[zadig]

I think the point the previous commentator was trying to make is the distinction between the 'tech industry' a la Silicon Valley versus other industries - and it would be unfair to credit the former with any innovation in the latter. Pretty much every industry since we have invented fire has grown through advances in 'tech'. So what makes a firm a 'tech' firm - in this day and age it's hard to say, and I'm not sure if it's a useful exercise.

[ChuckMcM]

A "tech" company is a company that provides a good or service that is either completely new and only possible because of a technological innovation, or is a new company providing an existing service using a different vertical stack based on technology which came available after the incumbents were started.

Uber is a "tech company" because as they are providing a new business model for a livery service based on using an application to make a market that is distinct from the previous market.

Facebook is a "tech company" because they are providing a business model around sharing information between acquaintances (a social network) using an application and a web site.

Fedex is not a tech company as they are augmenting but not replacing their model or their processes. Foster Farms is not a tech company as they have not fundamentally changed the way in which they raise chicken.

I go back and forth on Tesla or SpaceX. Consider Tesla, they are a car company but electric cars have been around forever, their most successful incarnation, the Golf Cart, has dominated golf courses for decades. It wasn't the "idea" or the "product" that made the Roadster and then the Model S successful, it was the execution on the vision. Similarly SpaceX rockets are just rockets with better execution and better alignment with available technology.

[kelseyfrancis]

It is a strange, strange world in which Uber is considered "tech" but turning around a rocket after it's boosted a payload toward orbit and then landing it back on earth exactly where intended isn't technologically innovative enough to qualify.

[mbesto]

> A "tech" company is a company that provides a good or service that is either completely new and only possible because of a technological innovation, or is a new company providing an existing service using a different vertical stack based on technology which came available after the incumbents were started.

That's such a vague definition and one could seemingly fit every company into being a "tech" company if they wanted to. How do you unilaterally define something that is "completely new"? What precisely is a technological innovation? Isn't the iPhone not "completely new", since we had palm pilot and blackberry before it? Is a personal computer considered "completely new" even when mainframes existed before? How do you draw the line between a laptop that has a touch screen (but still has a keyboard) and one that is just a touch screen (iPad Pro for example)?

[jasonjei]

I would argue FedEx is a tech company. Creating and shipping labels can be done via the FedEx API, and pickups can be arranged too, like Uber. The supply chain solution is so good that companies can keep very low inventory of high value goods. Drivers use software to optimize routes (eg no left turns in US). I believe software is a very important part to keeping FedEx efficient.

But your other examples made a lot of sense to me.

[ChuckMcM]

Great discussion. What I was trying to capture was the difference between businesses that wouldn't be possible without the tech they are using and businesses which could operate but would perhaps be less efficient or perhaps less profitable. I certainly agree it is an arbitrary distinction and one which has been debated literally for decades in the SF Bay Area at least.

But I don't think that being arbitrary makes it invalid, the goal is simply to put a stake in the ground so that the conversation can move forward. One of the challenges of having discussions about tech bubbles or tech economies is agreeing on what companies are considered (by the speaker) to be tech companies, and which are not. Then the listener can translate that into their own set of companies and look past the definitional challenge and then on to the meatier question of the role of technology in the economy and the businesses that are currently considered valuable by that economy (or not).

[eldavido]

A better definition might be, how much revenue (measured % of sales) does this firm reinvest back into R&D?

Let's try a few examples: P&G: Not a tech company. They spend tons of money on advertising to get products on shelves and on TV that tons of Americans buy. They can innovate in packaging and distribution, but honestly not that much.

Tesla: tech company. Spending tons of R&D. I don't know how much, but it's a lot.

Pepsi: Not a tech company.

Your local grocery store: tight margins, probably not a tech company.

AmaGooFaceSoftPle: Billions/yr on new product development. Tech companies for sure.

[greglindahl]

This search gives a nice summary of P&G's supercomputing-driven research:

https://www.google.com/search?q=procter+and+gamble+high+perf...

It's not just packaging and distribution. Now it's fair to point out that P&G spends less on R&D than tech companies, but it's not zero.

[CyanLite2]

In all deference to what you're trying to say... I'd submit that most companies are tech companies.

Biggest example is Goldman Sachs. Their CEO came out and said "We're not an investment bank anymore, we're a tech company." Their rationale is that they have to use technology to defeat their competitors--before their competitors can use technology to defeat them.

[pj_mukh]

All the tech he mentioned in the conventional industries are being driven by fundamental changes in the "conventional" tech space. Smartphone market dropping price of mobile computing, cloud-connected robotics deployed across manufacturing floors, all ideas that became mainstream in SV. So, where do you draw the line?