Did AOL acquire the rights to the CrunchPad as well? It was never clear whether it was completely spun off as a separate entity.
Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
101–110 of 140 posts
Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#102Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#103Wonder who's going to scoop the TechCrunch buy out price, since that's usually TechCrunch's job.
According to Calacanis, it's $15M-$30M. See the 6th and 7th tweets here - http://www.businessinsider.com/calacanis-arrington-techcrunc...
Sure, but he's (provably) often been wrong, many times.
Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#104Wonder who's going to scoop the TechCrunch buy out price, since that's usually TechCrunch's job.
According to Calacanis, it's $15M-$30M. See the 6th and 7th tweets here - http://www.businessinsider.com/calacanis-arrington-techcrunc...
That number just so happens to be around what Calacanis' Weblogs got when he sold ($25M)
Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#105Did AOL acquire the rights to the CrunchPad as well? It was never clear whether it was completely spun off as a separate entity.
IIRC, TechCrunch didn't even acquire the rights to the CrunchPad.
Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#106The title says "We Got TechCrunch" like a general coming back from battle.
Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cute. The consensus is of six successful and pretty popular serial entrepreneurs/hackers and five of my high up tech hacks contacts that's been reading TechCrunch even before '05, when Arrington published on his first site. The hackers thought he was a startup hero but this is a sellout move to give it up like this. The hacks think the flacks must be effing elated. Now the process to get their bullshit published is s…
What's great about selling out is that he doesn't have to care that you think he's selling out. He has a hundred million dollars now...
You don't need money to not care. That's a childish notion.
Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
Would a sale in that region make Techcrunch a "dipshit company" in Arrington's parlance? http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/07/lead-investors-dipshit-compa...
It wasn't Arrington who said that. He was quoting VC's who had said that.
There’s a worry among venture capitalists, [Arrington] said, that angels are training “an entire generation of entrepreneurs who are building dipshit companies” that sell to Google for $25 million. In fact, that criticism might be extended to Y Combinator as well, which could be seen as “the king of the dipshit companies.”
Arrington said he isn’t on-board with all of that criticism, but that it holds a “kernel of truth.”
http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/29/angelconf-ron-conway-micha...
Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#109Did AOL acquire the rights to the CrunchPad as well? It was never clear whether it was completely spun off as a separate entity.
IIRC, TechCrunch didn't even acquire the rights to the CrunchPad.
To clarify: I am leading to whether or not AOL would represent the interests of Michael Arrington's Crunchpad v. joojoo d/b/a Fusion Garage Pte Ltd in their current legal battle.
Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
are earn-outs usually that high (compared to the up-front purchase price)?
This is probably not uncommon, and I've always thought that it's a bit of a value theft from shareholders who don't have leverage via large ownership or active employment. It's also a good reason to not exercise startup options unless you think the company will be a hit (medium and low value acquisitions tend to have relatively large payouts to employees staying on board).