6 ms·

This is terrible, worse than people speculating about Steve Jobs' health, as an example of how low folks in our industry can go. (I know they're unrelated but t

by zhyder 18y ago

This is terrible, worse than people speculating about Steve Jobs' health, as an example of how low folks in our industry can go. (I know they're unrelated but the 2 evoke the same emotions in me.) I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well, but I still can't understand those that threatened or spat on him. Michael, I hope you return to regular writing after Feb, but if you don't, thanks for all the great work so far.

axod 18y ago
I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but "I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well" I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day. Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely false. I think they do a great job in the main though.
- jaspertheghost 18y ago
  I don't think it's TC own doing. It might be a result of mismanaging TC's community, but I think it's largely disgruntled entrepreneurs that don't get press coverage.
- litewulf 18y ago
  I've had three things I've worked on get posted to TC, and it was totally useless. Traffic had minimal stickiness (lots of clicks to the frontpage and nothing else), and when I think about my behavior when I read TC, it definitely makes sense. And yet, for all of those startups, getting the TC story was a milestone of sorts. Its like getting your first hundred users, it doesn't define your success or failure outright, but its a big psychological hurdle I think.
  - froo 18y ago
    but its a big psychological hurdle I think. Completely agree, something I was involved in was on wired last year (twice) and I must admit it was a good feeling, but thats about it. If anyone sees getting on TechCrunch as the goal of their startup rather than using it as a tool that can help them reach your goal, they have probably already failed - they just don't know it yet.
  - rantfoil 18y ago
    Our experience has been contrary to what others have said about minimal stickiness -- Techcrunch coverage has precipitated blog coverage and attention that each time has resulted in a new bar for traffic and retention. -- YMMV Regardless of how valuable TechCrunch is to us or any other startup, the fact remains that violence and threats of violence against bloggers is utterly unjustifiable. People act like Michael Arrington owes them something, and that's the fundamental problem underpinning the latest attacks.
    - litewulf 18y ago
      If I had to guess, sites targeted at the early-adopter-techy crowd probably do far better after being reported on TechCrunch than things targeted at say recent parents (or your niche market of choice). In any case, yes, threats and violence are not cool in any way. I was just commenting on the effect that TechCrunch has on the community as a whole, which I don't think is all that huge. Its more a place to read about startup news, and can be solved by simply subscribing to something else in your RSS reader of choice.
    - dasil003 18y ago
      I think that's just luck of the draw. If your startup is good enough for TC to precipitate mass blog coverage, than I imagine it would have worked the other way around had TC not covered it early. In any case, I think fighting for press coverage is stupid. Press coverage is not going to make people use your product, and if enough people use your product you are guaranteed coverage. On the other hand, if you want to break into the public consciousness, traditional marketing will help, but there's no point doing that until you know you have a winner on your hands.
- zhyder 18y ago
  No TC coverage is not on the top of the list of things I'm desperate for either. I'm just generally desperate for a lot of things ever since I started up.
  - axod 18y ago
    yup point taken... Press coverage is always nice, but not strictly necessary.
- tlrobinson 18y ago
  This is true. If you don't get far more traffic from other sources than TechCrunch, I think you're doing it wrong.
  - drusenko 18y ago
    not for us. while TC coverage doesn't provide the "instant success" many hope for, it's been by far the largest traffic driver for us compared to any other online press sources, aside from newsweek.com and time.com
- robfitz 18y ago
  if you want users, techcrunch is not much help. if you want adventurous corporate clients or investor awareness, it's top notch.
- webwright 18y ago
  If SEO is anywhere in your strategy, getting a link from TC and the dozens of secondary blogs that parrot their posts is golden. Bloggers read TC. If fundraising is in your future, it's valuable. If credibility is important, it probably helps a touch, too.
tdavis 18y ago
I think it has very little to do with the industry and a lot to do with human nature when provided with the Internet. It's a terrible thing, though completely heard of and quite predictable once someone reaches a certain level of fame. Sure, TC just covers start-ups, but actors just make movies and musicians just make music and people have been spitting on them and giving death threats forever. You just need considerably less fame to attract crazy people online because there are so many more of them.
biohacker42 18y ago
an example of how low folks in our industry can go There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere. It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals. Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous. Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arrington, but I'm guessing not by much. Crazy people by definition do not behave rationally. I'm not sure there is a solution to that beyond, make sure you keep as much of your life as you can secret. The name of the young actress who was killed by her stalker some years ago escapes me, but I think he was able to get her address form the DMV. Arrington can either quit, or keep paying for security, or find a way to keep his office and his home secret.
- xenophanes 18y ago
  I don't see why police couldn't do anything about the dangerous guy intimidating and threatening him. Is serious intimidation really not a crime of any sort?
  - migpwr 18y ago
    They could issue a restraining order but he chose not to do that because it would give the guy specifics about the places he regularly visits and where he lives.
    - xenophanes 18y ago
      I meant why couldn't the police do something effective that would make him safe? isn't that their job?
      - litewulf 18y ago
        What would the police do? Break his legs? (Honestly, it seems the kind of circumstance where I can't really think of anything the police should be able to do to anyone who seems dangerous or "suspicious", because both are very much judgement calls.)
mattmaroon 18y ago
I see nothing at all morally wrong with speculating over Steve's health (though it's often not very useful). Remember that every AAPL owner is a part owner of the company. It's not at all untoward for an investor in the company to want to know what health the CEO is in, especially one thought to be as influential as him, and Jobs has been opaque about it since the beginning. A lot of people have, collectively, over $80b tied up in the company, and they have no idea if the guy running it will live another year or two. When your company goes public, a decision Steve himself made long ago, you know that from then on, what you disclose to owners of the company you effectively disclose to everyone. He knew what he was getting. Speculating as to his health doesn't worsen it or harm him in any way. If anything is immoral, it's Steve's purposely hiding it and even, this year, lying about it.
- xenophanes 18y ago
  Yeah. Health speculation doesn't even really fit on this list: 0) speculation that isn't mean 1) insults and mean rumors 2) spitting 3) death threats
- zhyder 18y ago
  Worrying about his health if you own stock in AAPL is understandable. But there was just something tabloid-like about _how_ people approached it; just didn't feel right.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    How they approached it was due to his blatantly lying about it, in the rare instances in which he addressed it at all. He chose to make it tabloid-like. He could have ended it at any point by simply being upfront. Remember when John McCain had a team of Mayo Clinic doctors examine him and publicly announce the results? It was because he knew that if he were elected, his health was our business. People may have joked about his health, but there wasn't the tabloid-like obsession with digging up dirt. Instead he treated AAPL owners largely with contempt (pretty much the way he treats everyone from the sound of it) by not speaking about it, or saying one day that he's well and a week later that he's not, while 10s of billions of dollars are on the line.

by zhyder 18y ago

axod 18y ago

I agree, it's a sad state of affairs, but "I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well" I don't really get this... startups don't fall or succeed based on tc coverage. It might spike traffic for a day with some geeks. That's all at the end of the day. Seems like some of this is TC's own doing - they have made people believe you have to get techcrunched, or you won't succeed - which is completely false. I think they do a great job in the main though.

jaspertheghost 18y ago
I don't think it's TC own doing. It might be a result of mismanaging TC's community, but I think it's largely disgruntled entrepreneurs that don't get press coverage.
litewulf 18y ago
I've had three things I've worked on get posted to TC, and it was totally useless. Traffic had minimal stickiness (lots of clicks to the frontpage and nothing else), and when I think about my behavior when I read TC, it definitely makes sense. And yet, for all of those startups, getting the TC story was a milestone of sorts. Its like getting your first hundred users, it doesn't define your success or failure outright, but its a big psychological hurdle I think.
- froo 18y ago
  but its a big psychological hurdle I think. Completely agree, something I was involved in was on wired last year (twice) and I must admit it was a good feeling, but thats about it. If anyone sees getting on TechCrunch as the goal of their startup rather than using it as a tool that can help them reach your goal, they have probably already failed - they just don't know it yet.
- rantfoil 18y ago
  Our experience has been contrary to what others have said about minimal stickiness -- Techcrunch coverage has precipitated blog coverage and attention that each time has resulted in a new bar for traffic and retention. -- YMMV Regardless of how valuable TechCrunch is to us or any other startup, the fact remains that violence and threats of violence against bloggers is utterly unjustifiable. People act like Michael Arrington owes them something, and that's the fundamental problem underpinning the latest attacks.
  - litewulf 18y ago
    If I had to guess, sites targeted at the early-adopter-techy crowd probably do far better after being reported on TechCrunch than things targeted at say recent parents (or your niche market of choice). In any case, yes, threats and violence are not cool in any way. I was just commenting on the effect that TechCrunch has on the community as a whole, which I don't think is all that huge. Its more a place to read about startup news, and can be solved by simply subscribing to something else in your RSS reader of choice.
  - dasil003 18y ago
    I think that's just luck of the draw. If your startup is good enough for TC to precipitate mass blog coverage, than I imagine it would have worked the other way around had TC not covered it early. In any case, I think fighting for press coverage is stupid. Press coverage is not going to make people use your product, and if enough people use your product you are guaranteed coverage. On the other hand, if you want to break into the public consciousness, traditional marketing will help, but there's no point doing that until you know you have a winner on your hands.
zhyder 18y ago
No TC coverage is not on the top of the list of things I'm desperate for either. I'm just generally desperate for a lot of things ever since I started up.
- axod 18y ago
  yup point taken... Press coverage is always nice, but not strictly necessary.
tlrobinson 18y ago
This is true. If you don't get far more traffic from other sources than TechCrunch, I think you're doing it wrong.
- drusenko 18y ago
  not for us. while TC coverage doesn't provide the "instant success" many hope for, it's been by far the largest traffic driver for us compared to any other online press sources, aside from newsweek.com and time.com
robfitz 18y ago
if you want users, techcrunch is not much help. if you want adventurous corporate clients or investor awareness, it's top notch.
webwright 18y ago
If SEO is anywhere in your strategy, getting a link from TC and the dozens of secondary blogs that parrot their posts is golden. Bloggers read TC. If fundraising is in your future, it's valuable. If credibility is important, it probably helps a touch, too.

tdavis 18y ago

I think it has very little to do with the industry and a lot to do with human nature when provided with the Internet. It's a terrible thing, though completely heard of and quite predictable once someone reaches a certain level of fame. Sure, TC just covers start-ups, but actors just make movies and musicians just make music and people have been spitting on them and giving death threats forever. You just need considerably less fame to attract crazy people online because there are so many more of them.

biohacker42 18y ago

an example of how low folks in our industry can go There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere. It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals. Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous. Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arrington, but I'm guessing not by much. Crazy people by definition do not behave rationally. I'm not sure there is a solution to that beyond, make sure you keep as much of your life as you can secret. The name of the young actress who was killed by her stalker some years ago escapes me, but I think he was able to get her address form the DMV. Arrington can either quit, or keep paying for security, or find a way to keep his office and his home secret.

xenophanes 18y ago
I don't see why police couldn't do anything about the dangerous guy intimidating and threatening him. Is serious intimidation really not a crime of any sort?
- migpwr 18y ago
  They could issue a restraining order but he chose not to do that because it would give the guy specifics about the places he regularly visits and where he lives.
  - xenophanes 18y ago
    I meant why couldn't the police do something effective that would make him safe? isn't that their job?
    - litewulf 18y ago
      What would the police do? Break his legs? (Honestly, it seems the kind of circumstance where I can't really think of anything the police should be able to do to anyone who seems dangerous or "suspicious", because both are very much judgement calls.)

mattmaroon 18y ago

I see nothing at all morally wrong with speculating over Steve's health (though it's often not very useful). Remember that every AAPL owner is a part owner of the company. It's not at all untoward for an investor in the company to want to know what health the CEO is in, especially one thought to be as influential as him, and Jobs has been opaque about it since the beginning. A lot of people have, collectively, over $80b tied up in the company, and they have no idea if the guy running it will live another year or two. When your company goes public, a decision Steve himself made long ago, you know that from then on, what you disclose to owners of the company you effectively disclose to everyone. He knew what he was getting. Speculating as to his health doesn't worsen it or harm him in any way. If anything is immoral, it's Steve's purposely hiding it and even, this year, lying about it.

xenophanes 18y ago
Yeah. Health speculation doesn't even really fit on this list: 0) speculation that isn't mean 1) insults and mean rumors 2) spitting 3) death threats
zhyder 18y ago
Worrying about his health if you own stock in AAPL is understandable. But there was just something tabloid-like about _how_ people approached it; just didn't feel right.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  How they approached it was due to his blatantly lying about it, in the rare instances in which he addressed it at all. He chose to make it tabloid-like. He could have ended it at any point by simply being upfront. Remember when John McCain had a team of Mayo Clinic doctors examine him and publicly announce the results? It was because he knew that if he were elected, his health was our business. People may have joked about his health, but there wasn't the tabloid-like obsession with digging up dirt. Instead he treated AAPL owners largely with contempt (pretty much the way he treats everyone from the sound of it) by not speaking about it, or saying one day that he's well and a week later that he's not, while 10s of billions of dollars are on the line.