> but you take away the ads, and Google can't afford to do tech. Therefore, ad company. But not tech company? Why are they mutually exclusive? I wish I could

> but you take away the ads, and Google can't afford to do tech. Therefore, ad company. But not tech company? Why are they mutually exclusive? I wish I could add sin qua non to the catalog of informal fallacies. Google's existence depends on a number of factors. E.g. I could say "Google is an engineering firm because without engineers, it wouldn't exist. QED." I could say "Google is a web company because without the web, it wouldn't exist. QED." Sure, Google generates its revenue primarily through advertisements. But since the Page Rank Algorithm is its flagship product, I think it's also fair to call Google a tech company. I.e. the ads per se are made by other company's marketing departments, not Google itself. Calling Google a tech company is useful for distinguishing it from companies which also generate revenue through ads, but make a dissimilar product. Like television for example.