Crunchies Winners: Twitter Takes Best Startup Of 2010 | Hacker News Reader

Crunchies Winners: Twitter Takes Best Startup Of 2010

techcrunch.com

47 pointsEJE33 comments

These would have been far more interesting if they focused on newer, less established companies and products. Everyone already knows exactly what Twitter, Facebook, and the iPad are and no one cares if they win awards.

What I was thinking when I read the title "Uhh, twitter didn't start in 2010".

A well established company (IE surviving the first 3 years where most companies fail miserably) is not a startup. It may behave as one, it may act as one, but if it doesn't have the massive impending doom of simply being a brand spanking new company, then it's not a start up.

By the logic demonstrated here, I vote for best startup for 2011 to be Apple.

Maybe they use AOL's perspective of what a "startup" is.

One wonders if General Motors qualifies as a startup or product by their definition. They've put out a cool piece of technology (the Volt) even.

There were separate categories for "best new startup or product" (winner: Quora) and "best overall product or startup". I personally agree that the best new startup is more interesting and would make a better headline for the announcement.

Techcrunch is about fostering and nurturing the growth of Arringtons ego. If he can focus on all the people who really do technology and are already successful, then he can feel like he is important and part of the scene.

Just like how he invited himself to the angelgate meetings and was greeting with a nice helping of "please god, not this fucking guy" yet referred to all of them as his "close friends"

Sure Disrupt is a good platform for startups and tech to launch, but seriously looking at the quality of their hosts, and all the article after article postings on TC that are riddled with mistakes, spelling errors, grammar errors etc, one cant take them too seriously.

It is ego factory, nothing more.

Awards for startups seem silly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzPfKI4b-dg#t=4m27s

Awards in general are silly.

I don't think awards should be the end goal, but they do serve a purpose. For instance, most people on here probably wouldn't have heard about Liu Xiaobo, well atleast before he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Having the backing of prestigious award such as Nobel Prize will only bolster his cause; he's in prison. Increase financial and political support is not silly at all.

For scientist, this might mean that they wouldn't have to fight as hard to get funding from people who don't understand their research. The people who don't understand research understand awards, so it can be used as a proxy to make judgement.

You don't need an award for any of those things. The award recognizes the accomplishment only to those who cannot understand it. That's why it's silly. But there are other ways to recognize their achievements... like understanding what they did and why it's important. Yes in an ideal world it should be unnecessary...

Wow. That video was wonderful.

I've been feeling down in the dumps all day, depressed about life in general, and I've just discovered thanks to you that watching videos of Richard Feynmann cheer me up. Thank you.

I have trouble watching them because they always make me feel like I'm wasting my life :-(

"And then all of a sudden some strange phenomenon occurs in a corner."

That give me hope. :)

Doesn't it seem somewhat passe to give the award to someone as well-established as Twitter?

Well Facebook had won it for the past 3 years (which happens to be every other year the Crunchies have existed), so I wouldn't say it's that unexpected.

of course ... it's called generating traffic.

Just as much I guess as giving a Person of the Year award to a guy who's startup hit the mainstream years ago.

I think it's ironic 37Signals is listed under the Best Enterprise category.

Agreed. Context for anyone that may have missed it:

http://twitter.com/#!/dhh/status/27434483292573696

and second place went to Microsoft

I hear IBM came third. (At 99 years old they squeaked in). They almost had as much revenue as Apple in 2010. Nintendo (at 123 years old) is no longer a startup and is no longer eligible.

Damn you, sir! You sent me on an awesome trip looking around for the oldest companies.

Few are older than a few centuries, most are Japanese (others are European), small and restaurants, hotels or breweries. All are fascinating.

I too have undertaken this trip in the past. A fascinating journey, albeit one to avoid while you face pressing deadlines. :)

I really think they need to define 'startup'. I don't think that word means what they think it means...

original title was for PG/Y Combinator as "Angel Investor of the Year", but the title was changed...

it changed automatically

Kinect didn't win best device? How disappointing, since it was the only actually novel thing on there.

Well deserved. If it weren't for PG and YC, I wouldn't know half of what I've learned as a result of stumbling onto Hacker News.

Why did the title of this thread change since I've left my original comment, which was in regards to PG and YC winning Angels of the Year?

Wife said to me this morning, "Wait, didn't you sign up for Twitter in like 2007? They're not a startup!"

I'm sorry, but WHAT?!?!

1) They are not a startup. They're over 4 years old. They have officially passed the starting phase

2) They have not monetized since graduating into the big boy businesses phase. Riding the coattails of VC's for years with no clear plan to reach profitability is not business

3) They are instable as hell. They crash nearly everyday, with millions of dollars in the bank, hundreds of engineers working for them, and 4 years of development under their belt, and they have a frickin meme because of how instable they are

4) They've stopped innovating. Nothing new has come from twitter in the last 2+ years other than their API. 140 character messages, we get it.

Blatant buzz word fanboyism is still running amok apparently.

I'm going to do something I dislike and play devil's advocate. You're not the only one here saying that Twitter is no startup, and while I agree with that assessment to a certain extent, you've pretty much described a startup with your points. A startup is no longer considered being a startup if they become profitable (twitter isn't), is acquired or merges into another entity (twitter hasn't) or becomes public (which twitter hasn't either).

Is twitter a startup? Yes. Would giving the prize to some other company be more interesting? Definitely. These competitions are often not fair, but honestly, who are we to judge?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com