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

Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#91

Post by jrockway »

jw84 wrote: post #76
pedalpete wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cute. 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 s…

What's great about selling out is that he doesn't have to care that you think he's selling out. He has a hundred million dollars now...

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#93

Post by ig1 »

kloncks wrote: post #14

This is epic. For all the crap we give AOL, they really did a nice job with the Weblogs acquisition. A lot of those blogs are still around and the leaders in the field. I wonder a) what's happening to the amazing conferences b) and where Mike's future will be like.

Not such a great job with Compuserve, ICQ, Netscape, WinAmp, Bebo, etc. AOL have had more bad takeovers than good.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#94

Post by flyosity »

bond wrote: post #10

So we were right to suspect the move to Seattle was tax based...

He'll be making capital gains money, not income, so this move will not help him. (I had the same thought re: the move but was corrected on Twitter by a friend who sold his startup - Newsvine - and lives in Seattle.)

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#96

Post by Semiapies »

jpwatts wrote: post #84
Semiapies wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Conformity with rules or standards" is an established meaning of "fairness"; to make any other judgement, as the poster a few levels above did, requires one to take a position on Arrington.

There are two places where one might take a position: "are the laws being fairly applied in this case?" and "are the laws themselves fair?". Clearly it would be unfair to treat Arrington differently than the law requires. I think the charitable interpretation of the above poster is that he thinks the laws themselves are unfair. You may disagree, but arguing that what Arrington did is legal is beside the point.

I've already pointed out that if Arrington's complied with the tax rules and standards, his action have met one definition of fairness, which is not at all beside the point. To argue fairness or unfairness by other definitions, you have to take a position on those laws. Otherwise, you rule out such judgments, which leads us back to the question "did he play by the rules?"

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#97

Post by jimboyoungblood »

josefresco wrote: post #53
bearwithclaws wrote: post #29

I'm absolutely certain I will be downvoted for this, but I'm really saddened about this deal. Well... Congratulation to the TechCrunch team; my condolences to TechCrunch. http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2565-acquisition-condolences

What a troll. And no I don't mean you bearwithclaws I mean 37 Signals. Cherry picking two failed acquisitions to support your knee-jerk reaction to this deal is just lazy. I don't think I need to point out that AOL has done just this before (bought popular blogs) with great success. The shot at AOL's 'age' is just icing on this lame attempt at getting some free press cake.

Not a "knee-jerk reaction"- the 37s post was written two weeks ago..

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#98

Post by Semiapies »

vgurgov wrote: post #39
bond wrote: post #10

So we were right to suspect the move to Seattle was tax based...

am I the only one who thinks that IF its really the case, its kinda ... unfair. cmn, MA is good writer and he 100% deserves his money but he made it writing about SV! I think CA certainly deserve its 10,3% back, hey?

Sounds like you actually think he only 89.7% deserves his money. ;)

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#100

Post by aberkowitz »

raheemm wrote: post #32
bretthellman wrote: post #5

Anyone know for how much $$$ ?

$100 million. I figure Mike has no reason to sell unless its a sweet offer - TC has good revenue, its growing, and he has a good team running it.

Perhaps he's just had enough. In the Inc interview [1] he gave the impression that he lived for TechCrunch. After four years of that, he must be exhausted.

[1] http://www.inc.com/magazine/20101001/the-way-i-work-michael-...

Post reply on HN