story
Apple dropped the "Computer" from its name when moving firmly into a market (pocket supercomputers) which was a natural extension of its real core competency (high-UI/UX computers), but which (phones) were deeply perceived by the public as something profoundly different from "computers". Steve Jobs rediscovered the company's core competency, focused on it, and adjusted name & strategy accordingly.
Kodak thought its core competency was photochemical consumables. That was a pivot away from imaging, and into oblivion when the imaging technology shifted.
Smith Corona's competency was typewriters. We still need typewriters, but because SC tried to compete with computers (a spreadsheet on an electric typewriter is a non-sequitur), rather than being the best product for a shrinking yet enduring market, the biggest world brand vanished overnight.
If a company is going to pivot (which a name change absolutely signifies), then it better pivot around its core competency. Tesla's "tech" need be absolutely about either electric cars (by which batteries and solar are incidental and expendable for more suitable power sourcing), or solar (by which the consuming device may be far different than just a car), or power storage (source and use of power being incidental). Tesla is only "tech" insofar as they're pushing the limits of technology for building & powering electric cars. Stick with the cars, with solar ONLY as a means to free their power sourcing (and extra powering one's home), and they'll do fine; self-identify as a "tech" company, and they'll die of confusion. Musk is smarter than that mistake.
Now that I know what she was talking about, I'm deeply impressed by Apple's mastery of the subject, and see why Tim Cook is running the place.
For me a tech company is any company that uses the development of technology as a competitive advantage. Solar is not, major solar companies are not developing innovative technology. Tesla is, they do not have an advantage in scale or low prices, but have advantage in how their vehicles function.
So then is Ford a tech company? If not, then I'd be interested to hear why not, based on that criteria. Their cars are technology and they continuously develop and improve them as a competitive advantage.
I think people think of Tesla as a tech company because the founder is Elon Musk. If Tesla were a spin-off brand of GM or Ford, it would be another car company.
I've been thinking about it, and this is where I've landed.
Most companies develop technology as a competitive advantage these days, certainly any large company. Walmart has innovated a lot in the supply chain management space, but most people don't consider Walmart a tech company. It's a company that uses technology to deliver goods and services cheaper, more reliably, etc. This is essentially true for Ford also. People generally don't buy a Ford because of any technological innovation. So even though it is Ford's technology that lets them deliver an affordable, reliable car, people don't think of Ford as a tech company.
Whereas Tesla's primary focus is on developing new technology. Their product is not really cars; their real product is inventing and applying new scientific knowledge. The car is a way to fund that research, i.e., it's the opposite of a traditional car company where research is a way to sell cars. Elon Musk has said that Tesla is a battery company, not a car company. His stated goal of Tesla is to "is to change the way the world uses energy at an extreme scale."
So, that feels like a legitimate difference to me. But I think you're actually right that it's a tech company mostly just because the founder is Elon Musk, insomuch as he is the one driving the focus and vision of the company. That is, he is the one saying Tesla is a battery company instead of a car company.
A more interesting comparison to me would be Volvo. I don't know if it's still true, but for decades Volvo was a leader in passenger safety. They had the first 3-point seat belt, first side impact airbags, first blindspot detection system, among others IIRC. I'm still not sure they'd be considered a tech company, in that they were using the safety innovation primarily to drive sales of cars. But I think it's a bit more nebulous. If they'd had a marketing-savvy CEO who proclaimed, "Volvo is a safety innovation company, not a car company," I don't know. :)
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/05/ford-begins-testing-3d-pri...
