Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#42

Post by markkat »

This bums me out. A TC that can't call AOL a pile of dung isn't TC to me. I really enjoyed TC, and have a lot of respect for Michael Arrington. I don't blame him at all for cashing in. But this will decrease the quality of TC.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#43

Post by mtigas »

ck2 wrote: post #15

The only problem is AOL has driven every acquisition into the ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_AOL But still, congrats to the TechCrunch bunch.

AFAIK, Patch http://www.patch.com/ has been growing by leaps and bounds — but they may have more autonomy than some (all) of the advertising/services acquisitions. (I guess most of which eventually folded into AOL?)

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#45

Post by tnorthcutt »

vgurgov wrote: post #39
bond wrote: post #10

So we were right to suspect the move to Seattle was tax based...

am I the only one who thinks that IF its really the case, its kinda ... unfair. cmn, MA is good writer and he 100% deserves his money but he made it writing about SV! I think CA certainly deserve its 10,3% back, hey?

Would you still feel that way if he had lived in Washington the whole time?

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#47

Post by sdp »

vgurgov wrote: post #39
bond wrote: post #10

So we were right to suspect the move to Seattle was tax based...

am I the only one who thinks that IF its really the case, its kinda ... unfair. cmn, MA is good writer and he 100% deserves his money but he made it writing about SV! I think CA certainly deserve its 10,3% back, hey?

I don't think SV is SV _because_ it's in CA. I think SV is SV _despite_ being in CA.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#48

Post by josefresco »

markkat wrote: post #42

This bums me out. A TC that can't call AOL a pile of dung isn't TC to me. I really enjoyed TC, and have a lot of respect for Michael Arrington. I don't blame him at all for cashing in. But this will decrease the quality of TC.

AOL owning Engadget and Autoblog, two blogs I visit daily, hasn't affected the quality one bit.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#49

Post by tlrobinson »

bvi wrote: post #24
aresant wrote: post #6

Wonder who's going to scoop the TechCrunch buy out price, since that's usually TechCrunch's job.

Some rumors on Twitter are saying AOL whipped out $25m. Edit: http://www.businessinsider.com/aol-techcrunch-price-25-milli...

Wasn't there a rumor awhile ago that someone (AOL?) offered TC $20 million in 2008? If true, $25 million seems low.

That article was updated with CNBC's figure of $40 million.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#50

Post by steveklabnik »

vgurgov wrote: post #39
bond wrote: post #10

So we were right to suspect the move to Seattle was tax based...

am I the only one who thinks that IF its really the case, its kinda ... unfair. cmn, MA is good writer and he 100% deserves his money but he made it writing about SV! I think CA certainly deserve its 10,3% back, hey?

There are rules in place to determine what's 'fair' and what's not 'fair.' I'm assuming Mike has played by all the rules, so it's most certainly 'fair.'
Post reply on HN