This is an fun interesting article worth perusing, but I disagree with the analysis. It narrows the question of being a tech company to basically being a SaaS company. Granted, that's a lot of the companies famously IPOing out of the silicon valley venture capital community right now, but it's very limiting and I'd argue it's wrong.

Lets make a hypothetical counterexample according to their guidelines:

- Software creates ecosystems.

- Software has zero marginal costs.

- Software improves over time.

- Software offers infinite leverage.

- Software enables zero transaction costs.

Imagine that out of nowhere, we get a company making a JARVIS-like AI assistants like in iron man, complete with google glass-like HUD. Suppose, due to design/manufacturing restrictions or something, it can't update over time. You have to buy a new pair of the glasses to get the improvements. There are no third party apps, just what comes shipped with the product. If it was as useful as envisioned all over science fiction, it'll take the world by storm anyways.

Now imagine it's just catching on with consumers and is about to IPO. Is this AI driven high-tech company a tech company? According to OP, this company may as well be selling sunglasses:

- No apps or ecosystems by construction.

- Every unit is a physical object, marginal costs are about like expensive sunglasses.

- It doesn't improve over time by construction.

- No more leverage than selling normal sunglasses.

- No lower transaction costs than a company selling sunglasses.

Yet clearly this is a tech company and will be evaluated accordingly for its IPO.