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

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#61

Post by ataturk »

biztos wrote: post #9
ktamura wrote: post #7

>As a final note, I want to add that if anyone was a “cofounder” of TechCrunch it was Heather Harde. She joined in 2006 but she was in the trenches with the team until the very end, working 20 hour days, sacrificing her personal life and giving everything she had to make the company what it was. Heather never sells herself like Keith does, but she should. Unlike Keith, she helped build that company, and gave way more…

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.

Could you please say "I agree" instead of "I don't disagree?" They mean the same thing, you know that, right? One is correct grammar, the other is a passive-aggressive, annoying tone used by know-it-alls who can't bring themselves to say they agree with someone else.

Having read the piece, I know know why Techcrunch sucks so bad these days--it was sold to AOL! Is there anything AOL or Yahoo! wouldn't buy?

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#62

Post by justaguyhere »

verytrivial wrote: post #19
telltruth wrote: post #13

This gets played out in all companies every day: You do something interesting in your spare time, your manager jumps on it out of nowhere to take credit and soon enough he is the visionary leader while you get transformed in to dude doing engineering implementation of his ideas. Lot of big projects where you will see one of the executives or managers attached, the real work - including vision - is many times done by…

You sound come across as competent. If you don't feel justly compensated for this loss of credit, you need to walk.

That is the best option but it might not be always possible for a variety of reasons. Visa issues, not being good in interviewing/networking (I know some very good devs who suck at interviewing), family commitments etc. These might sound like excuses, but they are real excuses.

We as a industry should improve our processes and not let some MBA guys screw engineers over. It is probably happening elsewhere too, especially the creative jobs (advertising etc).

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#63

Post by gumby »

I don't know anything about what might have actually happened or who said what back when, but FWIW when I first met Keith a few years ago (I only see him socially, not professionally) we talked about what each of us had done in the past and about TC all he said was words to the effect of "..and I was involved a bit when Techcrunch got going. Then I ...". The only reason this even stuck in my mind at all is my GF had earlier described him as having founded TC, so I noted what he said to correct my my understanding.

Maybe other times he played his involvement up more, and maybe other times Arrington played it up more (as have been noted in these comments) but literally the only time Keith ever mentioned TC in my presence is completely consistent with what Arrington says in this blog entry "is what really happened".

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#64

Post by announcerman »

telltruth wrote: post #13

This gets played out in all companies every day: You do something interesting in your spare time, your manager jumps on it out of nowhere to take credit and soon enough he is the visionary leader while you get transformed in to dude doing engineering implementation of his ideas. Lot of big projects where you will see one of the executives or managers attached, the real work - including vision - is many times done by…

By being exploited and not doing anything about it you are confirming the manager's impression that exploiting you can be done without any consequences.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#65

Post by TheCondor »

How does this actually matter? Various players either have stock and money from tc or they don’t.

I’ve seen maybe a half dozen first hand examples of companies here in Colorado bootstrapping, getting some real funding, going through a big pivot and then having their history effectively rewritten. CEO and maybe a CTO are named “founders” and neither was involved in any capacity for the first 12-18 months. After a pivot and some branding, about the only original equipment is the name of the corporation and some legal paperwork, perhaps a couple employees. Engineers do this too, surely we’ve all witnessed a little “title inflation” on LinkedIn, I think it’s almost a disease with dissolved startups, I just assume someone gave themselves a bump when reading a resume with details from a completely nonexistent startup.

“Founder” is funnier though, it’s one thing if you got payed, but it’s not like you’re claiming engineering experience. Seemed like a few years back at defcon and black hat, folks were getting twisted about “credit,” like Apple and MS, etc.. were going to give “Solar Ninja” credit for finding a security flaw they fixed in a service pack.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#66

Post by dpwm »

telltruth wrote: post #44
dpwm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :).

Well, if TechCrunch called him co-founder in articles he contributed or was mentioned in[1-5], that may make things a little less clear.

I wonder why they don't seem to show up in the search now?

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20120711063818/http://techcrunch...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20120718150953/http://techcrunch...

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20120719183405/http://techcrunch...

[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20120718005250/http://techcrunch...

[5] https://web.archive.org/web/20120721055442/https://techcrunc...

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#67

Post by zwily »

TheCondor wrote: post #65

How does this actually matter? Various players either have stock and money from tc or they don’t. I’ve seen maybe a half dozen first hand examples of companies here in Colorado bootstrapping, getting some real funding, going through a big pivot and then having their history effectively rewritten. CEO and maybe a CTO are named “founders” and neither was involved in any capacity for the first 12-18 months. After a pivo…

The article explains exactly how it matters. Arrington didn’t care that much until people started asking him about his connections to various crypto ICOs.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#68

Post by berberous »

gumby wrote: post #60
erikb wrote: post #4

This is a very important lesson for Michael Arrington and many people reading this can learn from it without losing too much emotions or money themselves: Someone, who claims this to be a cofounder of your business even once, is not your friend! Don't support their claims, don't pity them. They try to exploit you. This kind of person is really good at keeping you emotionally hooked, and therefore even let you find ex…

Is the same true of Musk who was an A round investor in a company already founded by Eberhard and Tarpenning?

While not one of the original co-founders, Musk has devoted enormous amounts of time, money and energy into Tesla since nearly the beginning, which I think makes him close enough to a co-founder. If you read Arrington’s post, he even says the same about Heather —- not technically a co-founder but one in practice given the amount of work she put in.

The guy he is calling out is alleged to have put zero time or money in — he just grabbed what he could.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#69

Post by TheCondor »

zwily wrote: post #67
TheCondor wrote: post #65

How does this actually matter? Various players either have stock and money from tc or they don’t. I’ve seen maybe a half dozen first hand examples of companies here in Colorado bootstrapping, getting some real funding, going through a big pivot and then having their history effectively rewritten. CEO and maybe a CTO are named “founders” and neither was involved in any capacity for the first 12-18 months. After a pivo…

The article explains exactly how it matters. Arrington didn’t care that much until people started asking him about his connections to various crypto ICOs.

But he has no connection to them. He can simply say that, he can throw the ico under the bus and recommend against doing business with them. He can do whatever. If the investors talk to the wrong founder, that’s not exactly helping the fundraising process, is it?

Ethics matter, truth is real, I’m not justifying any sort of dishonesty but the difference between a real Co-founder that signed some articles of incorporation or something and an early employee that you gave 10% of the company to is kind of academic. If you have to make spurious claims to get your ico off the ground some investors will sniff it out, others won’t, that’s business. People “round up” on their resumes, it’s a known open secret, right?

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#70

Post by berberous »

biztos wrote: post #47
hnzix wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I think you just read it differently than the rest of us. I read Arrington as saying she worked the occasional 20-hr day regularly. In other words, during particularly bad stretches, which were fairly frequent, but not every day.

I agree that almost nobody could actually sustain working 20-hr days every single day.

Post reply on HN