3 ms·

I'm contrasting mainly #2 (although the source of funds for the development of novel technology doesn't seem relevant in the abstract here, so #1 applies too) w

I'm contrasting mainly #2 (although the source of funds for the development of novel technology doesn't seem relevant in the abstract here, so #1 applies too) with the current state of affairs. In the 70s and 80s, Silicon Valley was primarily interested in making new hardware and software to put inside metal boxes, then selling the box and its contents as the solution to some problem the buyer has (or not). Today, the bay area's "tech" companies are primarily interested in writing or customizing software to solve some set of their own problems with whatever business they're really in. Those are very different ways of making money. Neither is wrong, but I submit that only the former makes you a "technology company". Otherwise every company is a technology company and the term means nothing.

nostrademons 11y ago
You just said "You are what your revenue says you are", so I assumed the source of funds for development of novel technology would be very relevant to you. I'd also disagree on your characterization of how Google/Facebook apply technology, but figured I'd meet your argument where it was instead of where it should be. Having worked for the non-revenue-generating side of Google (which, by employee count, is roughly 2/3 of it), we cared a lot about solving the user's problems, where "users" = people who search, not people who paid us. Google is in a multi-sided market: it's a business that has identified multiple different groups of people, such that all of them gain something from the product and some of them will pay money for it. Larry understands very well that the market collapses if any one of those groups (users, content creators, advertisers) stops using the product, and organizationally Google is (was?) setup with an executive solely responsible to each of those groups who is explicitly told to ignore the interests of the others. There are still hardware startups whose business model is selling a physical "thing" that embodies technology and lets you do things. By and large, though, that segment of the economy is shrinking, as younger buyers increasingly don't want to own "things" and do want to own "experiences". Companies slim down in response to offer the experience their customers desire while retaining ownership of the things that make that possible.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  When I said source doesn't matter, I meant whether your customers are public or private sector. The salient aspect of a technology company, for me, is that it develops and sells new technological artifacts and derives most of its revenue from that activity. Google would be a technology company if it developed a search engine and then sold it to others, which for a brief and economically irrelevant time, it did. That's not its business model. What's objectionable about today's Silicon Valley isn't that it's not about silicon (or even software or any kind of new technology at all) but that it continues, collectively and individually, to market itself as though it were. There's nothing wrong with making phone books. Phone books are useful. Google makes a pretty nice one, and sometimes the Yellow Pages (the ads) are exactly what you want anyway. But you're not selling technology, you're selling ads in phone books that you then give away. Just say so. While we're here, don't deceive yourself into thinking that assembling the contents of the phone book in a complete, concise, useful way (what "users" want) isn't revenue-generating. The more useful the phone book is, the more advertisers will pay to appear in it. If you end up creating some whiz-bang technology for internal use that makes that easier/better/whatever, that's great. But if you're not bringing that to market for others to use, you shouldn't be calling yourself a technology company.

nostrademons 11y ago

You just said "You are what your revenue says you are", so I assumed the source of funds for development of novel technology would be very relevant to you. I'd also disagree on your characterization of how Google/Facebook apply technology, but figured I'd meet your argument where it was instead of where it should be. Having worked for the non-revenue-generating side of Google (which, by employee count, is roughly 2/3 of it), we cared a lot about solving the user's problems, where "users" = people who search, not people who paid us. Google is in a multi-sided market: it's a business that has identified multiple different groups of people, such that all of them gain something from the product and some of them will pay money for it. Larry understands very well that the market collapses if any one of those groups (users, content creators, advertisers) stops using the product, and organizationally Google is (was?) setup with an executive solely responsible to each of those groups who is explicitly told to ignore the interests of the others. There are still hardware startups whose business model is selling a physical "thing" that embodies technology and lets you do things. By and large, though, that segment of the economy is shrinking, as younger buyers increasingly don't want to own "things" and do want to own "experiences". Companies slim down in response to offer the experience their customers desire while retaining ownership of the things that make that possible.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
When I said source doesn't matter, I meant whether your customers are public or private sector. The salient aspect of a technology company, for me, is that it develops and sells new technological artifacts and derives most of its revenue from that activity. Google would be a technology company if it developed a search engine and then sold it to others, which for a brief and economically irrelevant time, it did. That's not its business model. What's objectionable about today's Silicon Valley isn't that it's not about silicon (or even software or any kind of new technology at all) but that it continues, collectively and individually, to market itself as though it were. There's nothing wrong with making phone books. Phone books are useful. Google makes a pretty nice one, and sometimes the Yellow Pages (the ads) are exactly what you want anyway. But you're not selling technology, you're selling ads in phone books that you then give away. Just say so. While we're here, don't deceive yourself into thinking that assembling the contents of the phone book in a complete, concise, useful way (what "users" want) isn't revenue-generating. The more useful the phone book is, the more advertisers will pay to appear in it. If you end up creating some whiz-bang technology for internal use that makes that easier/better/whatever, that's great. But if you're not bringing that to market for others to use, you shouldn't be calling yourself a technology company.