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

Why TechCrunch is over

yared.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#21

Post by [deleted] »

18pfsmt wrote: post #17
ignifero wrote: post #5

Techcrunch may be over because it has become irrelevant to the community of entrepreneurs/developers. Michael sometimes writes an interesting column. The rest is like a TMZ for the rich people of the silicon valley. There are real issues like these: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291336 which they refuse to cover

This is crap. TC was always an extension of Arrington's personal connections. He made friends in the valley 10 years ago which allows him access to info that isn't available to others. He's not interested in the obvious crap like that to which you link. Your misunderstanding sounds cultural. I'm not even sure what to make of the "rich peoples" comment.

[deleted]

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#22

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #21
18pfsmt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is crap. TC was always an extension of Arrington's personal connections. He made friends in the valley 10 years ago which allows him access to info that isn't available to others. He's not interested in the obvious crap like that to which you link. Your misunderstanding sounds cultural. I'm not even sure what to make of the "rich peoples" comment.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#23

Post by 18pfsmt »

nikcub wrote: post #19
trotsky wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me if I've read you wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying there are three types of startup journalists out there: 1) People who rewrite press releases 2) People who rewrite press releases 3) TechCrunch Said like that, and given that you spent a good deal of time working with them - don't you think you could be revealing a wee bit of bias? (not that the original blog isn't)

I didn't mean to say that Mike is the only type 3 blogger - in my own opinion I would include Mike Masnick, Henry Blodget, Danny Sullivan, the TorrentFreak guys, Om, Steve Gillmor etc. If it read any other way, it wasn't my intention. As an example, there was the Scamville[1] story about Offerpal and the offers in games on the Facebook platform and others. I was listening in to some of the calls Mike was making, and…

I remember when you used to write for TC and it sucks there isn't anyone technical there anymore. Masnick is my new favorite blogger. I used to troll you guys, so it seems weird to now defend you :-)

I wish there were another blogger with VC access, but that takes time.

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#24

Post by lorenfeldman »

nikcub wrote: post #9

I worked for TC for a long time and lived and worked in the same house as Mike for almost 4 years, so I know how he works very well. First, Compete totally gets Techcrunch traffic wrong. Not only the numbers, but the trends would totally not match up with our own internal Google Analytics, and even the data such as top referrers etc. were way off. Compete should not be used as supporting evidence that Techcrunch is f…

Nick C. I know Mike pretty well too, including your history with him.He is a shithead of the highest order. Just because he put up with your nonsense doesnt make him special. The article is dead on.

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#25

Post by trotsky »

nikcub wrote: post #19
trotsky wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me if I've read you wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying there are three types of startup journalists out there: 1) People who rewrite press releases 2) People who rewrite press releases 3) TechCrunch Said like that, and given that you spent a good deal of time working with them - don't you think you could be revealing a wee bit of bias? (not that the original blog isn't)

I didn't mean to say that Mike is the only type 3 blogger - in my own opinion I would include Mike Masnick, Henry Blodget, Danny Sullivan, the TorrentFreak guys, Om, Steve Gillmor etc. If it read any other way, it wasn't my intention. As an example, there was the Scamville[1] story about Offerpal and the offers in games on the Facebook platform and others. I was listening in to some of the calls Mike was making, and…

Thanks for clarifying. There is no question that the scamville series was great journalism and a tribute to what they can do when they put their minds to it. Of course, I didn't know about another outlet passing on the story due to advertiser conflict but that certainly doesn't surprise me. By the same token, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to hear examples of Mike doing similar things, though it's probably more likely to be a relationship conflict. One of the great hallmarks of classic journalism was always the firewall between advertising and editorial. It's always seemed that professional blogging has almost prided itself (in a mostly unsaid way) with the breakdown of that wall - or perhaps they were all just too small to care. Even news behemoths seem to be rather captured by the enemy these days, or at least have lost a lot of the fervor that defended the split 30-40 years ago.

I feel conflicted about TC's voice, and I doubt I'm the only one. This isn't a new feeling, I've never been a huge fan - but it does seem to be worse now after the AOL acquisition. That doesn't mean I'm willing to not read it entirely as they clearly develop some good stories (be they third party or not). A lot of the rest gives me real pause before I click on a story of theirs in an aggregator. Between the almost zero content posts, the blind brand boosterism, obvious collusion in some startup coverage, hit jobs on the competition and petty stories about what bad thing some AT&T call center rep tweeted - it's a real minefield.

It's too bad that the startup and tech world doesn't think itself worthy of a quality paper like the finance industry does. While clearly there is more money in new york, there is certainly enough flowing in silicon valley to support some real subscription journalism. Perhaps the problem is that it's off message - you can't support quality subscription journalism in your corner while attacking it everywhere else. Maybe some day someone with a big exit who loves news will take on the challenge and give a shot at becoming the Murdoch of the west coast, willing to subsidize quality if that's what it takes. Heck, maybe even Arrington could do that - they seem to share a particular brand of crazy - it's just that Murdoch mostly keeps his in other people's publications.

Such a thing probably wouldn't start off with a bang, but with a whimper. It might even be as unremarkable as a popular tech blog slowly and quietly raising their own internal standards over time.

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#26

Post by nikcub »

lorenfeldman wrote: post #24
nikcub wrote: post #9

I worked for TC for a long time and lived and worked in the same house as Mike for almost 4 years, so I know how he works very well. First, Compete totally gets Techcrunch traffic wrong. Not only the numbers, but the trends would totally not match up with our own internal Google Analytics, and even the data such as top referrers etc. were way off. Compete should not be used as supporting evidence that Techcrunch is f…

Nick C. I know Mike pretty well too, including your history with him.He is a shithead of the highest order. Just because he put up with your nonsense doesnt make him special. The article is dead on.

This has nothing to do with personalities or personal issues, I am rating him professionally in the scope of being a blogger.

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#27

Post by lorenfeldman »

nikcub wrote: post #26
lorenfeldman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nick C. I know Mike pretty well too, including your history with him.He is a shithead of the highest order. Just because he put up with your nonsense doesnt make him special. The article is dead on.

This has nothing to do with personalities or personal issues, I am rating him professionally in the scope of being a blogger.

Thats fine. Professionally he's a hack. All insider info from pals. He bullies and tries to scare people. I've seen it many times. Plus its all personal with him. He does hit jobs on companies and people he doesnt like.The guys a wannabee journo. Just another lawyer who hated it.

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#29

Post by nikcub »

lorenfeldman wrote: post #24
nikcub wrote: post #9

I worked for TC for a long time and lived and worked in the same house as Mike for almost 4 years, so I know how he works very well. First, Compete totally gets Techcrunch traffic wrong. Not only the numbers, but the trends would totally not match up with our own internal Google Analytics, and even the data such as top referrers etc. were way off. Compete should not be used as supporting evidence that Techcrunch is f…

Nick C. I know Mike pretty well too, including your history with him.He is a shithead of the highest order. Just because he put up with your nonsense doesnt make him special. The article is dead on.

The irony in the OP is that he is a blogger criticizing another blogger for poor quality and his own post is complete shit.

A proper critique of Techcrunch would look more like this:

Take some real traffic and social network stats

Take a sample of stories from 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 years ago and compare volume, subject matter, stories about startups to show a trend in topics covered, etc. Produce a nice graph showing how the # of startup stories has decreased. Overlay it with traffic stats.

Show examples of startups that launched without Techcrunch

Show examples of other tech conferences, other sources of startup information and how they compare, new upcoming blogs

Show examples of stale writing, poor writing, where tech issues were not correct. Do this using quotes and links.

Substantiate each one of these points and conclude using all this data that the influence of Techcrunch may not be what is once was, then pontificate what the future may hold.

Writing a proper story would require effort - it is a lot easier to take a screenshot from compete, call somebody a dick, submit it to HN and appeal to the masses.

Re: Why TechCrunch is over

#30

Post by nikcub »

18pfsmt wrote: post #23
nikcub wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean to say that Mike is the only type 3 blogger - in my own opinion I would include Mike Masnick, Henry Blodget, Danny Sullivan, the TorrentFreak guys, Om, Steve Gillmor etc. If it read any other way, it wasn't my intention. As an example, there was the Scamville[1] story about Offerpal and the offers in games on the Facebook platform and others. I was listening in to some of the calls Mike was making, and…

I remember when you used to write for TC and it sucks there isn't anyone technical there anymore. Masnick is my new favorite blogger. I used to troll you guys, so it seems weird to now defend you :-) I wish there were another blogger with VC access, but that takes time.

You might think otherwise, but most bloggers love the trolls. It was always the troll comments that would get called out across the office.

It is a lot harder to write technical stories. You could write 4-5 stories a day about startups or other news, but a tech story could take all day to assemble.

There is definitely an opportunity in a Techcrunch-like blog that is more technical. It just requires a lot of work and patience. The only way to build up an audience is to write frequently, and producing 3-4 good articles a day is difficult.

Most VCs love talking to bloggers. Their job is to network and to be a hub of information - so I don't know why more bloggers don't simply introduce themselves and ask. There isn't really an impenetrable wall there - it is just a matter of finding them and reaching out. They are definitely the best sources.

Post reply on HN