[longerthoughts]

Seems like it's time to stop calling companies tech companies just because they hire software engineers and leverage some degree of modern technology to provide their product or service. Warby Parker sells glasses and Buzzfeed is a media company - I have a hard time seeing how either of these qualify as tech startups.

[Cd00d]

There's a meet up group here in NYC called Tech in Motion, and a few years ago launched an annual awards event. The company that won 'Best Tech Company of the Year' was Casper, and my only thought was 'selling mattresses through the mail is considered technology'?

[longerthoughts]

Perfect example. I guess at some point along the way the familiar tech startup narrative got peoples' minds to associate all startups with tech.

Makes me wonder where the line is. What qualifies a company as a tech company? Software/computing services/hardware as a primary revenue source?

[Apocryphon]

Then, are Uber, Lyft, on demand services even tech? Aren't they just fancy logistics/transport/delivery companies?

Is Amazon only tech when it comes down to AWS and Alexa?

[longerthoughts]

>Then, are Uber, Lyft, on demand services even tech?

I would argue that they are not. They provide services that rely on technology and have been incredibly successful largely due to their embrace of technology, but I would describe Uber as on-demand transportation provider rather than a technology provider.

>Is Amazon only tech when it comes down to AWS and Alexa?

I understand calling Amazon a tech company because they have significant business lines as a technology provider, even if these do not constitute their entire business.

While I have intuitive responses to companies like these, I really don't know where the line is (e.g. how much business one would have to do as a tech provider). I didn't intend to suggest a hard definition but posed the question because I'm genuinely interested in seeing peoples' thoughts on what constitutes a tech company.

[adrianparsons]

pg has some thoughts on what a "startup" is [0].

I used Warby Parker as an example because their business model is disruptive, they're high-growth, and they leverage technology. I think the disruption and innovation are really important aspects.

0: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

[longerthoughts]

Note that PG is addressing startups generally and not limiting his discussion to tech startups. From the third sentence in the post you linked:

>"Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology..."

I absolutely agree that Warby Parker has a disruptive business model and see them as a shining example of an innovative startup, I just wouldn't call them a tech startup because tech is not their business.

[adrianparsons]

Ah, gotcha. That makes some sense to me.

Would you call pre-streaming Netflix a tech startup? It feels like a startup to me, but at first it was just Blockbuster through the mail.

Maybe the difficulty in categorizing is that every company today has to use technology. When Netflix started out, getting a DVD in the mail was pretty novel. Nowadays, e-commerce doesn't have quite the "wow" factor it used to.

[longerthoughts]

>Would you call pre-streaming Netflix a tech startup?

Startup, but not a tech startup.

>Maybe the difficulty in categorizing is that every company today has to use technology.

Yep, this is exactly what I was trying to get at. That being the case, it seems more accurate to shape a definition of "tech" companies based on output (i.e. products/services offered) rather than input (i.e. tools employed).

[cylinder]

Apparently if your e-commerce site has trendy enough fonts, you're a tech startup