Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? But PHP isn't a technology because it requires an OS to run it on. But an OS isn't a technology because it requires a server to be installed on. But a server isn't a technology because it requires steel machining. But steel machining isn't a technology because it requires electricity. But electricity isn't a technology because it requires electrons. But electrons aren't a technology because it requires a universe. But the universe isn't a technology because...
> Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP?
Straw man. Facebook is a company whose purpose it is to make money by offering social connections. The fact that Facebook does this by having a network presence is coincidental -- the network aspect of Facebook's business is a means to an end, and the means could be something else with no change in the company's goals.
In principle, Facebook could accomplish its ends with two cans and a string across the back fence. Different technology, same goal.
Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. Facebook the company does not exist without a product, and Facebook the product is a technology that is used by many people, groups, and companies to build their own products on top of. Yes Facebook the company could use a different technology for their business, but the technology they do have is called Facebook the product.
My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself. If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.
> Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company.
So your plan is to refuse to draw a distinction between the company and a tool used by that company?
> It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company.
That's a different topic. We're discussing whether Facebook is a company or a software application. It's a company that uses applications -- software -- to accomplish its purposes.
> My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself.
So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules.
> If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.
No, actually, if you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe in an absurd way. Companies and software applications aren't the same thing -- unless you think a chestnut horse is the same as a horse chestnut. And why not? They're described using the same words.
>So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules.
I don't think you're understanding my point. Maybe I've explained it wrong. Ford would be a car if Ford the company made a car called Ford the car. If I could drive around in a Ford Ford, for example. However, I drive around in a Ford Focus, where Ford is the company and the Focus is the product. With Facebook it's different, since the company and their product are named the same. If Facebook the company had a product called Bookface, Facebook would be the company and Bookface would be the product. In that situation, Facebook would not be a technology, but Bookface would be. I believe the misunderstanding we're having is coming from Facebook being both a company name as well as a product name.
Ford Motor Company is a company. They make a technology called the Duratec engine. They use this Duratec engine in a product called the Focus. When I use my Focus, I am using it as a technology (an application of science for practical purposes). I wouldn't say the Focus was not a technology just because it was built on the FF platform or on the Duratec engine. It is a technology that is leveraging other technologies. Facebook is difficult because both the company (ala Ford) and the product (ala Focus) are named the same thing. However, when I am using Facebook (Focus), I am using a technology created by Facebook (Ford).
Did I explain my point clearly enough? Let me know.
> Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is.
Facebook's purpose (sell social connections) and its method (networking) are distinct and separate. Facebook could accomplish its objectives in any number of ways -- networking is coincidental to the company's purpose.
So that means Facebook as an application is not technology?
A helicopter and an airplane both fly people through the sky in a controlled fashion but they use different methods. Does that make either one less of a technology than the other?
I just don't see how your argument makes any sense. It almost seems like a non sequitur.
> So that means Facebook as an application is not technology?
Facebook isn't an application, it's a company that makes money by creating and maintaining a social forum. Facebook may use computer software "applications" to further this end, but one mustn't confuse the method with the goal, especially when one considers that the same goal could be achieved using different methods.
> I just don't see how your argument makes any sense.
Yes, I can see that. You also think Facebook is an application, like Excel. It isn't, it's a company.
Facebook is both. Which is to say that the word Facebook can be used in reference to a corporation or the application that kicked off that corporation (and still forms the core of that corporation's method).
I thought it was obvious from the context which we were discussing. I'll try to make it less ambiguous in the future.