This is a great article but I doubt many people will actually make it to the second half...where everything is tied together.
Besides that, there are companies that do not satisfy the author's definition that are pretty clear "technology" companies (e.g. Intel).
What explanatory power does the label have?
This pervasive notion that the "tech sector" is software companies from the Bay Area is creating an engineering brain drain that seems oblivious to the fact there's technology in literally every industry, and it's probably damageable to innovation.
The Stratechery analysis seems to me to just restate obvious things using homemade terms ("aggregators") and doesn't explain much. I must confess I still don't understand the hype around that newsletter which to me has the style and substance of run of the mill B-school case analyses. I wish there was a "tech sector" equivalent of Matt Levine.
I kind of agree that Stratechery does a bit of word juggling - "aggregators" are a good example of this - but I still like his writing because there is more in them than just that :)
EDIT: The first five sentences invoke Uber, the author's previous article, the Wall Street Journal, Gurley, Damodaran, and two different dubious valuations.