A decade ago, years before USB-C was ready, Apple announced Lightning as their connector for “the next decade.” There’s no need to emphasize government regulation when there’s scant evidence it had any impact at all.
kirklennon
joined 1 year ago
It’s news from over three months ago. This is just a screenshot highlighting a single new feature from the iOS 17 page.
iPhone 15 Pro tech specs page: “USB 3 (up to 10Gb/s)” with a footnote that says “USB 3 cable with 10Gb/s speed required.”
A regular need for high-speed data transfers is legitimately a “pro” use case. You need the Pro model and you need to buy a thick, stiff high-speed cable.
Not at all. The Minisforum is overpriced garbage compared to the Mac Mini. They’re not even remotely comparable.
The Mac Mini is a significantly better value.
This definition would make it so basically only hardware, OS and some cloud infrastructure service companies could count as tech companies because technology is generally not made for its own sake.
Yes, that's pretty much my point (but you also need to add companies selling software itself). The alternative is that every company is a technology company, making the term completely meaningless.
Google is a big company and some of what it does is tech company stuff: Gmail, Chrome, Google Cloud, Pixel. But all of that is tangential their main business, which is just selling ads. I don't object to the tech parts being covered by tech news. I just don't think a company's tech-focused side projects (as a percentage of its business) make it a tech company.
Then you don’t think Google is a Tech company?
Not particularly, no.
If you took technology away from social media, you don’t have anything left.
I don’t think the mere fact that you access something solely on a website or app makes it a tech company. That’s merely a means to an end. But there’s no more technology involved in running a social media company than there is a modern bank. The technology is actually a lot simpler.
Sure, today anyone can host a Mastodon, but I wouldn’t call that any less technologically-focused.
I’d say that Mastodon as a software project is technology; the various instances, however, are not.
There’s a merit to say that technology is connected to all sort of fields and purposes today, but that doesn’t make it less of technology, or the companies behind them less technology-focused.
My contention is that the use of technology is so universal that it's not meaningful to call a company a technology company just because they use a lot of technology, even if they have to create a lot of it themselves. Pretty much every big company has on-staff software engineers making and implementing custom technology. It takes a lot of technology to make a law firm work but that doesn't make a law firm a technology company. If we use too-expansive of a definition for what's a technology company, then it applies to almost every company, making it a useless term.
I do not think social media companies are technology focused. They just use technology to achieve their social media (/advertising) business goals, the same as every bank, every hospital, every trucking company, etc.
Technology is a means to an end so I like to make the distinction of what the company actually does or make. Apple's primary business is selling computer hardware (an actual technology product) so it's a technology company. Microsoft sells software and cloud services (tech tools) so it's a technology company. Netflix sells access to video, so it's a media company. Are algorithms involved? Sure, but they're child's play compared to the algorithms used by high frequency traders, yet those people still unambiguously work for finance/banking companies. Every large retailer employs data scientists and teams of data analysts, but they're still retailers rather than tech companies. Amazon is the trickiest to categorize. Amazon.com is a straight up retailer but AWS is clearly a tech "company." Best to think of that one like a conglomerate.
This is curiously similar to the premise of the Broadway musical, Dear Evan Hansen.
You specifically chose to quote a sentence about profit and then provide a number that is not profit. What was the point of commenting at all if the number you provided had no relevance?