I marked Omnidrive as deadpool in CrunchBase, and it isn't uncommon for Techcrunch to not cover a story that has been covered elsewhere, esp since Mike was an investor and was wary of conflicts
My tone is skeptical Nik because I read stories, information and posts with my BS detection at maximum when I detect ambiguity.
I'm interested in ambiguous stories because it's possible to find in them both the truth but sometimes non-truths. Take for instance a story which I posted on HN 3 years ago, "The Google Way: Give Engineers Room".  I posted the story because it was interesting. But it took a fellow HN'r Karzeem  to suggest something wasn't quite right. You can read the post for yourself. I wasn't thinking Google is bad or looking for subterfuge by the New York times. But that's what we got. I emailed the New York times for clarification and it turns out because the story was in fact a "Submarine". A plant by Google and the Times to make Google appear a great place to work in the guise of an interview. Except it wasn't. You can read it yourself on HN. karzeem and myself agreed this was a great article not because of the content, but because it exposed the mechanism the Times could paid placement as stories by hiding it in the Fashion section (not the hard news section) and how Google positions itself.
The story behind the closure of Omnidrive is ambiguous.
I first picked up the inconsistencies when an article in a conservative local business magazine, BRW mentions Omnidrive not only in the top 100 Web 2.0 companies in Australia, but in the top 50. How could this be? Omnidrive for all intensive purposes was in the deadpool? So I contacted Renai LeMay a local journalist who worked at ZD Net to ask, "why was Omnidrive inclused?". His reply Omnidrive was active. Timing matters here. I asked LeMay in 2008JUL08 but the deadpool lists Omnidrive as "officially closed in September of 2008"  Which is it? The duplicity makes me think the ambiguity was for a reason. It might not be, but I'm suspicious. Is it possible in the ambiguity in this story was used as a smoke screen for other reasons?
As the major investor in Omnidrive I am stunned not to have received any
information from Nik on what’s been happening over the last few months.
I have emailed him a number of times, but have not had a single reply.
The last I heard he was flying around the world, after launching
Techcrunch IT, and also building the Techcrunch tablet for Michael
Lesson: Your investors are here to help you, keep them informed
and you have a much higher likelihood of receiving help. 
"Be good", not to be virtuous, be good because the algorythm is stateless and as a strategy, it works. 
 Bharat Mediratta, Julie Bick, "The Google Way: Give Engineers Room"
[Accessed Sunday 3rd April, 2011]
 karzeem, HackerNews
 "The Google Way: Give Engineers Room", et.al.
 "Official launch of the Top 100 Australian Web 2.0 Applications list"
 Where I (@bootload) ask "@renailemay how did Omnidrive make the list? ~ http://tinyurl.com/6f3cx8*
 and @renailemay replies "@bootload omnidrive is still functioning"*
 At a later point Ross Dawson a blogger who noted the top 100 in the BRW article also chimed in with some more detail, "At the time that the list was compiled
Omnidrive was still functioning, so merited being on the list pending further
notice. ... And yes, it certainly does appear to have died now... ".
 Clay Cook, "Nik Cubrilovic Omnidrive lesson",
 Clay Cook, "My experience investing in Nik Cubrilovic..."
 Clay Cook, "Nik Cubrilovic Omnidrive lesson", et.,al.
 Paul Graham, Be Good, last paragraph, "Compass"
None taken. I like the corrections, thanks.