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

The Real History of TechCrunch

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#41

Post by telltruth »

vidarh wrote: post #18

I won't say a huge deal about this, as I now work with Keith again, and haven't spoken to Mike for years, but I'm extremely surprised to see this version of events, as when I worked on Edgeio (I built the prototype, and managed the dev team for a while and continued to build the system) while Edgeio's and Techcrunch's offices were both in the house Mike rented in Atherton (Edgeio was largely built from the bedroom ac…

This is exact same pattern that gets repeated everywhere: Winklevoss hires Zuckerberg to do some sort of campus meetup site. While working on this, Zuckerberg crystalizes related idea of profiles and messaging among students - but only shared among friends. Winklevoss does not participate in vision, engineering or anything else but claim the credit for Facebook anyway. I can understand that in early days it would be hard for Arrington to blantly expose Keith as he can do now. Keith had already threatened about litigation and Arrington had no money or time while managing fast growing company all by himself.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#42

Post by aaron-lebo »

telltruth wrote: post #41
vidarh wrote: post #18

I won't say a huge deal about this, as I now work with Keith again, and haven't spoken to Mike for years, but I'm extremely surprised to see this version of events, as when I worked on Edgeio (I built the prototype, and managed the dev team for a while and continued to build the system) while Edgeio's and Techcrunch's offices were both in the house Mike rented in Atherton (Edgeio was largely built from the bedroom ac…

This is exact same pattern that gets repeated everywhere: Winklevoss hires Zuckerberg to do some sort of campus meetup site. While working on this, Zuckerberg crystalizes related idea of profiles and messaging among students - but only shared among friends. Winklevoss does not participate in vision, engineering or anything else but claim the credit for Facebook anyway. I can understand that in early days it would be…

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this? Because currently it looks like two sides calling each other liars and outsiders taking sides based on who they like.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#43

Post by birken »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #34
birken wrote: post #28

It seems the one fact that nobody is disputing is that the guy in question owned 10% of Techcrunch. Generally people who own 10% of a company had significant involvement in it. Not always, there are always edge cases, but that is a good general rule. Maybe this is one of those edge cases. But claiming somebody who owns 10% of the company had literally nothing to do with the company is an extraordinary claim that I'd…

Let's say he really deserves the 10%. That doesn't make him a "cofounder". That only makes him a shareholder. If owning some shares in a company made you a cofounder, by that logic any angel investor or VC is a cofounder of ever single company they funded. And even if the law says you're technically a "cofounder", it's pathetic to call yourself that for a decade and use that false reputation for your personal gains i…

FWIW I never said anything about the guy deserving the title of co-founder or not. Arrington is claiming the guy had literally nothing to do with Techcrunch, which is directly at odds with the one piece of information we know: the guy owned 10% of Techcrunch.

As for the co-founder title, my point is if you are investing in some business because an advisor is either a real co-founder or a fake co-founder of Techcrunch, you are making a stupid investment. And that goes for this guy or Arrington himself.

And yes, it is pathetic if somebody is claiming a bunch of credit for something they didn't do. But it is also pathetic to give 10% of your business to somebody who did nothing (assuming the blog post is accurate). As a neutral observer I'm inclined to believe Arrington, but at the same time I don't think he made a very strong case and presented basically no impartial evidence. Frankly I think this blog post makes them both look bad.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#44

Post by telltruth »

dpwm wrote: post #31
vidarh wrote: post #18

I won't say a huge deal about this, as I now work with Keith again, and haven't spoken to Mike for years, but I'm extremely surprised to see this version of events, as when I worked on Edgeio (I built the prototype, and managed the dev team for a while and continued to build the system) while Edgeio's and Techcrunch's offices were both in the house Mike rented in Atherton (Edgeio was largely built from the bedroom ac…

There's also a profile of Arrington in Wired from 2007 [0]. It also gives the impression that Techcrunch grew out of his personal research for new business models whilst he was working with "Arrington's longtime associate and mentor, Keith Teare." Just in case anyone thinks this was perhaps written without Arrington's knowledge, his blog post would suggest otherwise. [1] [0] https://www.wired.com/2007/06/ff-arrington…

The phrases like "grew out of ..." is interesting. The thing is that you can use this phrase to steal someone's work as long as both of you were working on something that is even remotely related. I have to add this phrase in my Credit Stealer's Handbook I'm writing :).

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#45

Post by vidarh »

telltruth wrote: post #35
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TechCrunch was a tech blog which didn't require much "operation". The site was just a wordpress blog and the only work involved was probably blogging and some wordpress maintenance. This Keith guy never blogged, and this guy is no programmer. The best he can claim to be is an "investor", but you really have to be shameless to call yourself a "cofounder" when you really did nothing, and use that reputation everywhere…

TC is not just WordPress blog. There is a lot of leg work that happens to contact VCs, journalists, founders, conduct interviews, verify details etc. I bet 80% of the work that happens at TC is not-engineering. The fact that Arrington carried this entirely on his shoulder while Keith just stayed on sidelines is enough for him not getting credited for TC. However Keith claims on his LinkedIn profile that he advised Ar…

When techcrunch started it was just a WordPress blog. It quickly grew to much more than that, sure.

> However Keith claims on his LinkedIn profile that he advised Arlington and helped him to be successful even initially he did not believed in TC.

I've personally been present when Keith gave Mike advice about Techcrunch on more than one occasion (and I was only over about 1 week every 6 or so, so it'd be odd if I caught their only discussions), so while whether or not he did enough to justify calling himself co-founder is something I don't want to wade into as I simply don't know (and is trying to keep my personal opinions out of this when I don't have first hand knowledge), I for one was an eye witness to Keith advising Mike more than once (whether or not Mike took on that advice, or whether or not it was good advice, I don't want to try to assess).

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#46

Post by biztos »

nkoren wrote: post #23
biztos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but I call BS on the OP: 1. 20-hour days are not actually worked, not even by slave labor. 2. Sacrificing your personal life for your employer is pathological, not heroic.

> 20-hour days are not actually worked, not even by slave labor. Then you've never been there. Yes, they are. Have done it many times.

I've been a lot of places, and I have some experience with sleep deprivation. One ought not assume too much.

If you're regularly working 20-hour days, as opposed to the occasional all-nighter, then you're not doing anyone any favors -- not your company, not your friends/spouses/children, not yourself.

But anyway I was alluding to the tendency to boast about how little one sleeps...

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#47

Post by biztos »

hnzix wrote: post #24
nkoren wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 20-hour days are not actually worked, not even by slave labor. Then you've never been there. Yes, they are. Have done it many times.

I've worked 36 hours straight in the days before I knew better. And I got off lightly compared to my friends the game industry.

So have I, but not as a regular thing. Working "20-hour days" implies it's regular, and that means -- assuming no commute -- you're sleeping max 3 hours a night, which is pretty messed up.

o/t but I'm surprised this random comment touched a nerve here...

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#48

Post by biztos »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15
biztos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but I call BS on the OP: 1. 20-hour days are not actually worked, not even by slave labor. 2. Sacrificing your personal life for your employer is pathological, not heroic.

> Sacrificing your personal life for your employer is pathological, not heroic This isn't an article about heroism. Keith Teare claims he co-founded TechCrunch. Arrington says "no" and then details why. One part of the "why" is about value-adding output. Arrington "could never get [Teare] to write anything, or help pay any bills." Co-founders add value; Keith didn't do that. The second part of the "why" is about inpu…

> Short-term because this tactic is obviously unsustainable.

I've pulled my share of all-nighters too, but (from the comment) the implication was it was a regular thing.

Far in the weeds here, I guess if I had RTFA maybe I wouldn't have bothered to comment. :-)

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#50

Post by biztos »

ktamura wrote: post #11
biztos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but I call BS on the OP: 1. 20-hour days are not actually worked, not even by slave labor. 2. Sacrificing your personal life for your employer is pathological, not heroic.

I agree on both. Honestly, much of my long hours were due to my inexperience rather than supernatural productivity. If I were to do the same work with what I know now, I'd do it very differently with far fewer hours (probably). That said, the point OP was making is that in a startup origin story, there's a significant perception gap between those who actually moved the needle and those who claim to have done so. Thos…

Yeah, perception is a big part of it.

When I was in startup-land, if we had a big deliverable we'd work until we couldn't work, which usually was about noon to 8am. Then everyone would go home and sleep it off, and the next day we'd try to not do that again... sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

Now that I have a "normal" job, I still occasionally do a big coding sprint of 20 hours or more, but I don't do it day after day.

In startup land, when the CEO came in at 7am and saw us frenetically coding away in the Nerd Loft, I sure hope he told everyone we all worked 20-hour days. :-)

Post reply on HN