On To Google Ventures | Hacker News Reader

On To Google Ventures

parislemon.com

48 pointsssclafani48 comments

That people have these sorts of ties/influences seems challenging at best and unprofessional at least.

I do not believe you can make a product successful by driving rage views to the sign-up page. I do not believe you can make a product successful, as an investor, when you have such a polarizing influence on people. I don't know what that means for Google Ventures and I don't know what that means for MG Siegler. So that leaves me perplexed on this move in general.

That leaves me wondering what the angle is.

Crunchfund breakup? Propaganda piece muzzled? Impact mitigation? Arrington payback? Lots of questions and no answers.

And why does the tech industry tolerate reporters as investors? Do Hollywood Agents write for the Hollywood Reporter? Do wall street bankers report on news on CNBC? Do FDA administrators write articles about the biotech companies?

FWIW, Mike Moritz at Sequoia was a tech reporter before he became a VC.

Wall Street bankers appear on the news on CNBC all the time.

As interview targets, not reporters :-)

A lot of them blur the line. They're regulars and specialize in certain topics, especially on Bloomberg. I've always appreciated it myself.

MG Siegler is quite clearly not a reporter anymore. He's a venture capitalist and he writes infrequent opinion pieces on Apple and Google products for TechCrunch.

He was also one of the most respected columnists at both VentureBeat and TechCrunch before moving to investing. I imagine that funds like to work with him because his journalism career has enabled him to do years of on-the-ground research on the direction that the technology sector is growing and who's doing interesting work in it.

From his posting: "As for my writing… I wouldn’t expect much to change. I’ll still be writing columns for TechCrunch and I’ll still be writing here and elsewhere as time permits."

Now its one thing for someone like Fred Wilson to have a blog [1] where he opines about technology as Fred Wilson, VC. Its something different to have Techcrunch opining about the tech industry as seen by their reporter MG Siegler[2].

[1] http://www.avc.com/

[2] http://techcrunch.com/author/mg-siegler/ (presumably being updated as we type)

I think part of the problem is that we still like to think of 'journalists' and 'reporters' as well defined concepts based on their historical nature. In an age where the barriers to entry for starting a blog or news source are nil we're going to have to expect that not only will there will be some blurring of the lines but that some of the old well trodden concepts we've become accustomed to are going to have to change.

I think MG Siegler has not only outstanding insight into the ecosystem of startups (his track record of identifying companies that are going to get traction is pretty good), he also has the ability to communicate.

Investors come from all over the place - look at Marc Andreessen, another investor who also writes and opines on a broad range of topics (If you think Siegler is opinionated, go see what Marc has to say about the New York Times)

I think this is a great move for Google Ventures, and a great move for Siegler.

But, Marc Andreessen has actually done things before. Siegler hasn't (so far as I can tell) actually produced something of value other than his writing (which is, based on this discussion alone, of questionable value).

If Siegler had built something like Mosaic, or Netscape, or really, anything, it would be a different discussion.

just because you're good at one thing, doesn't mean you're good at everything.

Marc has a terrible record as an entrepreneur and director.

1. Netscape = crushed by Microsoft

2. Loudcloud = six years as a publicly traded company. ZERO profit[1].

3. Ning = raised $119M. crashed and burned (acquired by glam)[2].

4. HP = "he's been there since HP's recent descent into chaos: firing CEO Mark Hurd, hiring Leo Apotheker, the $11 billion Autonomy acquisition debacle, firing Apotheker, hiring Meg Whitman, and the accusation that HP found $5 billion of alleged fraud on Autonomy's books. Last month two HP board members stepped down and Ray Lane resigned his chairmanship after they were almost ousted directly by shareholders at the company's annual meeting. Shareholders slapped Andreessen's wrist, too. Thirty percent voted to fire him."[3]

[1]http://www.siliconbeat.com/2009/06/17/the-curious-case-of-ma...

[2]http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20002611-36.html

[3]http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-loves-meg-whi...

But there's at least some proof that you're able to do something. With Siegler, there isn't proof that he's able to do something.

I'm not saying Andreessen is good at everything, all I'm saying is that he's done something before.

Then explain Michael Moritz's success.

The companies he's founded have done pretty darn well for shareholders though. Netscape was sold for $4Billion, and, on the last day of trading, was worth $10Billion. Not bad for a 5 year old company.

Loudcloud/Opsware (which was really managed more by Ben than Marc) started it's growth spurt _just_ as the entire dot com bust took place. Loudcloud Went public as the market was in freefall - it's amazing they even got it out. About 1/3 the company was sold to EDS, and another 1/2 was laid off - leaving only 100 or so employees to form the ashes of OPSW. I remember Marc's infamous "Sharp Left Turn" speech (this what before "pivot" became part of the common vernacular in the valley) before the company the next morning, when he rallied the troops around the idea of building a software company - where He and Ben basically executed an emergency maneuver, and converted the services/platform/hosting company into a Software Company. Sold for $1.6 Billion, all cash deal. Took eight years for that exit.

There aren't that many entrepreneurs who've had two $1B+ exits, so I would suggest your statement, "Marc has a terrible record as an entrepreneur..." - is flawed.

I have to say I agree with you. Selling businesses at the brink of collapse for $1B+ is admirable.

At the risk of sounding jealous, I can't quite see how MG could be that helpful to startup tech companies. I would think partners at funds like Google Ventures should have experience building things (e.g. Kevin Rose), or at least being part of a management team that facilitates the building of things.

That said, I enjoy(ed) MG's Apple coverage at TechCrunch, and wish him the best at GV. I just hope he stays long enough to make a meaningful impact on the companies he's writing checks to.

Maybe he's there to hype the crap out of the companies they invest in? Hyping and writing is all he does.

And shit talking Android and reluctantly admitting in each review that it's basically perfect but then stilling digging at it and boasting about how iOS can cure cancer.

I expect he will learn "to love" Android, like another recent Google employee did http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226164

Remember when he unabashedly ran positive press for Path while they were getting reamed for rummaging through people's contact data without asking? And didn't announce that he had significantly invested in them?

Maybe he could do that for other people.

This kinda makes me want to puke.

Couldn't have said it better myself. There hasn't been a more unashamedly biased "reporter" than MG Siegler in recent memory. At least Gruber never tried to be anything approaching legitimate.

I don't understand how he could be expected to be even-handed as you would hope a VC managing a large cash pool would be.

Just some feedback. When I read the first part of your comment, my brain was engaged with what you're saying. "How do we feel about MG Siegler's overlapping careers as investor and writer, and about that trend, and about the TechCrunch legacy, and" thud a Gruber comparison.

Then I stopped thinking, because I don't think I can learn anything from someone who thinks John Gruber and MG Siegler are comparable; the only thing they seem to have in common is an appreciation for Apple products. So... your issue is, you don't like Apple fanatics. Got it.

apple fans who are biased against anything non-apple who both act as journalists (to a differing degree). There are similarities.

It could be that their bias is a legitimate bias. Or, it could be that it isn't. Rather than attacking someone for a bias, wouldn't it better to prove it by writing about it ... just like they do?

I don't think Gruber makes any pretense of acting as an objective journalist at all, he's just a guy that writes about things that interest him. It's true that the things he chooses to write about frequently fall into the "Apple gets this right, everyone else is on crack" category, but (usually) he's got a valid observation to make. If there's any pro-Apple bias, it's in the specific topics that he chooses to write about (things that make Apple look good) as opposed to bias in the content itself.

There's a difference between being selective when you choose what to write about and actually being biased in how you present a topic once you've committed to write about it. I think he's guilty of the former but (usually not) the latter.

The fact that he spends so much time countering what he sees as invalid criticisms of Apple by market analysts ends up making a huge difference in the mix of topics he covers. I totally think DF would be a lot more interesting if he actually tried to cover a much wider swath of topics and perspectives though. There are weeks on end that are nothing but "claim chowder" articles and harrumphing about dumb analysis by other people, which can be justified sometimes but it seems like he could be doing so much more.

I dont find the pretense of acting as an object journalist particularly relevant. Actions speak louder than words. (my point being that MG is less of a journalist than people think, thus making him a fan-blogger like Gruber which is the comparison that this thread originally was about)

There is a fine line between blogger and journalist nowadays. In fact its closer to overlapping circles than a hard line. So while you made a good case that DF is more of a blog than a journalism site, I dont think its 100%.

If you were to ask me if MG is a blogger or journalist, I would scratch my head and probably answer that he is a blogger who works (worked?) for an opinion-dominated news site.

Its hard to separate bloggers from journalists. I dont think Gruber is to blame for that. MG and techcrunch have no qualms about it though.

They also both seem to have an almost religious belief that anything that isn't Apple is an affront to humanity, especially if it starts with a capital G. That's kinda specific.

I don't see the problem with a biased person working as a VC, his job is to make money, his opinions are irrelevant (unlike his "journalism" work).

I still despise him and think he has no place in Google Ventures, I just don't see his bias coming into it.

Yeah, I can't believe Google would hire someone so critical of their products and services. There's a reason why people say MG stands for Mini Gruber.

Devil's Advocate: incorporating highly critical viewpoints into decision making could potentially make them better overall.

it's not biased if it's true.

iPhone > Android ;)

Welcome to America :(

I guess deal flow trumps everything else. MG Siegler can almost certainly generate significant deal flow (I assume this was the same thesis behind getting Kevin Rose on board). Yeah, he's seen as a goofball of the internet, but I guess all that really matters here is finding the interesting deals and getting them through the door. I have no problem believing that MG can do that. As they'd say, "MG has substantial visibility."

In addition to visibility, I can imagine having an advisor that worked in and is well connected in the tech press world would be beneficial to many startups. I think he can offer some insight into a blindspot for many startups. While his reporting was too biased and too often linkbait for my taste, his writing never led me to believe he is stupid.

I can't wait to read more unbiased "news" from MG and the team at TechCrunch.

How is that comment relevant to this article?

"As for my writing… I wouldn’t expect much to change. I’ll still be writing columns for TechCrunch and I’ll still be writing here and elsewhere as time permits.

Obviously, there will be some knowledge that I become privy to that I won’t be able to share — but that’s not any different than it has been with many of the startups I’ve worked with over the past 19 months. The difference now is that some of that knowledge will be about one of the most successul startups of all time: Google.

Yes, they’re letting an Apple fanatic into the building — wild, I know. But as I said, I left the reporting path long ago. I’m on a new path now. Don’t worry, I’m bringing my iPhone with me."

Google just paid him so no more anti-Google articles will be written. Very clever of them.

Ahh, now it makes sense why he's able to trash a product like the Surface while praising (with a straight face) a product like the Chrome Pixel.

I see there are a lot of comments here doubting what MG can add to a venture fund or to Google. I think this comment from Sarah Lacy speaks volumes about MG's helpfulness to startups and entrepreneurs: http://youtu.be/v-0wEMr-hlA?t=50m58s

Keep in mind that Sarah and the Crunchfund had a falling out in the early days of PandoDaily. She had no problem ragging on Arrington, but felt compelled to praise MG and specifically cite how he is helpful to entrepreneurs and startups.

I am curious to see how the next step in his career goes and how this affects his writing and how he reviews products and teams.

And credibility of Google Ventures went down today.

His posts were filled with clueless rants with a side of his small minded ego. The guy is full of him self without accomplishing anything that would warrant that.

It actually annoyed me so much I wrote a grease monkey script years ago to block his garbage from TechCrunch (before they redesigned):

https://github.com/AlekseyKorzun/TechCrunch-Douchebag

"The guy is full of him self without accomplishing anything that would warrant that."

This would unfortunately describe alot of the VCs out there very well indeed.

I agree. Every time I see that he's now a part of something, or been placed somewhere that should warrant some form of accomplishment I try to see what exactly he's done. The only thing I can find is that he's written a lot of rather biased articles that don't actually have any content in them.

If anyone can cite some accomplishment, please do, because I'm just really confused by how he keeps being put in these positions.

Gruber took ad money from Microsoft. This is just Siegler's one-up.

What problem do you have with that?

I wondered if I should have noted that it was meant purely as joke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com