People can argue back and forth over exact reasons why TC is or isn't "over", but the fact of the matter is that at this time last year I found their stories interesting and hit the site at least twice a day. Now I show up once a week and I'm just not very excited about their content. How or why is for other people to figure out. I just think it's boring and borderline tabloid journalism now.
Why TechCrunch is over
31–40 of 70 posts
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#32Earlier 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…
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…
I agree, and I mentioned in below in another reply, there is definitely an opportunity to create a blog that is more technical and aimed more at the developer/tech/entrepreneur community.
There is an audience that is only interested in about 10% of what is on TC, but have nowhere to go atm to find more of the same.
There isn't a blog that really epitomizes the types of stories that are featured here on HN every day. There isn't an outlet that dominates HN news as much as Techcrunch dominates the Techmeme crowd.
The problem is that the audience wants both quality and volume. You can't get away with just a post a day - and producing at least 3-4 good quality tech/dev stories, 7 days a week, is a lot of hard work
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#33Techcrunch 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.
So, he never writes about the Google/facebook rivalry?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/take-a-deep-breath-google-f...
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/04/facebook-google-contacts/
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/facebook-slaps-google-openn...
Keep insulting
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#34I hate how people cite Compete.com traffic graphs as "fact". Fact #1 is not a fact at all. Reference point: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/macrumors.com/ (estimated traffic, graph goes down) vs http://www.quantcast.com/macrumors.com (measured traffic, graph goes up) I also like how he cites Compete's numbers for TechCrunch (1 million uniques), but doesn't use Compete's numbers for his own site PostPost. Compete say…
It's terribly inaccurate, based on my experience. For the Feb 2011 (most recent available stat they have), they were wrong by -314%. They should make the fact that their service is inaccurate obvious; otherwise, they're misleading many people. Their data points are from 2 million people. In the U.S. alone, there are 230 million+ interet users: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=it_net_us... I only took ba…
> I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant.
Just like you can't get a statistically significant result about the 300 million Americans by phoning a few hundred people.
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#35I found this quote to be pretty good: "If it was not for MG Siegler (Apple fanboyism aside) and Erick Schonfeld, TechCrunch would be a content-free environment. The rest of the writing has become incredibly self-referential and stale. Paul Carr has the magical ability to consistently write articles that say nothing other than what he did yesterday. Sarah Lacy keeps writing about startups in Indonesia that no one care…
Yeah sometimes i feel TechCrunch is biased. I am not comfortable with people who write news on behalf of some company. We expect them to write the real news rather than supporting some and reprimanding others.
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#36Click on our website:
== ( http://qr.net/nwn ) ==
Christan Audigier bikini $23
Ed Hardy Bikini $23
Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15
ed hardy short_tank_woman $16
Sandal $32
christian louboutin $80
Sunglass $15
COACH_Necklace $27
handbag $33
AF tank woman $17
puma slipper woman $30
== ( http://qr.net/nwn ) == ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒╮ ,））））,''）~~ ,''~） ╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣ ｜田｜田｜｜田｜田｜ ╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#37I don't think the author is right in his assertion that collusion requires a monopoly. A collusion to fix prices and exclude competition is a per se violation of the Sherman Act regardless of the market power of the participants or the actual effect on competition, I believe.
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#38I 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…
[deleted]
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#39I 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…
Re: Why TechCrunch is over
#40Just like any other publication it has an audience. That is how I see TechCrunch. There isn't a publication I know of that can be all things to all people, less be correct about everything. Even the editors at Wikipedia fight over content... Thus I accept the 80/20 rule on TC and basically any Internet site.