As long as you don't mix the meaning of "tech" with "informatics", yes, that seems correct.
When you do stuff that nobody ever tried you both get some leeway on experimenting how to interact with the market and is unable to predict how the market will react to it. If you are doing the same thing everybody does, you are expected to know beforehand what is your product.
That is true whether you do those things in a computer or not.
But you are pointing on some confusion of investors that think they are getting into a tech company when the company is actually just a copy of something else. That may be widespread for all that I know (I still somewhat doubt it), but most product development does consist on copying nearly everything of another existing one, this does not make it any less tech.
When you do stuff that nobody ever tried you both get some leeway on experimenting how to interact with the market and is unable to predict how the market will react to it. If you are doing the same thing everybody does, you are expected to know beforehand what is your product.
That is true whether you do those things in a computer or not.
But you are pointing on some confusion of investors that think they are getting into a tech company when the company is actually just a copy of something else. That may be widespread for all that I know (I still somewhat doubt it), but most product development does consist on copying nearly everything of another existing one, this does not make it any less tech.