Comes across as "there's more to it", but it did tell a side of the story that your earlier announcement didn't mention at all, which is why I guess people are interested in it.
Hope you both come through it all ok in any case, and good luck at your new job, and at some point in the future, your next stab at a company.
Ivan, I'm noting your comment, and Paul's, on my post. But the offer I made multiple times to you and Abby still stands -- if there's more info that you want to get out, I'm happy to chat. pk
This is my favorite online "journalism" technique ever. When someone you want a scoop from won't comment, just make a bunch of crap up and then when they get angry say "hey feel free to comment".
No Matt, it's not that. It's writing up a story, not having received comments from one party, explaining how you've given the party many chances to comment on the matter, for honesty's sake and the integrity of journalism, yet never considering that perhaps that party's refusal to comment could be due to other matters, legal or what have you, and indirectly making that party look shady for not returning the honest gesture.
"Some basic, undisputed facts: ... he and his wife are shutting TipJoy down and returning what’s left of the $1 million they had raised to their investors."
Do you have any sources, documentation or other reason to believe that TipJoy raised $1 million?
Re: Comments. I reached out to Ivan and Abby more than 24 hours before I published the story. I understand why they'd be reluctant to respond, and I told them that.
I appreciate the back and forth on this board -- Paul's comments have been particularly enlightening -- but I'm going to bow out now. Please contact me directly if you have specific comments or questions. Thanks. pk
You could see why some of TipJoy’s backers, which include BetaWorks, the Accelerator Group, ex-Googler Chris Sacca and the Y Combinator start-up factory, might cry foul.
Have any of them actually cried foul? I recommend following up with them if you are really interested in the facts.
And just yesterday or 2 days ago I wrote this under the story of TipJoy shutting down:
"The whole story seems to repeatedly wave the arms and shout:
"Hey, Twitter! Hey, Facebook! Here we are! We know how to do this! Hire us, hire us, hire us!!!".
At least that's how I read the story. And I'm quite convinced it's their intent. Which shouldn't be a bad thing too.
Well, of course customers' money is the most important thing, no doubt about it.
But it struck me that you mentioned several times in the article that you know what and how to do, you just don't have the leverage of being the main body. Why would you deny it? Is it something bad? I don't think so. Would you refuse if Twitter or Facebook approached you with a decent offer?"
And for this I was severely downmodded. Well, wasn't the part of Facebook approaching you right? In my opinion you should have made this known to give people the full picture. For them to judge and make opinions having all the facts, not some of them.
Will you be working on something similar to tipjoy or will you be working on unrelated stuff ? (I understand almost everybody commenting below assumes that you got 'snapped up' at firesale prices but they're going on the assumption that tipjoy is what they want you for, not your general knowledge of the art).
I think most people probably do realise that. I understand you're probably not in a position to tell it all just yet either. Seems like it would be in Facebook's and your own best interest to clarify the already-public information (if not more), though? Kill the speculation before it starts to echo.
Speculation on why the original deal fell through, for example? It's fair to say that speculation has already started, as the original article shows. I presume it has no basis (the fair presumption at this stage), which is why I think it's best for Facebook to just put the facts out there.
Your example is flawed as there is circumstantial evidence here to start speculating from. People aren't making up random ideas, they're filling in gaps. It's not right, but that's what happens when only part of the story is known.
It's the most difficult kind of article to rebut: the kind that "raises questions" without drawing any conclusions. But they sure made the situation look pretty shady.
But they sure made the situation look pretty shady.
Really? I read it twice and while I agree that the author was trying to make it look shady, all he actually comes up with are "undisputed facts". It's like trying to make a horror movie by adding scary music to paint drying.
I know nothing about the details here, but when an attempt at innuendo refutes itself, that's pretty weak.
