I wasn't sure what to think of that comment either when I first read it, but I sort of see where he is coming from. One side you have companies like Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM types that actually develop new forms of technology and sell the technology to people. Then there are companies that leverage technology in other industries to "disrupt" like OpenTable, Uber, and AirBnB. Then there are companies like Google and Facebook that straddle that line. They've developed and contributed back huge advances in technology, they mostly make their money from another industry, but also sell some tech in certain areas (mostly Google).

Interesting perspective, but I don't think selling technology directly should be the requirement. I think a company is a "Tech Company" when the core product is technology produced by the company. I consider Facebook and Twitter to be tech companies, even though they don't sell technology directly. AirBnB and Uber have some decent open source contributions and have the ability to contribute back huge advances but probably won't focus as much on that until they're profitable.

Acording to UK's Companies House search, Uber's nature of business (SIC) is 74990 - Non-trading company. This is quite vague but it doesn't mention technology.

Interestingly, they were also called UBER TECHNOLOGIES LTD and UBERTECHNOLOGY LIMITED at some point in time, but these companies are now dissolved.

That's because Uber UK is a pure support office, at least that's what their lawywers and accountants argue.

The real company in Luxembourg.

If that were true the nature of their company would be 'tax dodge'

Well if that's what their name says it must be true!