Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 199 posts

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#51

Post by autokad »

pdonis wrote: post #25
Jestar342 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the trend of bringing tech to an existing market. When that stops, we'll probably stop calling it tech companies. Uber is the perfect example of a "tech company" - they brought technology (and in this context "tech", arguably, means "the internet") to an industry that was previously dominated by standing on a street and waving down a cab/taxi. However I think it is rather pithy to just call them a taxi c…

> There's a lot of tech "magic" involved in Uber I agree this is true of Uber, but is it true of WeWork? It seems like the comparison with Uber just makes WeWork look even less like a tech company.

I agree, I don't see how wework is a tech company other then the fact they probably service mostly tech companies. I was stationed at wework for a while, I liked it. But I don't see how tech is involved

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#53

Post by ulfw »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #46
Jestar342 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the trend of bringing tech to an existing market. When that stops, we'll probably stop calling it tech companies. Uber is the perfect example of a "tech company" - they brought technology (and in this context "tech", arguably, means "the internet") to an industry that was previously dominated by standing on a street and waving down a cab/taxi. However I think it is rather pithy to just call them a taxi c…

But we don't call, say, banks tech companies. A huge portion of their business requires sophisticated technical infrastructure they create themselves, but we just call them banks. And there are plenty of normal taxi companies with similar systems to Uber's.

There's a ton of tech involved in all kinds of companies: hotels, airlines, hospitals, insurance companies, anything really. None of them are "tech companies".

Neither is Uber/Lyft/Grab

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#54

Post by Agathos »

gooseus wrote: post #21
jakelazaroff wrote: post #2

I wonder when this trend of calling companies "tech companies" — just because they happen to use technology — will end. WeWork clearly is a real estate company; Uber is a taxi company with an app; etc.

I think the question is, if you removed their tech, would they still have a product? For WeWork, yes, absolutely. Uber, not so much. Of course, being dependent on tech doesn't make you a tech company, but I think it's a simple heuristic to quickly falsify the WeWork cases.

Are banks, airlines, hospitals, or big retailers not named Amazon tech companies? If you took their tech away now, could they stay in business?

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#55

Post by knd775 »

zachware wrote: post #20

What's so structurally fascinating, in a very morbid way, is the difference between the balance sheets of the most heavily-funded late stage companies. I have an opinion but regardless of it, if a no-asset/no-liability company is losing money and the music stops, they can cut costs and survive. It's messy but it happens. WeWork is a completely different beast. It's occupancy costs + G&A are 105% of revenue. If it can…

One of the founders pulled $700m out of the company, bought properties with that money, and now leases them back to the company. This could've been a solid company if it owned the properties directly.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#56

Post by Chlorus »

ghaff wrote: post #43
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everybody knows or appreciates the use of a VPN. I don't think yours is enough justification for WeWork for not having built a proper service.

What is a "proper service" in this case? Many company networks routinely allow access using fairly straightforward and rarely rotated passwords. Of course, access to actual company resources like email require 2FA etc. But as others note, the main purpose of having a password at all is to stop casual passersby from leeching off your network.

> What is a "proper service" in this case?

Something like one of the 802.11 Enterprise modes that don't use a PSK and actually check against a user DB before handing out a session.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#57

Post by zaroth »

ustolemyname wrote: post #49
zaroth wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the same WPA2-PSK authentication secret does not allow spying over WiFi, unless you are willing to actively spoof the network.

Yes it does. If you capture the authentication handshake, it's as straightforward as putting the passphrase into Wireshark.

I could have sworn there was a DH key negotiation? And I worked in WiFi for a decade, a decade ago... Sorry, obviously I have not had enough coffee yet today.

Looks like this was only added in WPA3!

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#58

Post by notatoad »

OJFord wrote: post #15
jakelazaroff wrote: post #2

I wonder when this trend of calling companies "tech companies" — just because they happen to use technology — will end. WeWork clearly is a real estate company; Uber is a taxi company with an app; etc.

Can you define it (as opposed to giving examples) in a way that calls any non-hardware-producing company a tech company though? I sort of want to agree, but it seems like any software manufacturer is 'a company that uses tech, not a tech company' if you keep going. WeWork, absolutely though. Honestly, the news to me here is that anyone thought it was or called it a tech company.

If your revenue isn't driven by your technology, then you aren't a tech company. If it is, then you are. There's tons of software companies that make money by selling (directly, or by charging licensing, usage fees, etc) for their software.

WeWork isn't selling software, or any other form of technology. They're renting property.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#59

Post by thomascgalvin »

eof wrote: post #38

Until recently I thought part of WeWork’s allure was they were a real estate play underneath the office value add. Incredible to me this isn’t the case and they have this type of status. Especially with the recent “exposé” showing the CEO owns some of the buildings WeWork is leasing from.

There's a real estate play, but it's the CEO who's benefiting, not WeWork itself. A lot of the properties WeWork occupies are leased from Adam Neumann himself, or an entity he owns.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#60

Post by jasode »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #46
Jestar342 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the trend of bringing tech to an existing market. When that stops, we'll probably stop calling it tech companies. Uber is the perfect example of a "tech company" - they brought technology (and in this context "tech", arguably, means "the internet") to an industry that was previously dominated by standing on a street and waving down a cab/taxi. However I think it is rather pithy to just call them a taxi c…

But we don't call, say, banks tech companies. A huge portion of their business requires sophisticated technical infrastructure they create themselves, but we just call them banks. And there are plenty of normal taxi companies with similar systems to Uber's.

>But we don't call, say, banks tech companies. A huge portion of their business requires sophisticated technical infrastructure they create themselves, but we just call them banks.

I understand your criteria for classification but I'll attempt to explain why others think of Uber as a "tech company".

Others' viewpoint: Yes, virtually every company uses technology but not every company is birthed by technology:

- the Uber founders (Travis K and Garrett C) were software programmers, not taxicab owners.

- the product they worked on was a smartphone app instead of buying a car with a taxi medallion and driving around for fares.

- the type of investors that funded them (e.g. Benchmark Capital) were VCs that specialize in the tech sector.

- the type of companies Uber has acquired[1] so far are tech focused (e.g. machine learning, geospatial, etc).

Yes, 100-year-old banks always have ongoing modernization with evolving technology (e.g. Citi and Chase have developed smartphone apps) but Uber's birth was programmers playing around with smartphones.

Another example of the perception difference is eBay vs Sotheby's/Christie's. eBay is typically called a "tech company" but Sotheby's/Christie's are called "auction houses". If eBay brings together buyers & sellers in a marketplace... and Sotheby's/Christie's also has an auctions marketplace... why is "tech company" more often attached to eBay rather than Sotheby's/Christie's? (Both Sotheyby's & Christie's have websites for users to place bids so they develop technology as well.) Probably because eBay was born on the internet by a software programmer named Pierre Omidyar.

I'm not saying you have to agree with all that but just trying to explain the "hidden taxonomy" that some of the others (including the news media) use to label certain companies as "tech company".

[1] https://acquiredby.co/uber-acquisitions/

Post reply on HN