[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).