| > It it though? You'll find a bunch of replies here with disagreements about what "tech" companies actually are, so how is that obvious? I see a bunch of posts with definitions that are not well thought out and counterexamples. I haven't seen any counterexamples from my definition. Tesla, Uber, and Amazon all fall under tech in my definition. Starbucks does not, because their dev team is part of IT. They still do great tech work, but they aren't a tech company. > It's a bad example, but it's still a tech company? I think you just proved my point :) It was only a bad example because you were misinformed on their revenue model. I was saying it was a bad choice for you to use as an example because it is so obviously a tech company. > but then when someone says "how do we count how many tech companies do X" then we start to get into a whole bunch of grey areas about how to measure something There are many unmeasurable things, but we still measure them and look for trends. If I dump a pile of sand on your desk, and then another pile of sand that takes more space, the number of grains of sand is effectively immeasurable but it doesn't matter, we can still see the trend of bigger piles of sand. You don't need a precise definition to look for trends, and we are talking about trends here. More tech IPOs than last year. We don't need a precise definition of what a tech IPO is to see a trend. |