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

TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#81

Post by cletus »

nikcub wrote: post #80
cletus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citations, please. I know I've mentioned it once before, maybe twice. I'll also require citations on the "numerous rebuttals".

Even one other time is enough - because it was pointed out then that it isn't illegal to change your residence and that Arrington had bought his house in WA, the only house he owns, before he started Techcrunch this having nothing to do with OP doesn't really need a citation

I have to question what your agenda is as a (former?) TechCrunch writer. Are you perhaps trying to curry favour ahead of the launch of your "pre-launch startup" (from your profile)?

You certainly seem eager to mischaracterize my comments and malign my intentions when we've already gone from "every time" to "once before". While you're at it, point out where the comment is "copy and paste[d]" elsewhere. Since you can't, we'll chalk that accusation up to yet more slander.

Nowhere did I say changing residence for tax purpose was "illegal". Someone else may have characterized it as such. Take it up with them. There's a huge gap between "illegal" and the state of California making a claim that Arrington is still technically resident so the sale is subject to California state income tax.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#82

Post by languagehacker »

I was at the Crunchies this year, and you could cut the tension with a knife between the TechCrunch and AOL people. AOL presenters were blatantly decrying how the event was organized -- everything from how TC used paid sponsorships to the overall tenor of the event. Shots were fired back and forth pretty regularly between the presenters and the AOL folks, but the TC people were clearly the most hostile.

Seems like buyer's remorse to me, as they've put themselves on par with the rest of AOL's content farm, even though we all know their content is more well-researched and valuable than that. If they didn't want AOL's money, they shouldn't have taken it. They could have found alternate sources of funding, but maybe not to grow as much or as fast as they would have liked.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#83

Post by nikcub »

cletus wrote: post #81
nikcub wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even one other time is enough - because it was pointed out then that it isn't illegal to change your residence and that Arrington had bought his house in WA, the only house he owns, before he started Techcrunch this having nothing to do with OP doesn't really need a citation

I have to question what your agenda is as a (former?) TechCrunch writer. Are you perhaps trying to curry favour ahead of the launch of your "pre-launch startup" (from your profile)? You certainly seem eager to mischaracterize my comments and malign my intentions when we've already gone from "every time" to "once before". While you're at it, point out where the comment is "copy and paste[d]" elsewhere. Since you can't…

No - all this comes down to is that your comment has literally nothing to do with the OP, isn't the first time you have made the comment, and in any other circumstance would have been downvoted into negative territory because it doesn't meet a single guideline of this site

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#84

Post by darksaga »

officemonkey wrote: post #45
franze wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i always like it when people paint a big "fire me now"-sign on their forehead. it's bold, it's cool and he will find another job anyway (or maybe start a startup instead of just bitching about them)

You can almost see this as testing the limits of the post-Arrington TechCrunch. If the post is taken down, it will be re-blogged by every other tech pundit from Gruber to Dvorak (hello, Streisand effect.) If AOL repremands MG Siegler, then everyone will know what happened. Either he'll do another post, or he'll blog about in on his personal blog and it will take off through the bloggeratti. If he's forced into silenc…

There's always the option they expected this reaction and figured they would let him blow off the steam in a few articles and then move on.

In a few months, everybody is going to forget about this whole the episode anyway. Firing him or giving him more ammunition is exactly what they don't want to do.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#85

Post by nikcub »

cletus wrote: post #81
nikcub wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even one other time is enough - because it was pointed out then that it isn't illegal to change your residence and that Arrington had bought his house in WA, the only house he owns, before he started Techcrunch this having nothing to do with OP doesn't really need a citation

I have to question what your agenda is as a (former?) TechCrunch writer. Are you perhaps trying to curry favour ahead of the launch of your "pre-launch startup" (from your profile)? You certainly seem eager to mischaracterize my comments and malign my intentions when we've already gone from "every time" to "once before". While you're at it, point out where the comment is "copy and paste[d]" elsewhere. Since you can't…

and to add - your hypothesis that Mike wants to get fired doesn't match any real analysis of the situation.

You seem to have said this only to only re-open your old claims again, but if you read your supporting evidence, it doesn't backup your claim that Mike wants to get fired.

Now I know absolutely nothing of what is going on - but here is some quick analysis.

First - there is no way in the world that MG wrote this post on Techcrunch without Mike knowing about it. If I were a bettering man, I would wager that Mike prompted it.

The evidence? Every time MG writes a 'meta' post about Techcrunch, blogs, politics etc. he writes it on his personal blog. He has never meta-blogged on Techcrunch. Only yesterday he wrote a post on his personal blog about this situation.

Second - Mike said in the press last week that he will still write at Techcrunch. Because he wants to - because he has to.

And remember the fund was announced without Mike stepping down. The 'stepping down' part came only a few hours later when AOL were forced into the move under some media pressure and scrutiny.

Queue screwing up the press announcement about the fund, AOL going back on their statements and then finally telling the press that Mike no longer works there (without Mike saying anything) and suddenly you have a post, on TC, from MG, that reeks of a last-ditched move orchestrated by Mike

This is all about using a public reaction to get Mike's job back at Techcrunch, and everything back to how it was a week ago.

If you spent the amount of time you did on your comment looking at the actual situation without blinders on you would realize that the real conclusions and any real analysis is the opposite of what you suggest (ie. it has nothing to do with CA residency tax codes)

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#86

Post by dasil003 »

Kavan wrote: post #53

I am a big fan of TC and of Arrington. Yes, he is not to everyone's liking, but he has built an amazing business from nothing. However, I have a problem with AOL & TechCrunch forming a startup fund. TC has a huge impact on the startup market. They are the most powerful tech news business in the world and can literally move the market on a startup with a single blog post. If it is positive your user numbers sky rocket…

> TC has a huge impact on the startup market. They are the most powerful tech news business in the world and can literally move the market on a startup with a single blog post.

In my experience this is exaggerated. What TC can do is put you on the radar with early adopters for 24 hours. This does not make or break your company. Awareness is only one small problem you have, and TC readers are some of the least sticky hits you will get.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#87

Post by dasil003 »

I actually believe Siegler here. Arrington does have integrity in my eyes, and I don't see investing and reporting on startups to be some insurmountable conflict of interest. Most of the time the interests are in alignment—you wouldn't invest in something that you don't like. Granted there is a potentially more serious conflict of interest in the case of negative press, but TC is far from the only tech news source, they aren't a regulator or someone with real power to suppress a story. And contrary to popular mythology, TC coverage does not make or break a startup.

That's all my personal opinion though (I just don't take TC that seriously). In the public sphere you can't afford even the appearance of impropriety, and Arrington wants to have his cake and eat it too. If he really wanted to give all his detractors a big "Fuck You" on the ethics front then he never should have sold to AOL. Just in general, you can't sell to a major corporation and believe that you'll still be a scrappy upstart. They might have a hands-off policy as long as it's profitable, but when the chips are down their collective asshole will pucker up so hard it'll pop the old head off like a dandelion.

Siegler needs to grow up and realize that TC was done the day Arrington sold out.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#88

Post by ellyagg »

Whenever I read one of these TC articles claiming that apparent conflicts of interest are laughable, I'm amazed, mainly because I accept the claim for a couple of paragraphs before I blink several times and wonder, what on earth am I thinking?! It seems passionate and outraged hyperbole can take my eyes off the rabbit temporarily.

You can't make conflicts of interest go away just by saying, "No, but he's a really honest guy." That's supposed to be a given. That's the entry fee to persuasive analysis and distinguished news reporting. You'd better be honest AND free from conflicts of interest. I don't think there's a world where people take dishonest reporters seriously, just so long as the agent has no conflicts of interest.

Beyond that, no matter how honest you think you are, you are subject to the same cognitive biases that all humans are. As a matter of fact, bias is the rule, not the exception. We've never seen, nor could we really comprehend what a person free from cognitive bias would look or act like. It's completely alien. That's why we have all these checks and balances when apprehending truth, because some of the smartest of us realize that truth is shrouded in a dense fog and all we have is a dim flashlight to make out shapes in the mist.

How powerful and non-volitional is bias? I read the Four Hour Body the other day, and there's an anecdote about how the CEO of Evernote, Phil Libin, did a weight loss experiment. He made no conscious changes to his diet or exercise routine or usual habits. He did, however, track his weight everyday in a spreadsheet and charted a line from his current weight to his ideal weight. On either side of the line he charted boundaries within which his weight should fall for each day over the period. After 6 months, he'd lost something like 28 pounds. Understand, he made no proactive effort to lose the weight:

“I actually made a conscious effort not to deviate from my diet or exercise routine during this experiment. That is, I continued to eat whatever I wanted and got absolutely no exercise. The goal was to see how just the situational awareness of where I was each day would affect my weight. I suspect it affected thousands of minute decisions that I made over the time period, even though I couldn’t tell you which.”

That's why you can't wave your hands over conflicts of interest.

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#89

Post by brymaster »

nikcub wrote: post #75
cletus wrote: post #67

Look this is all pretty simple: Mike wants to get fired. Last year, Mike decided to cash out. According to the AOL CEO there had been previous attempts to buy TechCrunch. So one day Mike, who largely covers Silicon Valley, decides to move from San Francisco to... Seattle [1]. His stated reason? Largely, to "mix things up in my life". Washington state, by some amazing coincidence also has no state income tax. Around t…

you copy and paste the exact same reply every time Arrington is mentioned in a post - and every time there are numerous rebuttals posted in comments here. I have no idea what your agenda is, but your comment has been discussed ad nauseum multiple times in the past and has nothing to do with OP. if you are interested in this thread, search for one of the dozen other times it came up with the exact same allegations and…

(disclaimer: He works for Google)

Re: TechCrunch As We Know It May Be Over

#90

Post by [deleted] »

cletus wrote: post #67

Look this is all pretty simple: Mike wants to get fired. Last year, Mike decided to cash out. According to the AOL CEO there had been previous attempts to buy TechCrunch. So one day Mike, who largely covers Silicon Valley, decides to move from San Francisco to... Seattle [1]. His stated reason? Largely, to "mix things up in my life". Washington state, by some amazing coincidence also has no state income tax. Around t…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN