> 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?
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.