Please, as an advice to general HN posters, please avoid posting marco.org links here on HN, because his sole intention is to sell his readers out more than focusing on writing. That's a fairly grande accusation, but it's justified.
Do you know why is he writing about Google Reader now? Go to your HN homepage right now, as of writing this comment, the Google reader announcement has about 1700 upvotes. Ouch, that's a lot of views for someone to let go of. Hence, if someone writes something that compliments this announcement, common sense tells me that they would get more page views.
There's nothing wrong in having ads on your blog/website, people do it all the time. What's wrong is trying to create an impression to your readers that your sole intention is to write quality content, while you care just about pageviews. Please, realize that marco.org is no different from Techcrunch!
Marco isn't innocent, if you've been following him closely. Also, I think it would help if you take a look at this page where he just blatantly sells us, his readers like some piece of junk commodity.
http://www.marco.org/sponsorship
Are you completely stupid or are you just trolling us?
On the off chance you're just stupid, here's some enlightenment. Marco Arment is a cofounder of hugely successful Tumblr and creator of Instapaper, both of which certainly make or made him more money than he'll ever make from ads on his blog, however popular. He's also created The Magazine, which probably makes a fair bit of cash already, and will be making more in the future. He has a solid reputation in the tech space, and it is stupid to argue that he's somehow spending his days trying to bait HN with empty crap articles.
marco.org is very different from TC, in that if marco.org had no ads, Marco would certainly still write to it, as it's his personal platform, whereas if TC had no ads, it would fold in a week.
Marco Arment is a cofounder of hugely successful Tumblr and creator of Instapaper, both of which certainly make or made him more money than he'll ever make from ads on his blog, however popular.
The GP post should be nuked from orbit, but the reasoning you put there is hilariously specious. If it is so irrelevant, then why are they there? Why does Arment stuff entries full of credibility-diminishing "sponsored by" text, or worse insidious Amazon affiliate links?
Every ounce of reality says that he cares very much about his blog income, your imaginings of his external wealth notwithstanding.
He can make something in the thousands of dollars a month of income from his blog. That's pretty good, and it probably pays for quite a few monthly expenses, so he'd be stupid not to put this one nonintrusive ad on there.
Not putting a small ad on there that pays thousands of dollars would just be silly.
As a comparison, swombat.com has no ads because the amount of money attached to it would simply be too small to bother (tens of dollars a month at the very most, if that much). If it was a few thousand, I'd put a small ad on there even if I had millions in the bank.
Ok, so he responds to HN posts all the time. Everything he says here is a good idea. And I want all the reader developers to consider it. So I'm going to upvote it.
Just because he says what we want to hear doesn't make the content wrong. I want to hear it and I want others to hear it too.
If what he is recommending isn't perfect, the comments here can expand and fix it.
It would be a boring diversion, but his most recent hysterics about Google and WebM are the height of obnoxious defensiveness: Google pays $100 million for a widely respected and legally clear video codec company, open sourcing the crown jewels for anyone's use. To Arment's jaded, bitter, anti-any-competitor-to-Apple perspective this is "a clear pattern: Google clearly (and often willfully) infringes on someone else’s IP, can’t believe that it’ll ever have any repercussions, and claims they’re doing it to be “open” or some bullshit. It betrays a culture at Google’s highest levels of arrogance, entitlement, and dishonesty."
This is a pattern of hilariously biased perspective that he demonstrates time and time again, while occasionally trying to pretend that he's even keeled.
Just incredible.
It is not terribly surprisingly that Arment shields himself from dissent, and tries to build a world where alternative opinions can only be wrong.
EDIT: Marco is funnelling his minions in here (because he totally doesn't read this place, am I right?), so expect moderation to reflect that.
Besides the style of what corresation wrote, it would be a really good idea to answer why you think he is completely off.
Because to me, who doesn't know Marco Arment at all, he sounds kinda spot on. And he did indeed write what corresatiion quoted [1]. So in case he is completely nuts, just downvoting this makes it seem that Marco is indeed "funneling his minions in here" to the casual observer.
At some level, that's exactly how every ad-funded site in the world works. Is your complaint simply that the process is more visible? Marco.org and a few other independent sites use advertising that basically follows the "buy a slot" model that's been with us for more than a century. Is there an argument here as to why you would single out this ad-supported source versus every other such submission? I'll observe that there's nothing in the HN guidelines on- or off- topic about ad-funded sources.
In this case, you don't seem to have a critique of the content, the only area that the HN guidelines discuss. AFAICT, the content submitted is 1) original and 2) apparently quite relevant to the HN readership given the level of voted interest in this and other submissions related to the Google Reader shutdown.
Are you crying foul on a writer trying to make money for his writing? Do you cry foul on magazines, newspapers, etc. for selling ads? Ever notice how "the news" in general is about what's going on in the world currently?
He's far from the only one. Most people with thousands of followers monetize them, one way or another. There's a ton of bloggers out there hungry for pageviews.
So what ? Why accuse him right now, out of the blue ? And what does that have to do with the post ?
I enjoy his writing, but I don't take his writing as gospel. As with anything anyone says, we should exercise some judgement on the validity and biases of their ideas.
In 2011 in Marco's podcast he stated that 7" tablet devices don't make any sense, but then in 2012 he had changed his mind when the iPad mini was approaching its announcement. I am not calling him a liar, but just pointing out that opinions change and... opinions are just opinions.
I share his concern that each new feed reading service will use a different sync API, and am happy others will be reading this blog post. Regardless of whether Marco has jumped on the popular story bandwagon or not so he can make a few advertising dollars, this post is of value to enough people to up-vote it.
I hate to be rude, but you haters are some amazing douchebags. I'm not a Marco fanboy, but he's a successful person who thinks a lot about the things he does, as evidenced by any listening to Build and Analyze and Accidental Tech Podcast. Do I always agree with him? No. Is he smarter than me, and has he accomplished more in terms of his career and technology? Yes, I'd say the evidence says so.
It's one thing to disagree with people, but to hate them and be a total jackass for no reason is just wasting your life on the internet. MANY web sites have sponsorship. MANY of them. Marco is no more of a sellout or in the business of selling you out than any of them.
In the form of periodically-interspersed sponsor posts which are explicitly stated as being such and which are never mixed with actual content. As feed monetization goes, its about as above board as it can get.
Of course, being as above board as possible would still not be good enough for the anti-Marco brigade stomping around this pale imitation of what HN once was. I certainly wasn't here right from the beginning, so no hipster douchbaggery intended by any stretch, but I swear to those who have arrived more recently: You have no idea how good HN used to be compared to this. Sad, truly sad.
What anti-Marco brigade? A heavily downvoted post and me pointing out that you would in fact get ads if you subscribed to his site via a feed reader? Dude has like half his posts hit the top here, HN loves him. A very, very tiny minority don't.
There is a very thin line between being a feminist and being an asshole. The problem with these women, who claim to be angered by women being treated as objects is that they don't identify the real problem.
Women are attracted to men and men are attracted to women. This is basic nature and no one can change it. Using either to sell a product is not exactly sexism. For example, many deodorants use both male and female models to promote their products.
Sexism in my definition would be when given the same opportunity, when one gender is being paid or treated better than another gender, that would be sexism, because someone is being treated unfair.
What hypermac (the company in question) did was not wrong. They hired models who were for god's sake ready to do it. They were ready to accept money and stand nude on their product exhibit. It would have been unfair if they were treated unfair, or against their will, none of which had happened.
The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise. This is the real problem. As long as such women exist, the product makers and corporations would obviously use them. So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money. Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place. This is the real problem.
I love the way that these rogue women go after men (and vice versa) only because they want an apology to feel superior and write a blog post about it.
I think it must have been a great marketing campaign for HyperMac and the guy was right - These people deserved no apology for this particular event and this particular event alone (please don't generalize this conclusion).
There's a great saying - Any publicity is good publicity. I hope these feminists realize this and stop fucking themselves up like this, publicly.
> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise. This is the real problem. As long as such women exist, the product makers and corporations would obviously use them. So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money. Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place. This is the real problem
Either you think objectifying women is wrong, or you don't. If you do, then it's absolutely logical to go after the people deciding to run their marketing campaign this way. You will always find people ready to do whatever if you put enough money on the table. It doesn't mean it's not wrong.
What I fail to understand is why objectification of the body is wrong, but objectification of the mind is normal, if not encouraged.
We spend a lot of time trying to make individual thought into an interchangeable machine. You don't even have to dig very deep in HN to see people boasting about the benefits of a college education, or why you should drop out, in order to make yourself like just like everyone else, creating an "us vs them" mentality. Then we put the most attractive minds on display for all to see. "Buy this and you can be smart and successful just like me!"
Exploiting a woman to display her body to sell a laptop battery is no more wrong than exploiting a woman to use her mind to create the battery in the first place. In either case, we are not appreciating the person for being a person, just an object that gets the job done.
Women are not free of problems because of their gender, but this case seems entirely about a non-sensical shame of the human body.
Interesting analogy. This actually made me pause and think for a while.
However, I think it is ultimately flawed. The message here is clearly targeted at the reptilian part of heterosexual male brains: buying this battery is like buying this woman to bed her. Straightforward and effective.
Saying "do this and be smart just like me" works in a completely different way. It does reduce people to one dimension: their success, while ignoring their appreciation for the finer points of Zoroastrianism. But I would not call it exploitative. You put forward a positive quality (business skill, programming chops, whatever) and you encourage people to take action and work to acquire it. This is a fairly positive message.
I would say also that paying a woman to create a battery (provided the compensation is fair) is not exploitation. In this context, we are not talking about economic exploitation, but exploitation of heterosexual male lust in ways which send out the message that women are nothing better than sex toys.
To every straight, at least moderately attractive male who have trouble understanding how this can be an issue, I suggest to challenge yourselves and go out to a gay night club on a Friday night. If anything, this should be an interesting experience, and may help you understand some things which can make women uncomfortable.
You definitely make some great points. I do, however, wonder why you consider business skills a positive quality, but being a sex toy a negative quality? Neither is inherently good or inherently bad.
I expect it is because the woman is viewed as a sex toy without getting to choose to be one? However, the stereotype about a man's wallet seems to play into the same idea. A man who looks wealthy is going to be assumed to be a smart businessman, even if he wishes to not be seen that way.
I admit that I still don't fully understand, and maybe it is impossible for me to fully do so, but I'm glad we can talk openly about it to learn more.
- "I suggest to challenge yourselves and go out to a gay night club on a Friday night."
I have actually done this and found it to be a fun and positive experience. Nothing creepy or uncomfortable about it. I guess I am, perhaps, too ugly to have experienced what you are talking about?
> You definitely make some great points. I do, however, wonder why you consider business skills a positive quality, but being a sex toy a negative quality? Neither is inherently good or inherently bad.
>
> I expect it is because the woman is viewed as a sex toy without getting to choose to be one? However, the stereotype about a man's wallet seems to play into the same idea. A man who looks wealthy is going to be assumed to be a smart businessman, even if he wishes to not be seen that way.
But society does not see businessmen in the same light as sex toys. At all.
The problem is that we've been living in a patriarcal society for a long, long while. Sending the message "women are sex toys" also means "women are sex toys, nothing more - they are here for your enjoyment". It's a message that they are not in a position of power, contrary to the businessman. They are not equal.
> I have actually done this and found it to be a fun and positive experience. Nothing creepy or uncomfortable about it. I guess I am, perhaps, too ugly to have experienced what you are talking about?
It's a bit difficult to explain. Imagine suddenly that somebody sees you as just a piece of meat, ready to be consumed and thrown out afterward. This is not a pleasant feeling. And congrats for challenging yourself!
So would you say the root problem is our puritan shame of sex, as I suggested earlier? If a sexual person was held in the same regard as a business person, wouldn't that be something to strive towards, not shy away from?
"It's a bit difficult to explain. Imagine suddenly that somebody sees you as just a piece of meat, ready to be consumed and thrown out afterward. This is not a pleasant feeling."
See, I wish people would value me for my body in that way. It is the constant having to prove myself with my mind, instead, that made me think of the original comparison. Without being able to fully understand what you are feeling, it seems like it could be the same thing in many ways – ultimately rejecting what you have and seeking what you don't have.
> So would you say the root problem is our puritan shame of sex, as I suggested earlier? If a sexual person was held in the same regard as a business person, wouldn't that be something to strive towards, not shy away from?
Well, it already is... for men. A man with many sexual partners is looked favourably upon. A woman doing the same is called a slut. There is a gender imbalance built into our society, and until such time as a majority of men recognize it, it will keep being there. But it is a question of equality and power more than sexuality. Just as if you systematically represented male CEOs and female secretaries in the media. This wouldn't be about sex, but would be equally problematic.
> See, I wish people would value me for my body in that way. It is the constant having to prove myself with my mind that made me think of the original comparison. Without being able to fully understand what you are feeling, it seems like it could be the same thing in many ways – ultimately rejecting what you have and seeking what you don't have.
You have a point here. I'd say the problem is treating people as the means to an end - whether as sex toys, problem-solving machines or plain old cannon fodder.
"I'd say the problem is treating people as the means to an end - whether as sex toys, problem-solving machines or plain old cannon fodder."
I don't know if I can speak for all men, but personally, having someone to want you to do something for them is where self-worth is derived. Whether someone wants to have sex, or a business wants to hire you for you services, it feels good to be wanted. That seems like the exact opposite of a problem, from my unique perspective. And maybe it is foolish to have those feelings, but it largely outside of my control. Assuming you represent the prevailing views of most women, and the gender divide on this is real, it is clear to see how we got here.
Interestingly, I've noticed this pattern even outside of gender differences. People generally push on other people what they want for themselves, male and female. Even my aforementioned college example is a great one here. Someone who wants to go to college will think everyone should go to college and push that idea upon them, even if it is not the wishes of someone else. I don't know where you even begin to fix that; it seems to be the human condition.
> I don't know if I can speak for all men, but personally, having someone to want you to do something for them is where self-worth is derived. Whether someone wants to have sex, or a business wants to hire you for you services, it feels good to be wanted. That seems like the exact opposite of a problem, from my unique perspective. And maybe it is foolish to have those feelings, but it largely outside of my control. Assuming you represent the prevailing views of most women, and the gender divide on this is real, it is clear to see how we got here.
The difference is whether you are treated as valueable or as a commodity. In both cases, you can be made to feel "wanted" but completely different ways.
It's true the interaction between companies and their employees has issues, esp. with regards to employees whose output is more mental than physical.
But objectifying women's bodies to sell a product is sexual objectification[1]. The issue with this is that we live in a society where attitudes that women do not control their bodies or that others get to control those bodies is a root cause of sexual violence against women and promotes an attitude that blames victims of such violence for being the cause of that violence. Keep in mind that for the vast majority of history in the western world, women were treated literally as objects and were bartered and sold and denied protection of the law when assaulted (this last point arguably is still true).
The difference between that objectification and the kind that occurs when a business simply treats you as a faceless output unit is that sexual objectification mainly has negative effects for women compared to men. The tech world has a long history of contributing to that objectification of women in a way that doesn't apply to men, who are the most common type of worker in the tech industry (that isn't to say that there aren't issues for tech workers with their jobs).
What you say may be true, but I fail to see the difference. That is why I brought it up. I'm open to learning and understanding more about the subject, but simply passing it off as rhetoric doesn't really help the cause. Care to explain what you mean?
Surely, but that doesn't explain why this case is not reductive in the way I have presented. You can claim anything to be not true, but that doesn't make the claim true.
If we want to progress women's rights, we need to be able to talk about the problems, not just sweep everything under the rug with "No, you are wrong."
I love the unintentional imagery of feminists as rebels against the system, with the implication that the rebellion is unjust and the correct behavior would be to know one's role. The term "rogue woman" about someone standing up for equality is so offensive it almost makes me laugh.
Taking money for something does not mean that you're comfortable with it, that you're not being exploited (unknowingly or not), that what you did was right, that you understand the context of your actions, etc. Being a man or woman does not mean you speak for all men or women.
> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise. This is the real problem. As long as such women exist, the product makers and corporations would obviously use them. So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money. Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place.
Why do people accept money to do things? What a great question. That ranks right up there with "Why do prisoners want to escape from prison?"
Everyone has a price. If someone told you they'd pay you a million dollars to stand naked for a few hours in front of a gaggle of lecherous old ladies, I bet you'd do it. Scruples don't pay rent or put food on the table. Maybe your price is higher, or maybe it's lower like these models, but at some point you'd do it.
> Women are attracted to men and men are attracted to women. This is basic nature and no one can change it.
Except when, you know, they are gay or on the asexual spectrum.
> Using either to sell a product is not exactly sexism. For example, many deodorants use both male and female models to promote their products.
People aren't objecting to the existence of ad, but rather that this marketing reduced women's bodies to a commercial commodity. Lack of self agency and a women's body as property is a very sexist issue that is present in US culture today and affects many.
> Sexism in my definition would be when given the same opportunity, when one gender is being paid or treated better than another gender, that would be sexism, because someone is being treated unfair.
This is the case today. We have well documented instances of individual sexist treatment and systemic sexist treatment, mostly towards women.
> What hypermac (the company in question) did was not wrong. They hired models who were for god's sake ready to do it. They were ready to accept money and stand nude on their product exhibit. It would have been unfair if they were treated unfair, or against their will, none of which had happened.
Getting a job isn't some kind of process that occurs in a cultural vacuum, a lot goes into why people take on jobs that are sexist in nature. Also, just because the company can hire models for sexist marketing doesn't mean they should.
> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise.
This is victim blaming at its prime. You are blaming cultural objectification of women on women.
> So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money.
This directly against what feminism is even about in the first place. Feminism doesn't proscribe that you attack women who exercise their self autonomy. In fact, telling women to attack other women who act in a way they don't approve of is a common way to sow discord and distract people from the larger social and cultural issues that affect their lives. That is, you are telling people to ignore context and attack other people who are just as affected by our society as they are.
> Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place. This is the real problem.
That you see no problem with ignoring corporate behavior and attacking individuals speaks a lot about how you feel with regards to corporate domination and control over people's lives.
> I love the way that these rogue women go after men (and vice versa) only because they want an apology to feel superior and write a blog post about it.
Lol "rogue women"
> There's a great saying - Any publicity is good publicity. I hope these feminists realize this and stop fucking themselves up like this, publicly.
So now feminists are fucking themselves up because a company engaged in sexist marketing and people called that out? What's really fucked up here is how willing you are to defend companies and marketing over the actual lives and experiences of people who are directly affected by that kind of sexist marketing.
1) He never called you an asshole. He just posted his views about DDG.
2) If you are offended by what he said, it doesn't give you the right to call him an asshole.
For example, I know many people whose projects you didn't complete on time and who think you are a rotten dick for rightly being one. But I didn't call you a rotten dick, did I?
And also, stop defending DDG like a pussy that's everywhere, dude.
Yep, not many people respond to insults. But you actually gave an explanation as to why you didn't, to make yourself sound cooler. Bravo 'chuthiya' (you were the one who taught me this)
Andddd, next time, before you waste time insulting people on an international forum, try to use it constructively to atleast complete projects of people whose money you've taken promising them to complete it and you actually didn't. Makes more sense than replying to my comments, right?
This is why the guy who designed this Google+ plan (Vic Gundotra) is where he is (at Google) and you are still a commentator in a public forum. You need some long-term vision, bro.
Of course taligent can speak for himself, but I think the argument is not that this is a bad game plan, but that it is not a "brilliant" one (but merely obvious.)
I do think Vic Gundotra is pretty brilliant and pretty "Steve Jobs-like". If Larry Page intends to stop being CEO of Google anytime soon, I hope Vic gets it (although I guess Sergei would be next in line).
Vic Gundotra is a master of bullshit, in the Frankfurt sense: when he speaks, he shares nothing of his own beliefs or opinions. Rather, his words are the party line, and nothing more than the party line; he doesn't say the things he says because he believes they are true, but because he wants you to behave as though they are true.
In this he is hardly alone, as a spokesman for a major corporation: but Google used to be better than that, and Google especially used to be a place where the top brass would tell the truth internally. It was a place where any Googler could speak up on a Friday company meeting and ask pointed questions and expect to get a real answer. Not so with Vic Gundotra: he bullshits internally just as hard as he does externally. You can't crack him; no matter how obvious his boosterism for G+, he never stops grinning and blustering and insisting that everything is awesome. It is severely off-putting.
This must be crazy - CEO, COO, Director of Product for a fucking Wordpress blog? are you kidding me?? Techcrunch at the end of the day is a Wordpress blog. It could be justified atleast if they were covering international news, but they are focused mostly on Start-up stuff (that too only the big guys) and mos, if not just Apple.
>Because straight up paying for downloads, or traffic, to a blog is insidious
Yeah right, biased, manipulative, colored, Apple-sponsored journalism isn't insidious, but paying for traffic is. Stop acting so surprised TC.
>Techcrunch at the end of the day is a Wordpress blog.
Yes, you know, like Whitehouse.gov is just a Wordpress blog at the end of the day. What do they need a president and a country for?
The thing is, the blogging technology doesn't matter. And the fact that it's a blog doesn't matter much either -- as blogs can make from $0 to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
>Yeah right, biased, manipulative, colored, Apple-sponsored journalism isn't insidious, but paying for traffic is.
Never like TC, but ..."Apple-sponsored"? TC? Of all tech outlets out there?
(That said, I doubt even one blog or news site is indeed "Apple-sponsored", including Daring Fireball. And if the US had proper anti-defamation laws, people would have found that out in a painful way).
If you are from Chennai, you'll know what the situation is like in there. At any point, in any such conference, people are constantly trying to brand themselves under the guise of 'contribution to the community'. They are always looking to market themselves at any cost, even though they know it is unethical.
I have visited a dozen such conferences and I can tell this without hesitation, even on a public stage. There is a huge difference in the mindset of the organizers over here (SF) and in Chennai.
Kiruba Shankar is also a clever marketer. I still remember the days when he used to flaunt about his TED talks on Facebook. In all honesty, people like him are the ones who degrade the value of TED.
Here's a still that crops of the 'X' in the TED X event. This was uploaded by Kiruba Shankar himself:
Anyone active within the Chennai community will tell you how this man is just a marketer and has no credentials or no 'achievements' good enough to give a speech at TED. And he is just one example.
It is important because, without having significant achievements up your sleeve, you are assuming
1) The audience are dumb enough.
2) You can talk what you want and get away with it.
Here is another example of a 'self-proclaimed' entrepreneur who runs just an SEO business (Ashwin Ramesh)
This guy was DRUNK when he gave this talk. I'm not joking, it's the truth. HE got drunk again with the organizer that night, anyone close to him and his organizer will confirm this:
>>Here is another example of a 'self-proclaimed' entrepreneur who runs just an SEO business (Ashwin Ramesh)
In all likeliness I am sure he would have been considered than because he is:
a. Rich.
b. Powerful, to have some say and influence things.
Either a) or b) will elevate you to demi god status among middle class Indians, even if all you have done is sell peanuts well. Its not their fault, Imagine having grown cash strapped middle class families living hand to mouth every month with average lives, and compromising with nearly everything in life in hope of having a better future later.
When guys like these come around, they generally become idols to chase. Now if you tell they made it easily, they are going to have more followers.
And no body likes to mess with the rich. Because they have a lot of strong connections and then when you are need of help or in trouble they can create huge problems for you.
Honestly, the term entrepreneur and start-up is used very liberally in India. In the last 3-4 years there has been a deluge of 'entrepreneurs' who are basically social media consultants or SEO firms and 'startups' which are nothing but consulting firms who are basically a group of freelancers working together.
A vague generalization. Can you conclusively say that all the YCombinator (or any other similar incubator) startups are groundbreaking innovations?
Given the transformation that technology is undergoing, there are too many low hanging fruits to be ignored. And if you try to define "startup", then you are already on a slippery slope.
Do note that I never said a startup has to be a groundbreaking innovation, nor that people shouldn't take advantage of low hanging fruits. Just that an SEO consultant not call himself an entrepreneur or a group of freelancers call themselves a startup.
Vijayanand is moderately infamous for sheepishly promoting his in50hrs event (it is a PAID event organized by him) under the guise of such shallow articles and also on twitter
(EDIT: I've been his follower for ages, he sometimes misleads people into buying tickets for the event, falsely advertising that it's going to be 'sold out' even when no one has actually signed up).
Did he talk about in50hrs event in this article? He was talking about the Indian market because he understands it.Is it wrong to promote events on twitter? What is your problem?
Sidenote: Vijay Anand has done so much to Indian entrepreneurs and Indian startup ecosystem.
This explains you haven't read the article in its entirety. Please read it again, he references it as the first link while citing examples about the superiority within the Indian Start-up eco-system.
That is a contradiction in a way that you cannot promote something as a valid citation while you stand to benefit from it.
>Sidenote: Vijay Anand has done so much to Indian entrepreneurs and Indian startup ecosystem.
There are many people who have done more than him (I personally know a handful) yet, don't advertise it explicitly as much as he does. He takes money for providing an office space in return. How does that contribute as doing 'much' to the Indian Startup Ecosystem? There are plenty of office spaces over here...
Well, I don't see any problem in plugging one's event in a blog post. If you don't like the idea of paid event, why bother following him in twitter and commenting on hacker news?
Where does he advertise about his contribution to the Indian startup ecosystem?
It is entrepreneurs like us who say he does.
>He takes money for providing an office space in return
You want office space for free?
>How does that contribute as doing 'much' to the Indian Startup Ecosystem? There are plenty of office spaces over here...
He also runs accelerator which invests in startup. They have invested in 2 startups so far. He hosts free events like Chennai OCC, Chennai geeks at the startup centre. Also the space is free if you want to host any free event.
I graduated from college and worked from startup centre under Vijay for six months. I come from a small town and knew little about startups. It was Vijay who taught me lot about building a product and distributing it to users. The education i had at the startup centre was invaluable. You know how much he charged for the office space for the period of six months? ZERO(because he wanted me to succeed and i was a recent college grad)
Please understand what someone does before trying to bash them in public
Your answer is vague, but I will try to be objective as much as possible.
>Well, I don't see any problem in plugging one's event in a blog post.
The problem here isn't plugging his own event in his post. The problem here is that he cites the successes of start-ups and links to it. That is un-ethical. He stands to benefit from it by falsely citing it as a valid example. Many people here on HN DO NOT know that he runs it. His intention was malicious, if not unethical.
>You want office space for free?
You are missing the bigger point - Offering office space for {insert rate here} is something that anyone can do and that doesn't make one a contributor to the start-up ecosystem, atleast not as much as to the proportions to which you blow it up.
> He hosts free events like Chennai OCC, Chennai geeks at the startup centre. Also the space is free if you want to host any free event.
I've heard of these events. One of my friends tells me about it. I've also heard horror stories about Vijayanand mocking young college guys interested in starting-up. I also heard from him that he isn't just the one behind it, there are a lot of active young minds involved.
>You know how much he charged for the office space for the period of six months? ZERO(because he wanted me to succeed and i was a recent college grad)
Your personal positive experience with him is best kept personal. Because we're talking about the rest of the Entrepreneurs from whom he collects money.
I understand your experience is so far positive with him. But, please don't try to dilute a valid argument using your individual opinion. I also understand that you have co-founded a company which you and Vijayanand have mutual interests in (like someone here commented). Please don't try to support him in public just for that reason - When someone is at wrong, it's best we let the others know about it, otherwise the purpose of such a vibrant community will be poisoned by such profit-motivated posts.
EDIT: Vijayanand has edited the link that went to his in50hrs programme. Maybe that's why you didn't notice it.
It is important to note that the author is from Canada and spent a significant portion of his life there, before trying to do something in India. So, his views are fairly biased about India - like trying to compare a Developed vs a Developing country.
I can give more info about him as I am his friend, he grew up in middle east, moved back to India, went to canada for graduation, did a startup, sold it, back in India, worked with RTBI in chennai for couple of years before starting StartupCentre.
so he spent about 3 years in Canada, yeah he is exposed to developed countries
Do you know why is he writing about Google Reader now? Go to your HN homepage right now, as of writing this comment, the Google reader announcement has about 1700 upvotes. Ouch, that's a lot of views for someone to let go of. Hence, if someone writes something that compliments this announcement, common sense tells me that they would get more page views.
There's nothing wrong in having ads on your blog/website, people do it all the time. What's wrong is trying to create an impression to your readers that your sole intention is to write quality content, while you care just about pageviews. Please, realize that marco.org is no different from Techcrunch!
Marco isn't innocent, if you've been following him closely. Also, I think it would help if you take a look at this page where he just blatantly sells us, his readers like some piece of junk commodity. http://www.marco.org/sponsorship