This reasoning would also say that an organization that doesn't sell any thing, but gives away its product, is essentially, 'nothing'. So most open source organizatons are not technology orgs, but charity orgs.
So for example, Wikipedia isn't really an encyclopedia, it's really just a charity.
A tech company is a company that employs engineers to create technology. How that is funded, be it directly, indirectly, charitable contributions, or even government grants, doesn't really change the fact that these institutions are creating technology.
You could argue that how they obtain their funding influences their behavior, but you could also argue that public companies are not just beholden to their customers, but even more beholden to their shareholders, and so for example, whether or not Apple behaves in a way that protects privacy will in fact, come up against the need to show EPS growth to wall street, which means that no amount of piety on privacy will get them to give up their domestic Chinese revenues by directly opposing the Chinese government.
Microsoft's direct monetization of Windows licenses did not prevent them from getting into ad tracking, so clearly, being a paying a direct paying consumer doesn't insulate you from corporations trying to diversify revenue streams.
This 'meme' has been repeated over and over again on HN, but it's a radically simplified view of the motivations of the boards of these trillion $ cap companies, one that appeals to idealists.
On the other hand, we buy tens of thousands of licenses from Microsoft to use their software and clients like me also pay most of their bills and we're clearly buying tech from them.
"Tech" company is probably the most meaningless term. Technology is knowledge, strategies, and processes used to solve problems. Every company creates and uses tech in some way.
Google and Facebook are ad networks as they primarily sell ad space and targeting software. Apple and Microsoft primarily sell general computing hardware and software. Wikipedia is not a business.
And if Microsoft makes Windows free and displays Ads to makr revenue they are suddenly an ad instead of tech company?
And what about Google (actually Alphabet?) having multiple products out of which only a few make money by advertisement. Think of Android and Maps.
And same lake of concern is present for customer satisfaction. The metric used is "do they watch enough so my ads bring in enough cash?" And not "are my customers satisfied with my shows?".
And it’s also why you can’t compare Netflix to regular tv stations. They sell contents to customers, they make no money with ads.
The monetisation scheme of a company is of course relevant when trying to understand the actions of the company, but I the English language, it we usually don't call companies by their monetisation scheme.
The rule of thumb seems to be: most companies don't give a shit about the actual product or service they provide. It's only a means to an end (profit), and if replacing their current product line with toilet paper would make them more profitable, they'd do it in a heartbeat. This means you can't really look at the product - or the promises made by sales&marketing about the value it provides - as a way to understand what the company will do. Their monetization scheme, however, makes it easier to predict future decision.
Insofar as they shift from making the best OS they know how, from how to get the most eyeballs in front of ads, I'd say yes.
It's interesting to compare the reaction to tech companies peddling ads, and this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18479383 If the ads don't take away from the technology, why in that case do the surrounding ads take away from the words?
Who would you consider more of a cook, someone who makes the best meal they can, or someone who makes an acceptable meal that still makes people thirsty enough so they buy a lot of drinks? At what point does craftsmanship turn into selling out the craft for something else? Who do you think is more of an "actor's actor", or a "comedian's comedian": someone who sometimes compromises on maximizing gain for the love of their craft, or someone who just takes the highest paying gigs, regardless of quality?
So on that sense, sure, they're all tech companies, but so are IBM and Oracle. Just like Adam Sandler is an actor and a comedian. As most fields it's a wide field, it has a high end, a bottom end, and a lot in between.
Yes, they are.
> And what about Google (actually Alphabet?) having multiple products out of which only a few make money by advertisement. Think of Android and Maps.
It's still adtech. If some product doesn't make money by itself (citation needed however) it still feeds the data and lures the users. And fleeces them for the data. You get the picture.
By this reasoning, Netflix isn't a media or tech company, it's a subscription company. Similarly, Comcast isn't a telecom company, it is also a subscription company, just like Netflix!
This type of definition is so absurd as to be useless. The monetization system doesn't entirely define the company or industry.
Google and Facebook are ad networks (not advertising companies) because they sell advertising space to customers. Netflix is a media company because it sells original and licensed content to consumers (subscriptions just being a method of payment).
Of course the monetisation scheme of a company matters in understanding it's actions - but it doesn't define what "kind" of company it is.
If you have been keeping track of the quality of news and articles (now indiscriminately called "content") for the past twenty years, you will realize that it is in fact the case for many (though not all) such media companies.