[genericuser]

I think of it like a band (Could well apply to a company too) which occasionally replaces members. So long as they replace few enough members each time that people can associate it with its previous roster, people will accept it as the same band.

Even if after 20 years of incremental changes to the band none of the original members are left it will still be considered by many to be the same band (although they will all likely lament the loss of such and such member) By being recognized as the same band it inherits many of the same rights such as performing the same songs as the previous incarnations of the band (assuming of course it owns, or pays royalties to the right holders, but that is an unrelated topic).

However if too many members change at once, or they lose a member whose presence independently defined the band then people will likely not consider it the same band.

The identity is a label applied to the set, as the set changes so does the definition of the label. For the most part assuming members of the original set do not get placed in different new sets all identifying as the original label, people will generally accept the label as applying to the new set which was formed.

I would chalk it up to people being stupid, or language being imprecise. The alternative seems to be to consider every change to the set to require a new label and be identified as a new set.

[kylec]

The Wikipedia article mentions a band, the Sugababes, that started with three founding members, but one by one all of them ended up leaving the band and being replaced. Is it still the same band?

An interesting twist is that the three founding members regrouped and formed a new band, with the Sugababes still in existence. Which is the real Sugababes?

[Zikes]

A band isn't only defined by its members, though. They can have a distinct sound, a preferred genre, even various brandings and styles that make for a markedly different performance.

[kazinator]

But those attributes are defined by the members. :)

[coldtea]

Not really. For bands like the Sugarbabes they are defined by the producers, session musicians, composers and lyricists.

[Zikes]

But those members may choose a different set of attributes to build a different band brand.

[bentcorner]

> Could well apply to a company too

I've thought about this in the past. Companies get a reputation for doing certain things poorly or doing them well. For example, think of high profile games from a long time ago that have continued to release new versions to this day. How many of the people who worked on v1 have continued to work on the latest release?

On a larger scale, consider what happens when the oldest person in the world dies. Every person born before them is gone. How did we manage to perpetuate all of the ideas, culture and values through to an entirely new set of people? The mechanics are easily observable, but the scale is boggling.

[TeMPOraL]

This gets very interesting in terms of long-lived companies. Should we boycott, say, IBM for aiding the Holocaust? Even if no one in the management is alive or working for the company anymore? Hard to say. It's still the same company, but run by different people.

[tg3]

Another great example of this is a sports franchise.

The St Louis Rams have different ownership, players, coaches, and city from the LA Rams. Are they the same team?

In sports, every year something small enough changes to make people accept that it is the same team.