[casca]

Most companies are "Technology Companies" because they would fail to function in a meaningful way if their technology no longer functioned correctly. To divide companies in the way the author has is perfectly reasonable, as are many other arbitrary lines in the sand.

[delinka]

But I fear that definition does just what the article decries- lumps too many companies into the "Technology Company" category. For example, all of the banks in my town fail to function in a meaningful way when their technology no longer functions correctly: the data line goes down, they can't cash checks; all the PCs go down, they can't accept deposits ... never mind that 30 years ago there were still banks doing every thing on paper because no one is trained to Do The Job now, they're trained on how to operate the software.

[moocow01]

When asking what type of company is company X the answer should be the same as "In 1 or 2 words, what do they produce and sell"?

The problem is that "tech company" has become a complement and inversely not being able to call yourself one implies you are behind the times. But in reality, just about every company would fail in a meaningful way if their technology no longer functioned. Its difficult for me to think of a business that wouldn't falter without their technology functioning.