11 ms·
Don't read TechCrunch
- npguy 14y agobut is it not important to know what's happening in your space? How will you move in the right direction or pivot right ?
- benologist 14y agoThere are probably much better news sources for most industries.
- daliusd 14y agoI think your clients will say that.
- fmavituna 14y agoI'm pretty sure unless you are a VC, angel or incubator your space is not "startup scene".
- mschaecher 14y agoI agree, don't read techcrunch. Unless you're interested in startups generally. Or if you want to learn about new companies. But really only if you're interested in learning about hot new spaces in trends, yea then it's ok. Or if you want to see what external thought leaders have to say, reading on the weekends is ok. But don't read it for funding. Unless you're looking for funding, then maybe it's ok to read it to help you narrow your investor pitch focus by seeing who is active and wear. But certainly don't read it for product. Yeah, that'd be stupid. Unless, and only unless, you want to see what early adopters who see more new products in a month then most people do in a year have to say about new technology, trends and spaces. On second thought, yea read TechCrunch. Just be a good enough entrepreneur to know that reading or not reading TechCrunch won't make or break your company, and is a really lame scapegoat. The only thing that will make or break your company is you and your idea.
- crumblan 14y agoI think you meant to write > Unless you're interested in startups (that Arrington has a personal stake in) generally. > Or if you want to learn about new companies (that Arrington has a personal stake in). et cetera.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y agoThis to me is the reason not to read TechCrunch (or at least to read it with a healthy dose of scepticism - even more than usual on the internet). I'd expect any aspiring entrepreneur to understand the benefits and trade-offs of the different models for raising funding in the way I'd expect anyone looking for thousands of dollars for anything to understand the strings that are attached to it. The real problem with TechCrunch is that it operates in an unclear space between journalism and PR (even more than usual) which makes everything on there questionable.
- gilli 14y agoHear, hear!
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- at-fates-hands 14y agoAgreed. However, I look at TC as more of a gossip rag than a real tech news blog. When I want some dirt on some startup, I'll read it. When I want something with more substance, I'll read Wired or Ars Technica.
- tzaman 14y agoThere is nothing inherently wrong with reading TC - if nothing else, it gives you a better feeling what your vision/goal might be. With that said, what you need NOT to do is follow it blindly. Use it for what it is: a news medium;
- cdooh 14y agoI've been meaning to stop reading TC, but the question is what do I replace it with? Already read th Verge, Ars Technica...found that TechDirty covers a lot about what I'm concerned with
- hayksaakian 14y agoI've added PandoDaily to my list -- which contains the same sources you've listed.
- tatsuke95 14y agoOnly an opinion, but PandoDaily seems to have adopted the worst parts of TechCrunch. It's practically VC backed advertising.
- cdooh 14y agoI don't want another TC type, I've found I've become tired of hearing who was acquired or who raised how much
- hayksaakian 14y agoi don't really agree with that. while there is overlap with TC in terms of 'heres a flashy new startup,' their general technology articles, tend to be better written and more interesting than TC.
- ayh2 14y agoBetter yet, read only posts that are useful to you. Often thought leaders, IE Mark Suster, would release some tips on TC and reading them can help you become more successful. New companies may also have services that can give you an advantage.
- nikcub 14y agoThe article body doesn't support the headline. A more appropriate title would be the second last line of the post: > It’s good to have context but becoming obsessed and consumed with what TC and other startup blogs and websites report on is problematic. But that would have made the post a whole lot less interesting and click-worthy.
- HannibalLecter 14y agoThis was a garbage article and I am surprised to see that on HN.
- pradeep89 14y agoi see at TC as guide for trends , best practices for start ups, of course there will be challenges, it's upto you, how do you want to handle them, blaming TC or not reading TC you will miss few things man!
- pavanlimo 14y agoI agree TC dishes a lot of rubbish of late. But at the same, the author looks to me like a headline hogger. I'm not really convinced by his reasoning.
- lngric006 14y agoHit the nail on the head...
- Dirlewanger 14y agoHis reasoning is basically "don't read TC because in the times I did read them, I focused too much on them and not my own endeavors...something that's completely MY fault."
- Rulero 14y agoYou've absolutely nailed it! I stopped reading TC a few years ago. However, you made a very interesting point about focusing on your own context and not benchmarking w/ other startups, wise words.
- ridonkuloid 14y agoI stopped reading TC years ago. Was sick of the petulant whining by egomaniacs like Arrington, Tsotsis, and the crown prince of pussies MG Siegler.
- chicagohacker 14y agoMade me lol. Siegler openly admits to lying in the articles he writes.
- brudgers 14y agoI’ve learned that glorifying money raising is a massive mistake This, in my opinion, is what the metaphor of not reading TechCrunch stands in for. Each article celebrating a round of fundraising has a backstory about an entrepreneur who has less ownership of their company. Often that backstory is that they have less or even no control. Jobs took outside funding. Gates did not. Both acted like jerks in the 80's. But nobody could fire Gates because nobody had the shares to bring in an outside CEO to Microsoft. Fundraising is a two edged sword. It should often be accompanied by both congratulations and condolances.
- michaelochurch 14y agoJobs took outside funding. Gates did not. Both acted like jerks in the 80's. But nobody could fire Gates because nobody had the shares to bring in an outside CEO to Microsoft. Jobs got the best kind of getting fired possible, though. He walked away with half a billion dollars, which let him do whatever the fuck he wanted with the rest of his life. I've never had a job where I wouldn't resign on the spot a $500 million (or, fuck, even $5 million) severance check. I can't imagine that it being "my" company would change that. Once a company is large enough, it doesn't really belong to one person anymore. The reality of business is that, as the thing grows, the Iron Law of Oligarchy kicks in and it becomes less "yours". That happens regardless of capitalization structure. Complex entitles are just not, under normal circumstances, controllable by one person. The bad deal is when you take money for the business (i.e. not personally) and lose control.
- brudgers 14y ago"That happens regardless of capitalization structure." Analysts, pudits, and others with a keyboard and an IP address have been calling for Ballmer's head for years. In vain, because Ballmer is the second largest shareholder after Gates. Capital structure matters a great deal.
- michaelochurch 14y agoIt does, because having a small percentage of the equity accelerates the pace at which the thing becomes "not yours". My only point is that it's almost impossible to grow a complex entity to the point of "bigness" and retain total control. The Iron Law of Oligarchy sets in. Even if you are a CEO with total control, there are information problems that limit your true power. Sure, you have lieutenants who will furnish you with the answer to any question you desire-- biased and dishonest information. I heard someone once say that the hardest thing about being a CEO is that "everyone is fucking lying to you" and that sounds about right. I would add "... and wants your job" to that. People talk about "giving up control" as if it were a loss. Even if I built the business from the ground up, I'd rather have control of my life than the business. $10 million would mean that I own my life instead of renting it from a boss. Selling control of a corporate entity and code for someone else's use is easily worth that, from my perspective. I now own my life, you now own (partially) a couple years of my work... seems like a fair trade to me.
- jmedwards 14y agoI get the feeling that this is a really extreme piece of advice, perhaps made so to make a punchy Hacker News headline (or simply out of being fed up!). I believe that everyone regardless should read widely and as widely as possible, but for entrepreneurs and technologists I believe it is part of the job description, too. Extremes are almost never the right thing. If you're fat, is it best to cut out all fats from your diet? No. If you're info-overloaded, is it best to cut yourself off from the Internet? No. If you're interested in startups, should you read TechCrunch and forget everything else? No! If you're feeling a bit too tied up with keeping-up anxiety from following slightly glorified versions of other startups' progress, is it best to cut yourself from what can be a useful and valuable source of content? I say no - just moderate and keep it broad and wide, like everything else in life.
- chmike 14y agoWhat applies to the OP doesn't apply to everybody. The benefits of reading techcrunch depends on what your interrests are. The reason raising money is such a dominant info is because it is considered as an indirect proof of business soundness. What other objectivable info could be you use for that ? Regarding a problem of focussing and keeping delivering, TechCrunch can't be blamed for that.
- brador 14y agoDon't read Techcrunch, but still want to keep up with tech news? Try http://skimfeed.com http://skimfeed.com. You'll get a broad overview of the days tech news, without the fluff or bias of an individual news site.
- znowi 14y agoHN front page does it for me :) Anything that is worth of a note will get there.
- brador 14y agoYou'd be surprised how much of a filter bubble HN is. Unknown unknowns...
- Karunamon 14y agoCouldn't you say that of any site though? If you're getting most of your news from a single source...
- brador 14y agoKinda, which is why it's your job as reader to expand the scope of your reading material.
- znowi 14y agoIt is, though it's significantly diffused compared to other news outlets where editorial policy is defined by one or a few key people.
- jff 14y agoThank you for that blatant advertisement for your site! Am I the only person who downvotes the most blatant self-promotion on sight?
- brador 14y ago
- aravindc 14y agoExactly. A few of my posts on HN on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4852081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4852081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3538189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3538189 - that was an year ago!
- michaelochurch 14y agoMy problem with TechCrunch (which I don't read regularly, because reading about unqualified hucksters getting $8-million acq-hire welfare checks for IUsedThisToilet apps is not going to improve my life) is that it seems like an attempt to create the old, broken social regime within the new one. Instead of focusing on potential, it seems to document the whims of these wizard-priests called "venture capitalists" who, as a class, don't seem to be doing better than they would if they selected startups randomly. For example, if you think velvet-rope parties at SxSW are a good thing, you're not a technologist and you don't belong in this century. Technologists want to make the world inclusive and prosperous, not exclusive and shitty.
- recycleme 14y ago> Technologists want to make the world inclusive and prosperous, not exclusive and shitty. People will be people and technologists are no different. I have no doubt you will find some that want to be exclusive.
- ececconi 14y agoWasn't facebook started on the idea that people wanted an exclusive place to share information with "college kids"?
- SkyMarshal 14y agoMore accurately, that 'college kids' wanted an exclusive place to share information with 'college kids'. 'College kids' initially meaning 'Harvard students'.
- ececconi 14y agoNice
- caseysoftware 14y agoI have nothing against TechCrunch but if that's your main news source on startups, you have a problem. I attend a lot of entrepreneur events, Startup Weekends, etc and one of the common threads is the navel-gazing or me-too startups. If I have to sit through yet another "social sharing for X" or "group-curated Y" presentation, I'm going to kill someone. They focus on the follow-on startups and think "because so-and-so did it, I can too!" instead of actually looking at the problem and trying to understand it. They appear to be startups for startups sake. If you read TechCrunch as if it's the center of the world, it's easy to get into that mindset. Instead what you have to realize that it is a tiny piece of the whole world and will never cover 99.99% of the startups out there who are solving major life-changing, make-everyone-rich sorts of problems. Go out, kick ass, and don't worry about what that 0.001% of the world is up to.
- znowi 14y agoI don't. For a while now. And advise the same.
- vijayr 14y agoAre there better alternatives to TC - without drama, fluff etc? Mashable is not good, RWW is just okay.
- theklub 14y agoI stopped reading it when Mike A got all dramatic and made it all about himself. Haven't gone back but I'd imagine it can't be any worse than it was then.
- npguy 14y agoWrote a Response here - http://statspotting.com/2012/12/read-techcrunch-daily/ http://statspotting.com/2012/12/read-techcrunch-daily/
- simonswords82 14y agoI agree with this so much I upvoted this post before I even read the article
- MojoJolo 14y agoI'm reading TechCrunch regularly before entering the startup scene. Nowadays, I'm not reading it like before. TechCrunch may provide misleading information for some. But when you're in a "startup" situation, you know will know what is right and what to believe in. On other side, TechCrunch may mislead you, but they can be a good source of inspiration. They are talking about acquisitions, fundings, and successes. Why not use them as your inspiration? Strive hard, to achieve those.
- ndemoor 14y agoI only read TC when their linkbait titles end up on the frontpage of HN. Stopped following their feed, once I came to the same conclusion as the OP: being overly funded is (almost) the only way to go get featured on TC, these days. The times of roaming the edges of startup-land and posting about the nitty gritty startup struggles are long forgotten.
- tetomb 14y agoBesides the conflict of interest, I find the fact that a significant portion of their articles are about themselves, or other tech journalists, extremely irritating. Like when a documentary is about the filmaker making the documentary instead of the subject matter. I wish people weren't so obsessed with celebrity.
- matte2 14y agoThose were the days when the news was about the startup itself, not the financial value of it. We are living in a time where companies are valued by their annual turnovers instead of profits. So, totally agree to what he says, don't read TechCrunch. Focus on your startup, the value you provide and the profit you make.
- scottmagdalein 14y agoI don't read TechCrunch because it's not worth reading. It's not helpful to me. It may be helpful to others. Although TC sometimes feels like a tech-tabloid, I do believe it serves a better purpose.
- tferris 14y agoReading TC (or any other startup related resource) is kind of procrastination. It's not bad, you get kind of a feeling of the market but usually if just relying on those sources you are too late to the party and it's stops you from doing stuff yourself. You should - do, build stuff 80% of your working day, - meet other likeminded people 15% of your working day, - and read online resources like this one 5% (TC is rather one of the bad ones)
- vbo 14y agoI suspect reading TC and the like satisfies ones entrepreneurial drive through a false sense of being "in the game" and actually leads to less (or no) effort being put into building something. I've noticed this on myself in the past as well as on others that seem so keen to read and share entrepreneurial howtos, know all the dos and donts but ultimately end up being evangelists for entrepreneurship and not taking it up themselves. I stick to HN these days and tend to ignore the various YC stories unless the company in question appears to be doing something cool. OTOH, I'm sure the startup news buzz can be useful in the short term, but I suspect long-term (ab)use of these blogs just bums people out (and leads to anxiety and a feeling of being unfit for the scene if you haven't raised millions and were featured on TC). The focus on funding is also artificial and serves not the hacker but the VCs (it's also more glamorous and fit for pop-culture blogs).
- zipop 14y agoThe only reason I read (skim) TC is to get a feel for what's hot. That's it.
- rwbt 14y agoI've stopped reading many of the Aol blogs. HuffPo, TC, Engadget etc., Never liked HuffPo, but I remember Engadget and TC used to be very good.
- sharkweek 14y agoPretty great documentary called Page One on Netflix about the NYTimes that has some running commentary on modern journalism. There's a clip with David Simon (The Wire creator, former editor of the Baltimore Sun) arguing with Ariana Huffington about the legitimacy of HuffPo's encroaching empire.
- rwbt 14y agoThanks for the tip. Will watch it.
- danielrm26 14y agoIf he'd read Techcrunch he would have read about Cloudflare and Varnish and other things that keep his site up during HN/Reddit appearances.
- jonathanjaeger 14y agoHa
- ChrisNorstrom 14y agoLong ago I was such a heavy Tech Crunch reader that I was in the top 5 most liked commenters (below MG and Arrington) back when they still used Disqus. http://i.imgur.com/1lgnC.png http://i.imgur.com/1lgnC.png Yep that's me. I was in deep. TC is both good & bad and a LOT of things to different people: 1) TC is for people who dream about becoming entrepreneurs and are seeking reasons or a "push" to motivate themselves to finally dive in. 2) It's a platform for validation and lifestyle glorification (what Fox News is to Republican party). It can lead to both encouragement and ignorance. It's highly Silicon Valley oriented and its addicted readers are mostly wanna-be-entrepreneurs (myself included, no shame here) who wish they were in Silicon Valley working on a startup. The same way celebrity wanna-bes browse celebrity sites all day, wantrepreneurs (like me) would browse Hacker News, Tech Crunch, Digg, and (the old) Reddit. Even though you couldn't be there in "the action" you could read about it and pretend and daydream. Pathetic but hey, emotions are emotions. 3) After a certain amount of time Tech Crunch becomes unhealthy for you. It portrays an extremely unrealistic view of startups, companies, and success. And ingores everything else. Because failure is a journey that can lead to success and all things by default fail, glorifying success is damaging to entrepreneurs. TC is great for initial motivation but afterwords if you don't let go of it you'll start to take on its unhealthy attitude towards business. It's like getting a 12 year old fashion loving girl a subscription to Vogue, it might be encouraging at first but if she falls in too deep she'll start taking on Vogue's obsessions. Before you know it she'll be 40 pounds underweight, with bleached blonde hair, and $12,000 worth of shoes. 4) TC over-rewards VC funded startups and ignores inventors, designers, hackers, projects, bootstrapping, and non web businesses. To Techcrunch, success is getting funded or acquired. It focuses on the end-product not the journey. And for entreprenuers that's just a trap for perpetual day-dreaming. Fantasizing about success without ever working towards it. 5) TC is also a status symbol and oligarchy. OMG you got on TC!!! Holy Shit you're going to get so many users and VCs are going to call you and your server might crash... Piss off Arrington and you'll never be on TC. To be on Tech Crunch means you have been approved and accepted by an elite group of Silicon Valley journalists who can make you famous. Once Arrington & friends left after the AOL aquisition there was no more elite group to seek validation and fame from. TC went downhill in popularity and visitors. I feel like TC was initially designed for investors with its generic "who got funded" articles but was later re-purposed as a lifestyle glorifier. Which lead to a jump in traffic, Arrington becoming the Godfather of Silicon Valley reporting. And TC transitioned into a fame-machine. Got acquired by AOL. Arrington left, friends followed. No more elites, just a news site now. FYI: I left TC long ago when I outgrew it. The initial encouragement wore off & I wasn't getting anything out of it. I've started outgrowing Hacker News as well. I finally dove in, risked $2,000 made my first 2 products, and am selling them on Ebay. http://www.ebay.com/sch/purplevioletka/m.html?item=330829651471&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d06fbde0f&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562 http://www.ebay.com/sch/purplevioletka/m.html?item=330829651... (shameless link)
- massarog 14y agoAgreed. 95% of the stories on TC are about fundraising.
- thedroidguy 14y agoI think your blog post is a great piece on why to stay focused but there was really nothing to back your arguments other than staying focused. To that end, it would apply to any blog site, don't waste your time reading blogs when you should be working on your startup. It inherently has nothing to do with TechCrunch
- lackiem 14y agoStopped reading it awhile ago. It doesn't portray the reality for most startups and tech companies and I think gives the wrong impression that you need to be heavily funded to be successful.
- rhokstar 14y agoI boycotted TechCrunch for two reasons: 1) Quality of journalism degraded 2) Michael Arrington sold TC
- arbuge 14y agoAs somebody who's been pretty successful with fundraising, I can relate... the only things that matter are customers and revenue, and fundraising is just one tool to get there. Necessary for some business models, admittedly, but there's many business models you can choose from.
- oisino 14y ago100% on point.. No one has ever gone down the exact same path your going down. What works might not work again and what never works might work once..
- melvinmt 14y agoI stopped reading TC a long time ago for all the reasons mentioned plus their site is so full of widgets, it keeps crashing on my iPad 1 (not a lot of sites accomplish that, well done TC). I also like to avoid Pandodaily as much as possible. Is there a HN extension that can filter out these submissions for me?
- jonathanjaeger 14y agoThey have some great marketing and business guest posts by Mark Suster, James Alutcher, Nir Eyal, and several others. A little entertainment with the occasional insightful post isn't the worst thing. Just ignore the many posts on funding and you won't have AS much distortion.
- paultannenbaum 14y agoAt first, I thought this was someone under the svbtle network. Then I realized it was a lame ripoff wordpress theme. Whats even worse is that a company, obox themes, is selling this ripoff for $60 a copy, and claiming they came up with the clean minimialistic design.
- adrian_pop 14y agoAs recaptcha.net says: stop TC, read books.
- GameOfTrolls 14y agoI stopped reading TechCrunch after my startup got funded by valley VC's. Thanks TC.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoI'll just point out here that nobody holds a gun to people's head and says "Read TechCrunch, or else!" Think about that. Complaining about the content of Techcrunch is akin to complaining about how pornography portrays women. In both cases they are low barrier to entry markets, with a group think driven customer base. TechCrunch is the way it is, because it gets the most page views that way. If it starts deviating off that path into the kind of content 'you' (and by you I mean the critical thoughtful reader) might like, well it is quickly corrected by the connoisseurs of startup porn. TechCrunch has no more control over the editorial direction of the web site than the Government accounting office has over the budget. Phil Lemmons used to run Byte magazine, waaaay back, and it was the 'cool' computer magazine that was above it all. Except it was slipping into becoming a magazine about the IBM PC and its compatibles. I complained, others complained, there was a unity of concern. I got to talk with Phil at the Byte Magazine booth at the Comdex show in Las Vegas and he explained that editorial control was a slippery thing. You could push against the 'bulk' of what people wanted to read but you couldn't push so hard that you left that audience behind, to do so was certain death, so he spent his time putting in enough PC articles to keep the 'bulk' and the other articles to keep the 'faithful'. It was an interesting balancing act. A web site like TechCrunch is in an even more precarious position, people don't even pay to subscribe. So they are very much at risk of losing their readership if they stray too far from what they want. They can try to lead them, but ultimately they are at the mercy of their readers. What this means is that complaining about Techcrunch's Editorial direction is not as powerful as starting your own web site (or patronizing one you like) which is more to your liking.
- anthonys 14y agoTC is now just a series of re-written press releases with very little in the way of opinion. The opinion is still there, just to a lesser extent and is camouflaged but all of the other copy they post. I still give it a look every couple of days to make sure I haven't missed anything but I certainly don't value it the same as I used to when the old team were there.
- freework 14y agoI used to work for a company that got Tech Crunched every few weeks. We had lots of money in funding, but had practically zero traction. And our 'app' was pretty much smoke and mirrors. There were a handful of competitors that I felt had a much better product, yet we were the ones who always had articles on TC... Makes you wonder. I don't work for that company any more, but when I did, I suspected that our CEO was paying TC to promote us, or something of that nature.
- stevewillows 14y agoTechCrunch is like People Magazine. Old Arrington was entertaining, but let's be real about it -- it's just a regular news site that hit on some key points for a niche market.
- ErikAugust 14y ago"when douglas crockford went to paypal, they churned out their normal thin tosh, but topping it off: thinking java and javascript are the same thing (since been corrected)." - from Chris, one of the commenters. Damn. That's pretty inexcusable!
- habosa 14y agohttp://techcrunch.com/2012/05/13/paypal-gets-its-own-share-of-the-yahoo-diaspora-hires-java-icon-douglas-crockford/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/13/paypal-gets-its-own-share-o... URL still says Java even.
- sounds231 14y ago...This is the second Java/Javascript mixup I've seen on TC in the last two days. The first one was here - http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/30/why-enterprise-apps-are-moving-to-single-page-design/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/30/why-enterprise-apps-are-mov.... The third subheading originally read "Transitioning Developers From HTML To Java." The worst part? These two articles aren't even by the same author. So TechCrunch has multiple writers that don't know the difference.
- ErikAugust 14y agoDamn. That's a bit nutty. So they obviously don't hire devs-turn-journalists. Probably cost too much.
- dquail 14y agoI think the comment should be "don't believe techcrunch" ... rather than "don't read techcrunch" There's a lot of value in keeping a pulse of what's going on. But you need a filter ...
- pbreit 14y agoTechCrunch has mostly good writers, gets many stories first and writes about topics germane to the tech startup community. I'm guessing most of the hate is driven by distrust or dislike of leaders. Raising money is not remotely and end result but is clearly an important milestone for a growing business.
- drudru11 14y agoI used to read it when it started. They used to only have about 5 articles a day, and then only post the next day. Once they removed that limit I stopped. I use that filter on most sites except for HN.
- chris123 14y agoTC died when AOL bought it (AOL kills all things it touches) and the @Arrington left.