FWIW: when it says " According to a source at Google, there’s a new building on campus, so many of those people are getting moved physically, as well — not necessarily due to Gundotra’s departure."
Given how many employees are on the mountain view campus, the attempt to portray office space reorgs in a place known to have serious office space constraints, as related to leadership changes, is silly.
1. There is always a new or being renovated building on campus
It's just the way it is.
2.
I would actually assume this is entirely not related to his departure. Teams at Google outgrow their space all the time, and people get moved around to accomodate expected growth plus real estate renovations of buildings, etc.
Let's be clear: that's a tactic of yellow journalism. Good journalists don't string together unrelated facts unless they know there is a connection and can articulate it.
You must not think any news organization has good journalists in it anymore. The bias of all conventional news orgs is blaringly obvious to any observer who tries even a little bit to consider the other side of the story, and it's a rare when the journalist even goes this far and qualifies the innuendo. They usually just make a sensationalist intimation and allow the audience to draw the intended conclusion.
Unless a firm has publicly announced that it is winding down, it is better to avoid labeling a fund as “walking dead.” Tagging a fund in this way has consequences. As in the case above, it can impact deal flow as companies seeking funding may think twice about approaching a firm believed to be in that category. It can hurt a firm’s prospects of being invited into syndicates and even potentially damage a firm’s existing syndicates. It can jeopardize relationships with current and prospective LPs if a forthcoming fund is even a notion among the firm’s GPs. Finally, and perhaps most troubling of all, it can even damage the prospects of portfolio companies backed by these supposed walking dead VCs.
Google clearly has skin in the game here if this narrative means that they will lose engineering talent from G+. Techcrunch clearly has skin in the game here as a scoop is equal to eyeballs.
Luckily, google has PRs that make 10x what tech-crunch writers make. So surely any needed corrections will make there way through the noize.
That being said, it would be great to keep the comments clean of superflous tit-for-tat inuendo accusations when the undelying conflicts of interest are pretty apparent and not overly subtle.
Countering inuendo with facts seems plenty enough to counter-spin any un-substantiated points.
And the original point here stands well enough alone. Don;t disrefard the TC qualification about the office relocation. That is a fair point and stands by itself--no drama needed.
Given how many employees are on the mountain view campus, the attempt to portray office space reorgs in a place known to have serious office space constraints, as related to leadership changes, is silly.
1. There is always a new or being renovated building on campus It's just the way it is.
2. I would actually assume this is entirely not related to his departure. Teams at Google outgrow their space all the time, and people get moved around to accomodate expected growth plus real estate renovations of buildings, etc.