To set the stage, Arrington was pressing Bartz on the idea that the best companies are often "single-revenue-source" producers, and was implying that Yahoo, by getting away from search to his view, was moving away from what could work for the company. While asserting that Yahoo! is still a search company, Bartz disagreed, pointing to successful firms that were conglomerates.
Then Bartz seemed to think that Arrington was saying that because Yahoo! had not created a device they were not innovative and lacked direction. Bartz then focused on his "tiny company," saying that even with a firm as small as his, he didn't always know what direction he was going in. "So don't give me crap about what the fine people of Yahoo! are supposed to do, so F-off."
It was not meant to be mean, and to be frank Mike really deserved it. He kept giving her a hard time and asking questions not just to get to know what she has in mind, but to ridicule her.
I hate to say this... but as more people start to hate Arrington, I think I am starting to like him. Techcrunch doesn't bother me as much as it used to.
Every once in a while it's good to see the professional Talking Heads get called out for being talkers and not doers.
On a related note, I've noticed that many people think that if a business isn't #1 or #2 within a given field or market, that it somehow sucks. It could in reality be doing a number of things well, but especially within the professional media they like to make extreme characterizations rather than more nuanced and accurate descriptions. Third place is not last place. Not all companies have to be the "best", partly because not even everybody can agree on exactly what "best" means. Is Yahoo kicking butt in the same way and to the same degree that Apple and Google are? Probably not. Have they made a more substantive contribution to the Web so far than Arrington's company? Probably so. I think this contrast is in part what made Bartz mad.
6 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 25.6 ms ] threadPreviously discussed on HN here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1375044
Update: This link from the video explains it all.
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2010/05/yahoos-ceo-carol-bart...
To set the stage, Arrington was pressing Bartz on the idea that the best companies are often "single-revenue-source" producers, and was implying that Yahoo, by getting away from search to his view, was moving away from what could work for the company. While asserting that Yahoo! is still a search company, Bartz disagreed, pointing to successful firms that were conglomerates.
Then Bartz seemed to think that Arrington was saying that because Yahoo! had not created a device they were not innovative and lacked direction. Bartz then focused on his "tiny company," saying that even with a firm as small as his, he didn't always know what direction he was going in. "So don't give me crap about what the fine people of Yahoo! are supposed to do, so F-off."
It was not meant to be mean, and to be frank Mike really deserved it. He kept giving her a hard time and asking questions not just to get to know what she has in mind, but to ridicule her.
Am I the only one?
On a related note, I've noticed that many people think that if a business isn't #1 or #2 within a given field or market, that it somehow sucks. It could in reality be doing a number of things well, but especially within the professional media they like to make extreme characterizations rather than more nuanced and accurate descriptions. Third place is not last place. Not all companies have to be the "best", partly because not even everybody can agree on exactly what "best" means. Is Yahoo kicking butt in the same way and to the same degree that Apple and Google are? Probably not. Have they made a more substantive contribution to the Web so far than Arrington's company? Probably so. I think this contrast is in part what made Bartz mad.