3 ms·
There should be a "techcrunch" that reviews sites with numbers/features that speak for themselves instead of the bull* publicity process that now occurs.
by imsteve 19y ago
There should be a "techcrunch" that reviews sites with numbers/features that speak for themselves instead of the bull* publicity process that now occurs.
- Kaizyn 19y agoGreat idea. What would the site's revenue model be if not taking money from startups to hype their offerings?
- mattmaroon 19y agoYou don't pay to be featured in TechCrunch.
- imsteve 19y agoYou pay, one way or another, to get publicity - it's not automatically a result of success or innovation - which is what many regular people think it is. And this is why it sucks.
- pg 19y agoThis already exists: it's called the print media. It's easy to write about startups once they have numbers. The catch is, they may not have meaningful numbers for months. What makes Techcrunch unique is how early it judges startups: often the very day they launch. At that point there are no numbers, only features, and features don't speak for themselves. Considering how hard it is to judge startups that early, it's surprising Techcrunch isn't wrong more often.
- imsteve 19y agowrong.