I think most people use the word TECHNOLOGY (or “TECH”) incorrectly. Do you?

I am open to being wrong about this, but at the time of writing, this is my position:

According to the Oxford Dictionary, TECHNOLOGY is “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.”

Whereas if I were to invent a novel language for computers, such as PYTHON, invented by Guido van Rossum in 1991, that WOULD qualify as a TECHNOLOGY or “TECH”, since it is an application of the scientific knowledge called Quantum Mechanics. Whereas if I were to invent a new eye surgery, such as LASIK, invented by Dr. Golam A. Peyman in 1989, that WOULD qualify as a TECHNOLOGY or “TECH”, since it is an application of previously discovered surgeries and modern medicine.

In contrast, if I were to write a computer program in a known language to make an app, with whatever features and functionalities I could conceive, that WOULD NOT qualify as a TECHNOLOGY or “TECH”, because other computer programs using the same code language and likely using the same commands already exists e.g. on GitHub. The app would instead be a regurgitation of an existing technology. Perhaps the appropriate word would therefore be an APPLICATION (“APP”), but not a TECHNOLOGY (“TECH”).

If the above is valid, then most “TECH” companies would not qualify as TECH companies at all. Does it matter what we call them? I think YES, it does, and here’s why:

The mantra of YCombinator is, “Make something people want”. Similar mantras from similar companies usually, and logically, boil down to the following sentiment, “Make something useful.” I couldn’t agree more with these sentiments.

Those last words, WANT and USEFUL are (in my opinion) WHY it matters how we use the label, “TECH”.

Whereas (for example) apps built to seamlessly integrate with Slack and help companies manage themselves and their customers better is no doubt USEFUL, and companies and customers no doubt WANT such apps, I’d suggest that those apps DO NOT apply scientific knowledge but instead regurgitate existing applications of scientific knowledge, namely the computer language they use. I’m NOT saying that such apps lack any value and I’m NOT saying that such apps should not receive funding. I’m just saying that they should NOT be labeled as “TECH”. I’m saying that “TECH” should be liberated from misuse and reserved for actual TECH!

Still not sure why the label “TECH” matters? This will pinpoint my point:

The mislabeled APP (mentioned earlier) will likely receive funding, which will tell FOUNDERS that “this is what people want” and those FOUNDERS will make similar APPS and so on and so on. It STOPS FOUNDERS from thinking harder about actually applying scientific knowledge for practical purposes. It makes FOUNDERS play it too safe, much like Hollywood Studios remaking prequels and sequels and remaking the same movie over and over and over again.

I think TECH would benefit from FOUNDERS looking to make COOL NEW STUFF that will make the world better, cleaner, safer, healthier, more prosperous etc. And the APP folks can make all the apps we’ll need too!

I founded Nuwatts to attempt to make COOL NEW STUFF. I’m taking a first principles approach to waste heat utilization. From production of waste heat through each stage of its transformation – I’m asking, “What is possible”?

In closing, I’ll reiterate: NOT hating on the APPS. I love the APPS too! I would just love more actual TECHNOLOGY! Let’s dream BIG!