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

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#51

Post by InfinityX0 »

kloncks wrote: post #14

This is epic. For all the crap we give AOL, they really did a nice job with the Weblogs acquisition. A lot of those blogs are still around and the leaders in the field. I wonder a) what's happening to the amazing conferences b) and where Mike's future will be like.

Huge props to AOL for showing that a massive company CAN pivot and use their brand equity/buying power to maintain a successful business.

Myspace, take notes.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#53

Post by josefresco »

bearwithclaws wrote: post #29

I'm absolutely certain I will be downvoted for this, but I'm really saddened about this deal. Well... Congratulation to the TechCrunch team; my condolences to TechCrunch. http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2565-acquisition-condolences

What a troll. And no I don't mean you bearwithclaws I mean 37 Signals. Cherry picking two failed acquisitions to support your knee-jerk reaction to this deal is just lazy. I don't think I need to point out that AOL has done just this before (bought popular blogs) with great success. The shot at AOL's 'age' is just icing on this lame attempt at getting some free press cake.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#54

Post by rewind »

vaksel wrote: post #41

it's kinda funny....Techcrunch makes it a point that they don't accept press releases...and they announce their acquisition with a press release.

I read it more as Tim saying "this is now our company and I'm letting you know", so any previous rules are already out the window ;-)

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#55

Post by _delirium »

sdp wrote: post #47
vgurgov wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People have been arguing about it forever, but I think there's at least a relationship. The UC and Cal State systems have been feeders to many tech companies, and during the Valley's formative period, even the private universities were heavily state-subsidized (California used to have an extremely generous CalGrants scholarship that would pay for any CA high-school student with good grades to go to any CA university, public or private).

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#57

Post by alain94040 »

aresant wrote: post #6

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

There clearly is some kind of earn-out, meaning that the founders get the whole money only if they stay long enough and/or if the business remains healthy. On stage, Mike Arrington mentioned that he'd stay for sure on board for 3 years, due to "incentives." So it's possible that the sale price is $25M upfront, with another $25M in 3 years. That would make both sources (one that says the price was only $25M, and one that says it was in the $40 or $50M) correct.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#58

Post by kalid »

josefresco wrote: post #48
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.

But gadgets and cars aren't areas AOL is heavily involved in, as far as I know.

How would reporting of something like AOL's search privacy leak (http://techcrunch.com/2006/08/07/aol-this-was-a-screw-up/) go?

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#59

Post by jpwatts »

steveklabnik wrote: post #50
vgurgov wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.'

You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#60

Post by ellyagg »

bhiggins wrote: post #17
bond wrote: post #10

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

Fellow Washingtonians, let's consider passing I-1098 especially in this light: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/426758_fair16.html

Fellow Washingtonians, let's consider not discouraging profitable business from moving to the state and stop encouraging profitable businesses that are already here, e.g., Boeing, to move more of its operations out of state.
Post reply on HN