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

Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

finance.fortune.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

#81

Post by jarek »

nl wrote: post #74
BasDirks wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or some other publication would fill its place. That's what is and has been desirable for a long time.

Why? Seriously - there are a number of sites that have attempted this, but none have the influence of TechCrunch. What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?

Are you attributing Techcrunch's success to Arrington's style? In other words, are you saying it's necessary to interject drama, shaky ethics, idiocy, and questionable sources when reporting on the startup world to be successful? That doesn't seem very flattering to the startup world.

Re: Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

#82

Post by jarek »

nl wrote: post #79
diogenescynic wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Arrington did a media startup, cashed out and was going to run a VC fund. What's wrong with that? The details in between are what matter. I think most people are just put off by his constant need to interject himself into the stories.

Can you relate some examples that you found off putting? I thought - for example - the whole CrunchPad thing was quite interesting. It was an interesting product, and the posts gave a lot of insight into how hardware businesses worked.

What did you make of the Last.fm story?

Re: Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

#83

Post by efsavage »

nl wrote: post #74
BasDirks wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or some other publication would fill its place. That's what is and has been desirable for a long time.

Why? Seriously - there are a number of sites that have attempted this, but none have the influence of TechCrunch. What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?

> What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?

Filter the signal from the noise. TC was mostly just an arbitrary filter on the noise, with inscrutable criteria. For quite a stretch there you were only on TC if you were somehow related to Twitter. If anything it's improved on that aspect as Arrington has been less involved (but it's still too noisy for my taste).

I never had any problem with TC itself, it's easy enough for me to not read it, my problem was that people seemed to think that it was somehow more important than it really was. Pardon the tautology but it was/is only really ever important to people who thought it was important, like how some celebrities are famous for being famous.

Re: Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

#84

Post by nl »

jarek wrote: post #82
nl wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you relate some examples that you found off putting? I thought - for example - the whole CrunchPad thing was quite interesting. It was an interesting product, and the posts gave a lot of insight into how hardware businesses worked.

What did you make of the Last.fm story?

They published a story they got from a source, which turned out to be (mostly) wrong.

References:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/did-lastfm-just-hand-ov...

http://blog.last.fm/2009/02/23/techcrunch-are-full-of-shit

http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/

I don't see how that is Arrington's "need to interject himself into the stories"

Re: Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

#85

Post by nl »

jarek wrote: post #81
nl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Seriously - there are a number of sites that have attempted this, but none have the influence of TechCrunch. What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?

Are you attributing Techcrunch's success to Arrington's style? In other words, are you saying it's necessary to interject drama, shaky ethics, idiocy, and questionable sources when reporting on the startup world to be successful? That doesn't seem very flattering to the startup world.

No, I'm disagreeing that he does those things (except perhaps for the questionable sources). I think he reports things that happen, and sometimes those things include drama.

Take AngleGate. Was that "injecting drama", or was it reporting an important story?

There are lots of things I don't like about TechCrunch (MG's Apple fanboism, Erick's tendency to see everything as a zero-sum game), but I think the hate isn't constructive and goes way too far.

As for shaky ethics, idiocy - I think that blogging isn't the same as print media, and the ethics are different to what print media's are. I'm not sure Arrington has them right yet, but I do think there should be a way for him to be a player and still report and offer analysis.

Re: Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

#86

Post by nl »

efsavage wrote: post #83
nl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Seriously - there are a number of sites that have attempted this, but none have the influence of TechCrunch. What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?

> What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently? Filter the signal from the noise. TC was mostly just an arbitrary filter on the noise, with inscrutable criteria. For quite a stretch there you were only on TC if you were somehow related to Twitter. If anything it's improved on that aspect as Arrington has been less involved (but it's still too noisy for my taste). I never had any problem with TC itse…

Regarding the noise: yes, there are a lot of stories I aren't interested in. The problem is that the stories I'm interested in and the ones you are are probably different.

TechCrunch isn't important except as a source for documenting history of tech startups. I find that useful - I think it is good to show how attitudes to Google, Apple and Facebook change over time, and Techcrunch reflects that.

It is also important in closing the loop between companies and investors.

Beyond those things? I dunno - you are probably right. But that doesn't excuse the hate people seem to have.

Re: Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

#87

Post by jarek »

nl wrote: post #84
jarek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you make of the Last.fm story?

They published a story they got from a source, which turned out to be (mostly) wrong. References: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/did-lastfm-just-hand-ov... http://blog.last.fm/2009/02/23/techcrunch-are-full-of-shit http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ I don't see how that is Arrington's " need to interject himself into the stories "

I found their reporting of the story very off-putting. To be more precise, it was a hatchet job.

Re: Arrington out at AOL (for real this time)

#88

Post by diogenescynic »

nl wrote: post #79
diogenescynic wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Arrington did a media startup, cashed out and was going to run a VC fund. What's wrong with that? The details in between are what matter. I think most people are just put off by his constant need to interject himself into the stories.

Can you relate some examples that you found off putting? I thought - for example - the whole CrunchPad thing was quite interesting. It was an interesting product, and the posts gave a lot of insight into how hardware businesses worked.

The CrunchPad, 'Angle-gate', all of his squabbling with Calancanis, fighting with Josh Topolsky. He is a diva and doesn't deserve the attention he gets.
Post reply on HN