71–80 of 140 posts
Best comment from TechCrunch: "Shouldn't Techcrunch be acquiring AOL?"
Consensus amongst my hacker community: sellout. But we all drunk some haterade this morning.
From a business perspective, this is a successful exit, though I seem to recall $100m valuation about a year ago.
From a hacker perspective, I don't really think much about TC. They aren't a technology company, though they've done a really nice job with open data on the crunchbase.
Wonder who's going to scoop the TechCrunch buy out price, since that's usually TechCrunch's job.
There clearly is some kind of earn-out, meaning that the founders get the whole money only if they stay long enough and/or if the business remains healthy. On stage, Mike Arrington mentioned that he'd stay for sure on board for 3 years, due to "incentives." So it's possible that the sale price is $25M upfront, with another $25M in 3 years. That would make both sources (one that says the price was only $25M, and one t…
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/07/lead-investors-dipshit-compa...
Consensus amongst my hacker community: sellout. But we all drunk some haterade this morning.
Is that a consensus of one? From a business perspective, this is a successful exit, though I seem to recall $100m valuation about a year ago. From a hacker perspective, I don't really think much about TC. They aren't a technology company, though they've done a really nice job with open data on the crunchbase.
The consensus is of six successful and pretty popular serial entrepreneurs/hackers and five of my high up tech hacks contacts that's been reading TechCrunch even before '05, when Arrington published on his first site.
The hackers thought he was a startup hero but this is a sellout move to give it up like this. The hacks think the flacks must be effing elated. Now the process to get their bullshit published is streamlined when there's shareholders to account for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be confusing tax revenues with fairness.
I'm not taking a position on Arrington. I just object to the idea that legality implies fairness, by definition.
"You've Got Capital Gains"
Leela: "They are? Oh my god! I'm a millionaire! Suddenly I have an opinion about the capital gains tax!"
That post is such a canned press release it's untrue. [insert name] CEO, commented: blah blah natural complement... Blah excited ... Blah great future together.
...and they also had a big wheelbarrow of cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."
Sorry. The word 'fair' tends to get me going slightly, because I'm a competitive person. That word tends to be used by people as a crutch. For more: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ and specifically: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html If the state of California didn't think what Arrington did was right, there'd be a law. We've built up a system of rules, we all have to follow them, Mike did, so he's in…
I encourage you to do the same.