Stripe is absolutely a tech company. They're a B2B SAAS company. They provide software that connects e-commerce platforms with actual payment processors.
Uber isn't at taxi company, since it doesn't own or operate taxis. Conceptually it's a platform for connecting independent taxi operators with customers, like Expedia or Craigslist or eBay.
Airbnb isn't a hotel company, since it doesn't own or operate hotels. Conceptually it's a platform for connecting independent hotel operators with customers, like Expedia or Craigslist or eBay.
SpaceX isn't a tech company any more than NASA is. They require science and technology but they sell rides on space ships that they own and operate.
>Uber isn't at taxi company, since it doesn't own or operate taxis. Conceptually it's a platform for connecting independent taxi operators with customers
Uber is a moonshot bet on re-imagining transportation when autonomous vehicles become a reality. If that reality never materializes, Uber either raises prices and sees its growth rate and valuation crash back down to earth or it goes out of business.
It’s also a moonshot bet that when autonomous vehicles become a reality, Uber will wind up on top. I don’t know about that at all.
IBM owned everything in sight in computing, amd when PCs cam along, it improbably wound up owning them for a short while too...
Then MS took over. They owned everything in sight, but stumbled when the Internet came around, and then again in mobile. They’ve roared back, but they don’t own everything in sight.
Uber’s valuation doesn’t leave room for stumbles and settling for roaring profitability. It’s a bet that when the inflection point comes, they will own everything and keep owning everything.
It could happen, but it takes more than just autonomous vehicles becoming a reality for their valuation to become real.
There are bets stacked on top of bets. Let’s say that Tesla does deliver a viable self-driver, something presently only seen in sci-fi, like fusion power has been just around the corner for 50 years. Why would they cede the relationship to Uber when they already own the relationship with the end users? They already bypassed conventional dealer networks. Other car makers in this space do own their own dealers. Companies like Hertz own customer relationships and have experience managing fleets. Where does Uber fit into this world? They don’t.
At least nobody said Uber is a "data" company like they used to. Five years of Uber telling me the driver is "5 minutes away" for 20 minutes straight when I request a pickup at LAX tells me they don't even look at their data!
I have no evidence, but I believe the five minute thing is deliberate - to prevent users from cancelling taxis because it will take too long to get there.
When you get to the point of saying space rockets are not technology, it's time to acknowledge that somewhere in the construction of your ontology, something has gone wrong.
In this context I take "tech" to mean software, as in arbitrarily scalable with an exponential growth curve. (Not that that can last forever in software, either, but it is growth potential that drives valuations.)
Here's an even better proposal - lets try immeasurably hard to stop re-inventing words and maybe use words that people would generally understand without an accompanying definition. Where, for instance, software actually means software and tech actually means technology. :p
That's very nice, but "Tech" sometimes means an industry now, not the technology itself. Same for software. There is software the code, and Software the industry. Nobody invented a new word, but we have to understand what we're talking about in context.
I think this is a reasonable comment to make (perhaps unworthy of downvotes, which it seems to be accumulating), but I will note that the article defines "successful modern tech companies" as generally having five principal features:
- Low variable costs
- Low capital investments
- A lot of customer data and customer intimacy
- Network effects
- Ecosystems that boost expansion with little cost
Based on those features, of the companies that you listed here, Uber and Airbnb are definitely tech companies. So is Stripe, I think most of us would agree, although I'm not sure whether there are many network effects with their platform. SpaceX is not.
As such, the only way your point really stands is if one can make a valid argument that WeWork is doing something material and tech-focused that makes it different from a standard commercial real estate company. If it were leasing space and successfully executing on a model with low variable costs, low capital investments, lots of data, network effects and expansion-boosting ecosystems, that would be one thing. That doesn't appear to be the case.
> They all need technolgy and came about because of the powerful handheld mobile device.
I'm not sure why Uber is a tech company because you can order a taxi using your phone, but WeWork is not ... because you can reserve a room or space using your phone?
Not all members pay for an office. Some of us are nomads and stay at whichever WeWork is convenient. We make reservations for space using our phone.
You've been able to book a taxi on your phone for decades - with your voice. Just like if WeWork had existed 60 years ago, you would've been able to book a space in your newest nomadic locale with a phone call.
The value prop of Uber was that you could be instantly and automatically matched with a nearby taxi (minimizing cost and time) and see those costs / timings in advance. That required[1] the internet and software, i.e. "tech".
[1] Ok, so hypothetically, you could've implemented Uber 60 years ago if the taxi company called every single one of their cabbies every time they got a phone booking, figured out which one was closest, sent them to your location, and then called you back to tell you "your cab will be there in 5 minutes". But tech made it VASTLY more efficient. Tech makes WeWork only marginally more efficient. Hence, not really a tech company.
In fact, I think "efficiency gains from developing tech" is probably the best way to determine if something is a tech company or not. SpaceX is a tech company because they're using advances in technology over the past 60 years, combined with their own advances in technology, in order to deliver a product (re-usable rockets) that is far more efficient than what we had before (and brings down cost appropriately).
Uber is a tech company because their primary business is providing an app. If they owned or leased a million cars to provide their service then they would not be a tech company.
If WeWork was AirBnB for work spaces then I'd call them a tech company. But they're not.
So you're saying Uber is a tech company for being what it is. But it wouldn't be a tech company if it is exactly what it is today but also owns the cars the driver's use?
So by that logic if Uber ever does migrate completely to a self-driving taxi system, it is no longer a tech company.
> So by that logic if Uber ever does migrate completely to a self-driving taxi system, it is no longer a tech company.
That seems fair to say. If Uber transitions to self-driving taxis the whole business model will be radically different. They'll have to employ hordes of mechanics, and lease huge garages to store vehicles and run repair bays. They'll have massive capital expenses, a complex supply chain to manage, and a large distributed and probably unionized workforce to negotiate with. Their geographic distribution, legal exposure, exposure to economic shifts like tariffs, reliance on capital markets, number of employees, etc... will all be radically different. It seems fairly obvious to say that pre-self-driving and hypothetical post-self-driving Uber are totally different kinds of companies.
Yeah, pretty much. They would be a fleet management company at that point. They might be more high-tech than most fleet management businesses, but their core business would be fleet management, not tech.
You could get a taxi with you phone. You could fax in a lunch order too. But that's not how the market is doing business.
Early on, one of the UX joys of Uber was being able to see where your driver was and how soon before they would arrive. SMS wouldn't be quite the same, would it?
If you're calling SpaceX a defense contractor, then nothing is tech. So what's your ACTUAL definition of "tech" like Apple? Or are you going to say - No, Apple is a fashion company?
Even if AirBnB isn't "tech company" it definitely is NOT a hotel.
I wouldn’t call Uber especially high tech but it’s ok to consider it “tech”. While WeWork is literally just a landlord with no technical value ad. The closest it is to “tech” is its customers.
Stripe isn't tech, it is a payment processor.
Airbnb isn't tech, it is a hotel.
SpaceX isn't tech, it is a defense contractor.