6 ms·

Since everyone seems to just be agreeing with the last person whose take on this they've read, think about it this way: If they were indeed colluding, do you th

Since everyone seems to just be agreeing with the last person whose take on this they've read, think about it this way: If they were indeed colluding, do you think any of them would come out and say "mike's right, we are colluding"? No, they would come back with totally legit sounding blog posts to discredit him. I still think it doesn't make sense for Mike to lie about what he heard, especially when it relates to such big players. Mr McClure's defensive, arrogant, immature rant indicates that a sore spot has been touched. I don't think we should take any of the angels' words at face value.

Confusion 16y ago
In any meeting of people/businesses with similar interests, there will be talk of 'working together', 'sharing information', 'making deals', etc. Such is mostly just talk, showing each other goodwill and courtesy and generally playing around with ideas that sound good in theory, but won't work that way in practice. Usually nothing comes of it and if it does, it's a severely watered down version, well withing the law and adhering to ethical considerations. When it's not watered down, it usually starts with a few of them sealing the deal in secrecy, with others perhaps joining in later. The story is too much like you hear in the movies and too little like stuff happens in reality.
rumpelstiltskin 16y ago
To be fair, Dave would reply with a similar defensive, arrogant, immature rant if you said 'hello' to him. That's just his style, and he seems to get off on it.
joshbuckley 16y ago
In addition, how much further can this story really develop? If there was illegal activity going on, why would any of the parties involved admit to it? Whatever happened, this would have been a huge warning. I doubt we'll see anything exciting develop, like some people may be expecting.
- juliamae 16y ago
  Agreed. If Mike's story has any real effect, it will happen behind closed doors, where even/especially Mike won't see it.
jacquesm 16y ago
Let's turn that around for a second and look at it as though it is true: A bunch of 'angels' (for want of a better term, none of them were sprouting wings) get together in a bar but omit one of the regulars. They discuss in great detail the way in which they are going to 'corner the market' and convince each other that nobody will invest in any start-up over a certain price point. How long do you think that would fly in the real world. Before they'd been out of the door someone would have already decided to break the arrangement, it's the nature of the beast you're dealing with here, and besides, most if not all of the dealings between angels and their investment targets are confidential so you'd never know anyway. I wasn't agreeing with Arringtons view on this when I read it, I just interpreted it as 'wow, you take being marginalized quite badly', and this post pretty much confirms that that may be all there is to it. Hell hath no fury like a 'blogger' scorned it seems. It's not as though people need Arringtons permission to meet, and it's not as though every meeting that he isn't in on is automatically grounds for suspecting a cartel being formed.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  If your presumption regarding collusion were true (that it can't hold up in the real world), then there would never have been any cases of collusion in the real world, yet we have plenty of examples.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    There is plenty of anti-competitive in the real world (phone companies are a nice example, but Intel and Microsoft have a nice track record too), but in this particular case due to the nature of the material involved it would be extremely hard to collude in the first place and almost impossible to prove that it actually happened if it did. A bunch of guys having dinner and talking over business is not collusion, they call it 'synergy'. Collusion is: "Start-ups X, Y and Z suddenly found that none of the angels present at such and such a dinner would accept deals over <some value> or under <some conditions>." And even then you'd have a very hard time proving that it was because they colluded. Also, how long would it take one of these guys to figure out that if he 'broke' the rule just once that nobody could ever accuse him/her of it and he'd have a surefire winner because that start-up would have found doors closed everywhere else. It simply isn't going to happen, the VC world (especially angel investments) is too competitive (not in the last place due to YC) and too closely watched to get away with any of this.
mahmud 16y ago
Mr McClure's defensive, arrogant, immature rant indicates that a sore spot has been touched. No it doesn't. That's how McClure always comes off in writing. Arrogant and immature, but never defensive. Probably not just in writing .. Don't take my word for it, just navigate to another page on his blog and you will see the same thing. IMO, McClure is to Arrington what Ali G is to Darth Vader. One of them is nasty but fun, the other ..
- juliamae 16y ago
  Fair enough. Can't say I read his blog. However, he does come across as incredibly manic in writing, which makes it difficult for me to trust him. But I don't know the man at all. Bad blog first impressions.
  - GBond 16y ago
    This is just his writing style. He is actually quite normal and super-knowledgeable (especially about lean startup principles) when he presents in person though peppered with the occasional explicits and blunt talk.
m0nty 16y ago
> If they were indeed colluding, do you think any of them would come out and say "mike's right, we are colluding"? And if they weren't colluding, would they say "mike's right, we are colluding"? It's a non-observation to say "they would say that, wouldn't they?" Also, the "sore spot" might be that they have all been accused of massive dishonesty (or actual illegal conduct) and they are, in fact, not guilty. It's still not an illuminating observation.
- gilesc 16y ago
  Hence "Yes, Mike, I Have Stopped Beating My Wife".
DJN 16y ago
I respectfully disagree. Mike made some serious insinuation of improper behaviour that was targeted at the super angels i.e Dave, Ron et al Dave has every right to discredit it. Especially when Arrington wasn't a participant and Dave was.

Confusion 16y ago

In any meeting of people/businesses with similar interests, there will be talk of 'working together', 'sharing information', 'making deals', etc. Such is mostly just talk, showing each other goodwill and courtesy and generally playing around with ideas that sound good in theory, but won't work that way in practice. Usually nothing comes of it and if it does, it's a severely watered down version, well withing the law and adhering to ethical considerations. When it's not watered down, it usually starts with a few of them sealing the deal in secrecy, with others perhaps joining in later. The story is too much like you hear in the movies and too little like stuff happens in reality.

rumpelstiltskin 16y ago

To be fair, Dave would reply with a similar defensive, arrogant, immature rant if you said 'hello' to him. That's just his style, and he seems to get off on it.

joshbuckley 16y ago

In addition, how much further can this story really develop? If there was illegal activity going on, why would any of the parties involved admit to it? Whatever happened, this would have been a huge warning. I doubt we'll see anything exciting develop, like some people may be expecting.

juliamae 16y ago
Agreed. If Mike's story has any real effect, it will happen behind closed doors, where even/especially Mike won't see it.

jacquesm 16y ago

Let's turn that around for a second and look at it as though it is true: A bunch of 'angels' (for want of a better term, none of them were sprouting wings) get together in a bar but omit one of the regulars. They discuss in great detail the way in which they are going to 'corner the market' and convince each other that nobody will invest in any start-up over a certain price point. How long do you think that would fly in the real world. Before they'd been out of the door someone would have already decided to break the arrangement, it's the nature of the beast you're dealing with here, and besides, most if not all of the dealings between angels and their investment targets are confidential so you'd never know anyway. I wasn't agreeing with Arringtons view on this when I read it, I just interpreted it as 'wow, you take being marginalized quite badly', and this post pretty much confirms that that may be all there is to it. Hell hath no fury like a 'blogger' scorned it seems. It's not as though people need Arringtons permission to meet, and it's not as though every meeting that he isn't in on is automatically grounds for suspecting a cartel being formed.

bradleyland 16y ago
If your presumption regarding collusion were true (that it can't hold up in the real world), then there would never have been any cases of collusion in the real world, yet we have plenty of examples.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  There is plenty of anti-competitive in the real world (phone companies are a nice example, but Intel and Microsoft have a nice track record too), but in this particular case due to the nature of the material involved it would be extremely hard to collude in the first place and almost impossible to prove that it actually happened if it did. A bunch of guys having dinner and talking over business is not collusion, they call it 'synergy'. Collusion is: "Start-ups X, Y and Z suddenly found that none of the angels present at such and such a dinner would accept deals over <some value> or under <some conditions>." And even then you'd have a very hard time proving that it was because they colluded. Also, how long would it take one of these guys to figure out that if he 'broke' the rule just once that nobody could ever accuse him/her of it and he'd have a surefire winner because that start-up would have found doors closed everywhere else. It simply isn't going to happen, the VC world (especially angel investments) is too competitive (not in the last place due to YC) and too closely watched to get away with any of this.

mahmud 16y ago

Mr McClure's defensive, arrogant, immature rant indicates that a sore spot has been touched. No it doesn't. That's how McClure always comes off in writing. Arrogant and immature, but never defensive. Probably not just in writing .. Don't take my word for it, just navigate to another page on his blog and you will see the same thing. IMO, McClure is to Arrington what Ali G is to Darth Vader. One of them is nasty but fun, the other ..

juliamae 16y ago
Fair enough. Can't say I read his blog. However, he does come across as incredibly manic in writing, which makes it difficult for me to trust him. But I don't know the man at all. Bad blog first impressions.
- GBond 16y ago
  This is just his writing style. He is actually quite normal and super-knowledgeable (especially about lean startup principles) when he presents in person though peppered with the occasional explicits and blunt talk.

m0nty 16y ago

> If they were indeed colluding, do you think any of them would come out and say "mike's right, we are colluding"? And if they weren't colluding, would they say "mike's right, we are colluding"? It's a non-observation to say "they would say that, wouldn't they?" Also, the "sore spot" might be that they have all been accused of massive dishonesty (or actual illegal conduct) and they are, in fact, not guilty. It's still not an illuminating observation.

gilesc 16y ago
Hence "Yes, Mike, I Have Stopped Beating My Wife".

DJN 16y ago

I respectfully disagree. Mike made some serious insinuation of improper behaviour that was targeted at the super angels i.e Dave, Ron et al Dave has every right to discredit it. Especially when Arrington wasn't a participant and Dave was.