Exactly. In fact, the most useful explanation I’ve found is to consider the label “tech company” as mostly a legal term, similar to how a bank is a legal label for a specific type of company (with the small difference that banks must be licensed by the government to conduct the activity of banking).
To intuitively understand the term tech company, consider the level just below it: the tech-enabled company. The distinction between a tech company and a tech-enabled company is exactly the same as the (legal) distinction between ownership and possession.
Tech companies generally build (i.e own) the primary means of production (i.e. tools, methods, raw materials etc used to conduct business). Exclusive ownership of a valuable means of production is generally a source of competitive advantage in most industries, until a new entrant with better economics emerges to disrupt the status quo.
Tech-enabled companies on the other hand, generally buy or borrow (i.e. possess) the primary means of production.
IOW, all companies can be placed on the tech-company spectrum depending on whether they build, buy or borrow the primary technology necessary to conduct business.
An example of a tech company: Boeing; an example of a tech-enabled company: United Airlines. UA cannot design or manufacture its own aircraft since it does not own the underlying tech (IPR, manufacturing methods etc) behind the aircraft it operates, instead it merely purchases from tech vendors like Boeing (and Airbus).
If UA decides that battery tech will be viable in the near future and wants to switch its entire fleet to all-electric aircrafts for instance, they must seek the legal permission of their tech vendors to modify their existing designs, since retrofitting will require recertification to ensure the aircrafts can still be operated safely. If they go ahead with such modifications without first seeking permission, they risk being sued by the owner of the underlying technology.
OTOH, if Boeing were to make the same realization regarding battery-powered flight, of course they would not need to seek any third party’s permission to make the switch.
Let’s say UA or indeed any airline wants to take its destiny into its own hands, what prevents them? Surely they could kick start their R&D efforts buying an electric aircraft maker like Pipistrel [3]? UA used to be a vertically integrated company known as UATC [0] but the USG found such an arrangement too powerful and anti-competitive, which led to the split into current day Boeing, UTC [1] and of course UA [2].
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Technologies