3 ms·

Same for the title. It's unsubstantiated. There are reorgs, but nothing in the article confirms that G+ is dead.

by aragot 12y ago

001sky 12y ago
The suspect <insert statement>, it is alleged. Nobody needs this explained to them. Similarly, I doubt anyone needs "walking dead" =|= "dead-dead" explained to them as a logical inequality. But if you do...here's an example for reference. Unless a firm has publicly announced that it is winding down, it is better to avoid labeling a fund as “walking dead.” Tagging a fund in this way has consequences. As in the case above, it can impact deal flow as companies seeking funding may think twice about approaching a firm believed to be in that category. It can hurt a firm’s prospects of being invited into syndicates and even potentially damage a firm’s existing syndicates. It can jeopardize relationships with current and prospective LPs if a forthcoming fund is even a notion among the firm’s GPs. Finally, and perhaps most troubling of all, it can even damage the prospects of portfolio companies backed by these supposed walking dead VCs. https://jonathantower.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/time-to-rethink-walking-dead-vc-firms/ https://jonathantower.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/time-to-rethi... Google clearly has skin in the game here if this narrative means that they will lose engineering talent from G+. Techcrunch clearly has skin in the game here as a scoop is equal to eyeballs. Luckily, google has PRs that make 10x what tech-crunch writers make. So surely any needed corrections will make there way through the noize. That being said, it would be great to keep the comments clean of superflous tit-for-tat inuendo accusations when the undelying conflicts of interest are pretty apparent and not overly subtle. Countering inuendo with facts seems plenty enough to counter-spin any un-substantiated points. And the original point here stands well enough alone. Don;t disrefard the TC qualification about the office relocation. That is a fair point and stands by itself--no drama needed.

Same for the title. It's unsubstantiated. There are reorgs, but nothing in the article confirms that G+ is dead.

by aragot 12y ago

Same for the title. It's unsubstantiated. There are reorgs, but nothing in the article confirms that G+ is dead.

The suspect <insert statement>, it is alleged. Nobody needs this explained to them. Similarly, I doubt anyone needs "walking dead" =|= "dead-dead" explained to them as a logical inequality. But if you do...here's an example for reference. Unless a firm has publicly announced that it is winding down, it is better to avoid labeling a fund as “walking dead.” Tagging a fund in this way has consequences. As in the case above, it can impact deal flow as companies seeking funding may think twice about approaching a firm believed to be in that category. It can hurt a firm’s prospects of being invited into syndicates and even potentially damage a firm’s existing syndicates. It can jeopardize relationships with current and prospective LPs if a forthcoming fund is even a notion among the firm’s GPs. Finally, and perhaps most troubling of all, it can even damage the prospects of portfolio companies backed by these supposed walking dead VCs. https://jonathantower.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/time-to-rethink-walking-dead-vc-firms/ https://jonathantower.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/time-to-rethi... Google clearly has skin in the game here if this narrative means that they will lose engineering talent from G+. Techcrunch clearly has skin in the game here as a scoop is equal to eyeballs. Luckily, google has PRs that make 10x what tech-crunch writers make. So surely any needed corrections will make there way through the noize. That being said, it would be great to keep the comments clean of superflous tit-for-tat inuendo accusations when the undelying conflicts of interest are pretty apparent and not overly subtle. Countering inuendo with facts seems plenty enough to counter-spin any un-substantiated points. And the original point here stands well enough alone. Don;t disrefard the TC qualification about the office relocation. That is a fair point and stands by itself--no drama needed.