When I started angel investing in the late 1990s, a tech investment included a significant technology risk, with the potential upside being groundbreaking innovation. Being an investor at this time meant taking a considerable technology risk and betting on actual tech, such as nanotech, semiconductors or biotech.

E-commerce, albeit hyped and interesting, was not considered tech. It was “Business 2.0”, plain and straightforward, hype included.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    All companies are tech companies, those that aren’t will be replaced by those that are. It’s been a common theme for a decade. I don’t really care that some venture capitalists lost their easy button to decide where to throw money for massive returns. Investing is supposed to require diligence.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 days ago

    Remember WeWork? It’s the ultimate example of putting tech-coloured lipstick on a pig.

    Daaaaaaamn

  • kokope11i@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    To summarize, “I have a POV that almost no one else has. Why is everyone not naming things the way I see them.”

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      To summarize, “I have a POV that almost no one else has. Why is everyone not naming things the way I see them.”

      Yes, pinocchio, your company is a real tech company because they use tech tools.

      (sorry, it’s just a tech leveraging company, the same way my bus driver leverages the bus but does not fix or build it. My bus driver is not a bus; just the driver)