Andreessen once famously said that software will eat everything. I totally agree — but that also means that the software should make things more efficient. That makes the companies that are using software to replace the physical infrastructure (and its limitations) more profitable.
This article has me torn.
I believe that there are two classes of technology companies. Companies like Microsoft, Apple et al who focus on developing technology as a means to an end. The end being selling this technology for a profit. Not far, there are companies like Amazon, Groupon, Zappos et al, who use technology to run an e-commerce engine. Technology is these companies are developed to create efficiencies, achieve scale and re-invent a business to make it better.
Can one be called a technology company and the other not? They are different types of companies, I don't disagree.
I think what I don't agree with Om's post is his definition of a technology company. Think of it as the difference between theoretical physics and applied physics. Both advance the world of physics, but from different perspectives towards different ends. A similar distinction needs to be created here.