Hacker News Reader

Comment by hari_seldon_ | Hacker News Reader

The way that I think about a "tech" company is that it is able to scale its growth non-linearly with its staff (or human resources). This isn't a binary rule, and obviously many successful companies are in a gray area -- but I think that it serves as a good litmus test / starting point when thinking about companies.

For example, an app that is running on a few servers can gain users more quickly than it needs to hire additional workers. A company like Blue Apron has to grow its warehouse staff as it gains new subscribers, effectively meaning that its SG&A and overhead costs scale fairly evenly with growth.

View on HN

Technology is strategy, techniques and general knowledge on applying science, engineering, and other disciplines to solve problems. It is not a thing in itself but a means to an end. That end describes the actual business.

Just because you use technology to improve productivity and output compared to a competitor does not mean you are a "tech" company - it means you're better at doing whatever your business is.

Agreed in general, but I am specifically not talking about technology used to improve processes or help a company move up the learning curve.

I was trying to offer an explanation of what separates out "tech" companies and not trying to get into the nitty gritty of the fact that many companies use technologies. I would argue that a manufacturing company whose innovation is a more streamlined assembly line to product some widget is not a "tech" company in the sense that many people on hacker news use the word.

My general definition of a technology company:

Do you make/sell Software

Do you make/sell computerized hardware

*Do you have a platform that fundamentally solves what would otherwise be a technology problem for other people, ie expose your technology so others can leverage it(via API/SDK, SaaS or other such on-boarding method).

None of this is clear cut as there are many grey areas but in general if you are creating technology for others to use and that is your core operation then you're a technology company.

Selling packaged food while using an App or Website does not make you a technology company. Blue Apron could completely outsource their technology work and I doubt it would fundamentally change the makeup of the company, you couldn't do that with a technology company.

> if you are creating technology for others to use

If they're selling hardware then it's a hardware company. Likewise if it's software. There is no way to sell technology, you sell the end product or service.

> you couldn't do that with a technology company.

Yes you can, it's just building software or other work. Don't buy into this special Silicon Valley hipster thinking, getting things done and making (and selling) a product the market wants is all that matters. How you get there doesnt. And none of it makes you a tech company.

Some other ways I measure the "techiness" of a company; how much of the payroll is spent on engineers and if they're using software to replace value typically provided by people.

I would have to disagree with that definition. There are tons of companies that are scaling non-linearly without using any particularly new technologies.

I don't consider a frying pan manufacturer a tech company just because they have managed to grow by optimizing their supply chain and productivity.

Alternatively I also think a company that makes brand new technology year after year even if they scaling one for one with hiring is still a tech comapny

I think what you describe might just be a general guideline for identifying a financially successful company not necessarily a tech company. People hear VC funding or IPO and often automatically think it must be a tech company by conflating technology and financial success.

What's your definition?

I think you are getting caught up in definitions for the concept in a vacuum. I was just trying to help explore "tech" when it comes to hacker news and the VC landscape, whether or not I agree with the definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com