In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the tech industry underwent a significant transformation, driven primarily by the forces of financialization. This shift has led to the criticism that modern tech, much like hair metal in the 1980s, has become more about flashy appearances than substantive innovation. The comparison between tech and hair metal provides a lens to understand how financial priorities have reshaped the industry, sidelining genuine progress in favor of market share and valuations.

Hair metal was a genre defined by its flamboyant aesthetics—big hair, dramatic performances, and an emphasis on style over substance. The music, often criticized for its lack of depth, became secondary to the spectacle. This focus on image and commercial appeal overshadowed more innovative and authentic musical expressions, pushing them to the margins in favor of what was profitable and popular.

Similarly, the financialization of tech has led to a scenario where technology is often used as “window dressing.” The real potential for innovation is sidelined in favor of features and products that are more about boosting market share and attracting investment than addressing significant societal needs. Just as hair metal was more about the show than the music, much of modern tech is more about market dominance than meaningful technological advancement.

This financial-driven approach has led to the sidelining of “indie” innovators—the true technologists and creators focused on substance rather than superficial gains. In this environment, real innovation is marginalized, just as indie music was during the height of hair metal’s popularity. The emphasis on financial gains and speculative growth has turned tech into a vehicle for profit rather than a driver of progress, leaving the true potential of technology unfulfilled.

The essence of this critique is not an outright rejection of technology, akin to the Luddite movement, but rather a rejection of how financialization has shaped technology into something more superficial and less impactful. The comparison to hair metal underscores the idea that when profit and market share become the primary goals, the deeper, more meaningful aspects of innovation are often lost.

In summary, the financialization of the tech industry has led to a situation where technology is more about appearance than substance, much like how hair metal prioritized image over music. This shift has sidelined genuine innovation, reducing tech to a tool for financial gain rather than a force for real progress. The challenge now is to reclaim the value of technology by focusing on substantive innovation, much like the resurgence of authentic, indie music that followed the decline of hair metal’s dominance.