The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#2Techcrunch isn't really about startups, it's about companies in this technology generation. Whether they're new or old doesn't really matter, "Startup" is just the hip term of the moment. It'll die eventually.
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#3I'd read a seed-stage only TechCrunch...is there some way to filter TC to do this?
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#4Techcrunch isn't really about startups, it's about companies in this technology generation. Whether they're new or old doesn't really matter, "Startup" is just the hip term of the moment. It'll die eventually.
I'm unclear what you mean by the "hip term of the moment". You are aware that that term has been in use for at least 30 years, and most likely longer, right?
And yes, TechCrunch started as being about startups.
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#5Techcrunch isn't really about startups, it's about companies in this technology generation. Whether they're new or old doesn't really matter, "Startup" is just the hip term of the moment. It'll die eventually.
I'm unclear what you mean by the "hip term of the moment". You are aware that that term has been in use for at least 30 years, and most likely longer, right? And yes, TechCrunch started as being about startups.
The term in relation to technology. It seems 90% of what people now refer to as a "startup" is a dumb website that someone made in a couple of days that has no real business behind it and will never be anything more than a dumb website. People will eventually stop calling every damn thing on the internet a startup and it'll have meaning again.
Techcrunch covers technology, not "startups", it covers big companies (Google, Apple, Microsoft etc.) actual start ups and other technology stuff. The same is here at HN, a lot of what is posted here as a "Startup" isn't and it's people just using the term because it's hip. Like "app" and "social media", it's a fancy term people like.
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#6> 1. TechCrunch is now 22 times more prolific than its founding year
> TechCrunch now covers 10 times more seed-stage startups
quantity != quality
It used to have a lot less noise/signal ratio on TC, it used to have decent quality posts (and editors), and a TCrunched effect that barely exists now since a post gets buried quite fast given the post rate.
These days getting mentioned on TC doesn't do/mean much, you end up between a new iphone speculation or some non-story about [insert web giant here].
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unclear what you mean by the "hip term of the moment". You are aware that that term has been in use for at least 30 years, and most likely longer, right? And yes, TechCrunch started as being about startups.
The term in relation to technology. It seems 90% of what people now refer to as a "startup" is a dumb website that someone made in a couple of days that has no real business behind it and will never be anything more than a dumb website. People will eventually stop calling every damn thing on the internet a startup and it'll have meaning again. Techcrunch covers technology, not "startups", it covers big companies (Goo…
Agreed. I am also not a fan of using "startup" as a strict noun. I think of it more of an adjective. That is, companies can be in their "startup" phase. Too many people consider startup as a business category in and of itself.
Moreover, even useful websites do not constitute a business, startup or otherwise. I'm sure there are plenty of nascent businesses that techcrunch would never cover just because they are not web-centered [citation needed].
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#8I feel punked. The picture explaining their classification of startups has a blue underlined sentence. Clicking it just opened the picture, instead of bringing me to a list of top 100 sites as declared by google.
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#9> 1. TechCrunch is now 22 times more prolific than its founding year > TechCrunch now covers 10 times more seed-stage startups quantity != quality It used to have a lot less noise/signal ratio on TC, it used to have decent quality posts (and editors), and a TCrunched effect that barely exists now since a post gets buried quite fast given the post rate. These days getting mentioned on TC doesn't do/mean much, you end…
Those aren't even the important numbers. With 22x the number of articles and the ratio of small and mid stage startup to tech giant articles half of what it used to be, even finding the articles in the noise is a joke.
Then, once found, we have to deal with the quality problem you mention.
TechCrunch left my reading list almost a year ago for these reasons.
Re: The Math of TechCrunch: Is TechCrunch Still About Startups?
#10I'd read a seed-stage only TechCrunch...is there some way to filter TC to do this?