Talk:List of tech companies in the New York metropolitan area
Latest comment: 4 years ago by TMill91 in topic Further improve criteria
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of tech companies in the New York metropolitan area article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in New York (state) may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Biotech? edit
We should consider moving this to Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area as Wikipedia traditionally calls it, or List of tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, or perhaps List of technology companies in the New York metropolitan area, as Wikipedia's style is usually formal. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mind something like that, Ɱ, although one could consider a primary redirect as well. But the first thing we need to settle, because an issue is being raised by editor User:Jytdog is: Are biotechnology companies inclusive here? I say yes, while they argue not. Please see the discussion on the Talk:Regeneron page. Castncoot (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Move completed, as you see. Castncoot (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that discussion. I have no experience and little background knowledge to contribute much to that conversation, but it does appear Jytdog knows what he's talking about. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi)
- Thanks for raising this here!! (I mean that) yes, this page should not blend tech and biotech/pharma. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you could only provide a WP:RS that states that biotechnology is somehow not technology (rather than essays or anecdotal blogs) directly contradicting the first line on the biotechnology page itself, I would be satisfied. Castncoot (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have provided you a zillion links at the regeneron talk page and you have been replying way too fast to have read them, much less thought about them. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- None of them seems to say that biotechnology is not actually technology. Really. Castncoot (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I should mention, biotechnology is brought up numerous times in the Silicon Alley article. Perhaps Jytdog should consult the editors who added that information. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, okay, it's pretty clear Castncoot added it. This isn't helpful afterall. I believe Castncoot is seeking a direct and concise answer, while Jytdog is attempting to link long and wordy articles that explain out differences (which is great), but don't make any concise definitive statements. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's exactly my point, Ɱ. On the other hand, the biotechnology page definitively calls it, in the first line no less, "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use". So I believe it is absolutely a legitimate entry on this page, and at the very minimum in the name of compromise, by entering it with a caveat of distinction as I've done. Castncoot (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I say "they are not the same" and am told "prove it" which is fine. I provide a shitload of refs and am told "oh that is too much too read." The industries are fundamentally different. I give the concise answer many times (super concise - "they are different" Bit longer "Different investors, different skills, different approach to partnering with other companies, radically different approach to IP, different timelines for product, zero regulation in one vs shitloads in the other, different language (e.g "API"), different buyers of products, different payors for products, different ways of marketing them, blah blah blah." I give tons of refs. Brick wall. The only thing happening here, is not listening. fwiw (which is nothing) i have worked with people in both industries in NYC for 15 years and with people from NYC EDC for all that time. The two industries are different. This is turning into a true randy from boise situation with a thick icing of IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's exactly my point, Ɱ. On the other hand, the biotechnology page definitively calls it, in the first line no less, "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use". So I believe it is absolutely a legitimate entry on this page, and at the very minimum in the name of compromise, by entering it with a caveat of distinction as I've done. Castncoot (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- None of them seems to say that biotechnology is not actually technology. Really. Castncoot (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have provided you a zillion links at the regeneron talk page and you have been replying way too fast to have read them, much less thought about them. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you could only provide a WP:RS that states that biotechnology is somehow not technology (rather than essays or anecdotal blogs) directly contradicting the first line on the biotechnology page itself, I would be satisfied. Castncoot (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- and btw Silicon Alley has companies like Flatiron Health with is health IT; not biotech or pharma. Biotech companies are not in Silicon Alley; they are at Harlem Biospace or Audobon.. a few are in Brooklyn Navy Yards/BioBat; Alexandria Center is really for super well funded companies and some are there over on the East River. None of that is Silicon Alley. Cornell Tech will have no biotech companies (it is engineering) and that is what our Silicon Alley article points to (it doesn't even exist yet, really). The sliver of Cornell Tech that exists has no wet labs and when it exists it will have no wet labs. There is a reason people say don't rely on WP articles; what is going on here is a great example of that. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
(←) Please don't speak for me. I have no opinion of the matter. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please take an opinion one way or another here to break the tie for the moment, Ɱ; otherwise we're stuck in a stalemate situation. Do we 1) include biotech as a bona fide section (as I would prefer), 2) include it as a secondary mention (as a compromise), or 3) discard it altogether? Castncoot (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would not be opposed to there being a health IT section in this article; that actually fits much more closely than biotech/pharma. There really should be an article on Flatiron Health in WP which has received tons of funding from google and roche (!) and is doing cool stuff (see for example) Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Ɱ and Jytdog: First of all Ɱ, please allow me to explain one more time. There are very few people who will cross the path of Talk pages of highly focused articles such as these, and without your help as an adjudicator, it could take weeks (or eons) to settle this otherwise. We're fortunate to actually have three editors on this forum at the get-go! For you to now claim that you are not able to formulate an opinion doesn't add up, as you're already knee-deep in opinions on this talk page. The facts are also clearly laid out in front of you, and so this is not a complex decision to make on your part, by any means. I will accept your decision regardless, but I just want to get a tentative closure here quickly, as opposed to a totally unnecessary delay of eons. Next, Jytdog, I think it's a terrific idea to add Flatiron Health in a separate section and give a reference, why don't you do that. (I'm sure you have no conflicts of interest here.) The only thing I ask is for you then to also include the biotech companies in some manner, so as not to sacrifice WP:NOTABILITY of companies that do indeed perform technological work as consistent with the definition on the biotechnology page (and which was my intent when creating this article), so that Wikipedia can have one voice with regards to this topic – adding in whatever qualifiers or caveats you feel are justified at that. Why not create a section called "Health information technology and biotech"? Let's face it, there aren't enough biotech and/or health IT companies (yet) in the NYC area to create a standalone article for themselves – so in some manner for now, in order for these companies to ever be acknowledged for the technological functions that they do perform, in the NYC area, they're going to have to piggyback onto another article, this being the perfect one at that. By the way, the premise of this article is not based upon profitability or funding. Do you see my points, folks? Best, Castncoot (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are hanging your whole argument on the fact that "biotechnology" includes the word "technology" which is about as sensible as putting articles together about "pathology" and "PATH trains" And if you had read what i had written you would have seen that health IT is more like tech industry than biotech; way more like it; your "proposal" obeys the "given them an inch they will take a mile" rule. And there is no requirement that every industry be covered by a "list" article. There is no "going to have to" anything here. If you are on some project to create a bunch of list articles, that is your deal. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- If you insist, I'll read the links provided by both in both discussions. I've been rather busy IRL and thus haven't been able to form my own opinions over this through research, however I'll make some time. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- There are other means of DR. if you are busy we can find some other way. thanks tho. And along those lines, I have now raised this at the Silicon Alley article - perhaps we will get more interested parties there. So really, no pressure. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- "So really, no pressure"? Your comment (to me, that is) actually sounds like you're pressuring him not to answer. He's obviously a neutral party, and he said he would get to it. Let's leave it at that on this page, please. As far as the Silicon Alley talk page goes, that would be a separate discussion there. Castncoot (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- There are other means of DR. if you are busy we can find some other way. thanks tho. And along those lines, I have now raised this at the Silicon Alley article - perhaps we will get more interested parties there. So really, no pressure. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Ɱ and Jytdog: First of all Ɱ, please allow me to explain one more time. There are very few people who will cross the path of Talk pages of highly focused articles such as these, and without your help as an adjudicator, it could take weeks (or eons) to settle this otherwise. We're fortunate to actually have three editors on this forum at the get-go! For you to now claim that you are not able to formulate an opinion doesn't add up, as you're already knee-deep in opinions on this talk page. The facts are also clearly laid out in front of you, and so this is not a complex decision to make on your part, by any means. I will accept your decision regardless, but I just want to get a tentative closure here quickly, as opposed to a totally unnecessary delay of eons. Next, Jytdog, I think it's a terrific idea to add Flatiron Health in a separate section and give a reference, why don't you do that. (I'm sure you have no conflicts of interest here.) The only thing I ask is for you then to also include the biotech companies in some manner, so as not to sacrifice WP:NOTABILITY of companies that do indeed perform technological work as consistent with the definition on the biotechnology page (and which was my intent when creating this article), so that Wikipedia can have one voice with regards to this topic – adding in whatever qualifiers or caveats you feel are justified at that. Why not create a section called "Health information technology and biotech"? Let's face it, there aren't enough biotech and/or health IT companies (yet) in the NYC area to create a standalone article for themselves – so in some manner for now, in order for these companies to ever be acknowledged for the technological functions that they do perform, in the NYC area, they're going to have to piggyback onto another article, this being the perfect one at that. By the way, the premise of this article is not based upon profitability or funding. Do you see my points, folks? Best, Castncoot (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would not be opposed to there being a health IT section in this article; that actually fits much more closely than biotech/pharma. There really should be an article on Flatiron Health in WP which has received tons of funding from google and roche (!) and is doing cool stuff (see for example) Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please take an opinion one way or another here to break the tie for the moment, Ɱ; otherwise we're stuck in a stalemate situation. Do we 1) include biotech as a bona fide section (as I would prefer), 2) include it as a secondary mention (as a compromise), or 3) discard it altogether? Castncoot (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
(←) Castncoot, please don't read into it, likely not his intentions. I'll read the sources on the Regeneron talk page, though please note the notices on my user and talk pages. I will attempt to remain as neutral as possible; indeed my dealings with you two are limited enough for me not to take sides here in prejudice. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
New criteria edit
It is noted on the page right now that there is no inclusion criteria - well, to state the obvious, there are quite a few tech companies in New York, and if we just include any that happens to have a bit of online coverage, things might get out of hand. I hate to remove the hard work done by others, but to start moving the page in the right direction, I'm going to move the items without pages to here, the talk page. If someone feels that one of them is on the cusp of notable or worth mentioning, perhaps they can reclaim them from here, add a page for the topic, or maybe a redirect to a related but more notable topic so at least there is an internal wikilink. 68.129.252.188 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Former listings without pages edit
- Newsela
- Applecart[1]
- Nopsec
- Dispel[2][3]
- Jukely[4]
- Fingent
- Get Croissant
- Roger[4]
- WildFire Force[5]
- Geometric Intelligence[6]
- WorkWave[7]
- Datadog[8]
- V12 Group[7]
- iCIMS[7]
- Gimlet Media[4]
- iMedia[7]
- LiveLike[4]
- MSCO Marketing[9]
- Stringr[4]
- Teckst[8]
- Abacus
- DriveWealth[10]
- dv01
- Extend[10]
- PeerIQ
- Say[10]
- Dash[4]
- Eight[11]
- Estimote[4]
- goTenna[4]
- Keystone Electronics[12]
- Launch 3 Telecom[7]
- Worldwide Supply[7]
- Celmatix[13]
- Flatiron Health[14]
- Smart Vision Labs
- Sols[4]
- Quartet Health [4]
- Hopscotch[15]
- Negotiatus[16]
- Acuity[17]
- AppliedInfoGroup[7]
- Barkbox[11]
- Boom Fantasy[4]
- Boxed[18]
- Button[4]
- Casper
- Common[4]
- Compass[4]
- DefinedLogic[7]
- Dressometry[4]
- Exigent Technologies[7]
- Fingent [7]
- Food52[11]
- Forrge[4]
- Frame.io[4]
- Gleem & Co[4]
- Homepolish[4]
- Hometeam[4]
- Hungryroot[4]
- IncentFit[4]
- Internet Creations[7]
- IrisVR[4]
- Jackpocket[4]
- KidPass[4]
- LOLA[11]
- Maple[19]
- Mighty[4]
- Namely[4]
- Olapic[11]
- Overture[4]
- Paribus[4]
- Peloton Cycle[4]
- Republic Spaces[4]
- RFM Clothing[4]
- Rocketrip[4]
- SBS Group[7]
- Slidebean[4]
- Splash[4]
- SquareFoot[20]
- Stacklist[4]
- StyleSage[4]
- theSkimm[4]
- Swipecast[4]
- The Casey Group[7]
- TripleMint[4]
- Wade & Wendy[4]
- Woofbert VR[4]
- x.ai[4]
- Zipdrug[4]
Applicable references
- ^ "Applecart". Applecart.co. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ "Is This NYC Startup the First PAAS Company?". AlleyWatch. 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2018-03-15.
- ^ "About Dispel". Dispel. Retrieved 2018-03-15.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar Majewski, Taylor (February 1, 2016). "Top 50 NYC startups to watch in 2016". Built In NYC.
- ^ "AI, Data Science, Machine Learning and Deep Learning Consulting Firm and Custom Development - WildFire". Data science and AI solutions for Fortune 3000. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ "Uber AI Labs". Uber AI Labs. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "16 Best Tech Companies to Work for in New Jersey in 2016 Via NJ Biz". njtechweekly.com. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ a b "11 recently-funded NYC tech companies hiring like crazy right now". Built In NYC. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ "Your Marketing Sucks - NY Marketing - NJ Marketing". Your Marketing Sucks - NY Marketing - NJ Marketing. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ a b c Liz Moyer (April 24, 2018). "Hedge fund billionaire Steve Cohen's venture capital group is on a fintech tear". CNBC. Retrieved April 24, 2018.
- ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference
ForbesNYCStartups2was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Queens electronics maker moving to LI". Newsday.com. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ "New York Biotech, Pharma & Medical Device Company List". biopharmguy.com. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ Benner, Katie (January 6, 2016). "Roche Leads a $175 Million Investment in Flatiron Health". New York Times.
- ^ "About". Hopscotch. Retrieved 13 August 2018.
- ^ "About". Negotiatus. Retrieved 21 February 2019.
- ^ [1] [dead link]
- ^ [2] [dead link]
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
ForbesNYCStartupswas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ [3] [dead link]
Further improve criteria edit
How can we further improve this page? Any ideas on specifying criteria?--TMill91 (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)