4 ms·

> or some other publication would fill its place. That's what is and has been desirable for a long time.

nl 15y ago
Why? Seriously - there are a number of sites that have attempted this, but none have the influence of TechCrunch. What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?
- jarek 15y ago
  Are you attributing Techcrunch's success to Arrington's style? In other words, are you saying it's necessary to interject drama, shaky ethics, idiocy, and questionable sources when reporting on the startup world to be successful? That doesn't seem very flattering to the startup world.
  - nl 15y ago
    No, I'm disagreeing that he does those things (except perhaps for the questionable sources). I think he reports things that happen, and sometimes those things include drama. Take AngleGate. Was that "injecting drama", or was it reporting an important story? There are lots of things I don't like about TechCrunch (MG's Apple fanboism, Erick's tendency to see everything as a zero-sum game), but I think the hate isn't constructive and goes way too far. As for shaky ethics, idiocy - I think that blogging isn't the same as print media, and the ethics are different to what print media's are. I'm not sure Arrington has them right yet, but I do think there should be a way for him to be a player and still report and offer analysis.
- efsavage 15y ago
  > What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently? Filter the signal from the noise. TC was mostly just an arbitrary filter on the noise, with inscrutable criteria. For quite a stretch there you were only on TC if you were somehow related to Twitter. If anything it's improved on that aspect as Arrington has been less involved (but it's still too noisy for my taste). I never had any problem with TC itself, it's easy enough for me to not read it, my problem was that people seemed to think that it was somehow more important than it really was. Pardon the tautology but it was/is only really ever important to people who thought it was important, like how some celebrities are famous for being famous.
  - nl 15y ago
    Regarding the noise: yes, there are a lot of stories I aren't interested in. The problem is that the stories I'm interested in and the ones you are are probably different. TechCrunch isn't important except as a source for documenting history of tech startups. I find that useful - I think it is good to show how attitudes to Google, Apple and Facebook change over time, and Techcrunch reflects that. It is also important in closing the loop between companies and investors. Beyond those things? I dunno - you are probably right. But that doesn't excuse the hate people seem to have.

nl 15y ago

Why? Seriously - there are a number of sites that have attempted this, but none have the influence of TechCrunch. What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently?

jarek 15y ago
Are you attributing Techcrunch's success to Arrington's style? In other words, are you saying it's necessary to interject drama, shaky ethics, idiocy, and questionable sources when reporting on the startup world to be successful? That doesn't seem very flattering to the startup world.
- nl 15y ago
  No, I'm disagreeing that he does those things (except perhaps for the questionable sources). I think he reports things that happen, and sometimes those things include drama. Take AngleGate. Was that "injecting drama", or was it reporting an important story? There are lots of things I don't like about TechCrunch (MG's Apple fanboism, Erick's tendency to see everything as a zero-sum game), but I think the hate isn't constructive and goes way too far. As for shaky ethics, idiocy - I think that blogging isn't the same as print media, and the ethics are different to what print media's are. I'm not sure Arrington has them right yet, but I do think there should be a way for him to be a player and still report and offer analysis.
efsavage 15y ago
> What is it exactly you think these sites should do differently? Filter the signal from the noise. TC was mostly just an arbitrary filter on the noise, with inscrutable criteria. For quite a stretch there you were only on TC if you were somehow related to Twitter. If anything it's improved on that aspect as Arrington has been less involved (but it's still too noisy for my taste). I never had any problem with TC itself, it's easy enough for me to not read it, my problem was that people seemed to think that it was somehow more important than it really was. Pardon the tautology but it was/is only really ever important to people who thought it was important, like how some celebrities are famous for being famous.
- nl 15y ago
  Regarding the noise: yes, there are a lot of stories I aren't interested in. The problem is that the stories I'm interested in and the ones you are are probably different. TechCrunch isn't important except as a source for documenting history of tech startups. I find that useful - I think it is good to show how attitudes to Google, Apple and Facebook change over time, and Techcrunch reflects that. It is also important in closing the loop between companies and investors. Beyond those things? I dunno - you are probably right. But that doesn't excuse the hate people seem to have.