal and transactional costs as the essay explains. Build once, sell an infinite number of times at nearly zero cost was not really a possibility before, thus in that sense companies that take advantage of this really are _new_.

amelius 7y ago

But anyone can take advantage of tech these days. If someone builds a CRUD website to make hotel reservations, is it a tech company? What if someone installs Shopify to sell goods, is it a tech company?

cdirkx 7y ago
If you are scaling up, profitable (or speculated to be very profitable in the future), and eventually get big enough to do an IPO, then yeah why not? Booking.com a CRUD website making hotel reservations, and called a tech company. What is missing however in the picture of "someone building a site" is the other points mentioned in the essay: network effects, building a platform and forming an ecosystem around you. Everyone can do it, but not everyone succeeds. This is why there is such a big rush within tech startups to be the first in a space.