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

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#91

Post by doctorwho »

berberous wrote: post #68
gumby wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

If Tears had NO claim to TC then why would Arrington willingly give up 10%? Pity? I don't think so. Not his style. Did they have a written agreement about the 75/25 split that muddied the waters? Possibly. We're definitely not getting the whole story and both sides most likely remember things quite differently now.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#92

Post by gojomo »

huangc10 wrote: post #3

Doing a quick search on the About TechCrunch page and TechCrunch wikipedia page for "Keith Teare" will yield no results. Another reason to do your due diligence when investing in ICOs.

And yet, a search of [site:techcrunch.com "by keith teare"] turns up lots of guest-writing, where the "editor's note" describes him as a "co-founder" of TechCrunch, as well as other news stories by other TC staffers regularly describing Teare with the same boilerplate.

Teare may be intending to over-emphasize his role; Arrington may be resentful that Teare is touting his involvement this way. But for a long time, the TechCrunch site itself was happy to describe Teare as a "co-founder".

So whatever the cause of the Arrington-Teare spat, it's not outlandish for Teare to be making the same claim in 2018 as appeared repeatedly at TechCrunch itself, since at least 2011 (" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/12/archimedes-labs-launches-a...).

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#93

Post by heedlessly2 »

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…

Your quote says she joined in 2006 but link says 2007.

Did he edit that recently?

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#94

Post by rhizome »

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…

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 10x (at least) the number of employees who have gotten screwed out of the winnings, that is, who should have been considered founders, vs. those who overclaim founder status.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#95

Post by vidarh »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #85
vidarh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 caug…

Most ethical people would never call themselves a "founder" if all they did was give advice and never did any real work. That's why we have a term called "advisor". We're not even in legal territory here. It's about ethics. Can you see yourself calling yourself a "Techcrunch Co-founder" if you were in his shoes? If I were him, no matter how much advice I gave him I would NEVER call myself a founder if I didn't do any…

Do you have firsthand knowledge of this? Because I met and worked directly with both people involved regularly during this period, and I still dont know the full details of what went down. So the way I see it, either you were directly involved but aren't disclosing your connection and hence makes it impossible to judge your biases, or you were not and you're judging the situation based on a very incomplete picture.

Re: The Real History of TechCrunch

#96

Post by vidarh »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #42
telltruth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a quite interesting turnaround, because I remember at the time Techcrunch started getting traction, it was Mike that caught all the shit - he was vilified to a completely unjustified degree.
Post reply on HN