Update (Dec. 1): “Kevin” is Kevin Hague, the co-founder of Knowesys. CEO Kathleen Romano ends the conspiracy theories in a comment here.
Update (Nov 30): JotSpot Founder Joe Kraus reponds in the comments.
Sometimes it isn’t until a blog post gets deleted for one reason or another that it grabs people’s attention. That happened today when a relatively new blogger named “Kevin” deleted a blog post titled “The JotSpot Google Merger,” where he complained that JotSpot left them stranded as a partner after Google acquired the company last month.
Blog posts are cached upon posting by a number of search engines, so the text of the original post is easily recovered:
The JotSpot Google Merger
So I’m finally at a point where I need to blog about the JotSpot (http://www.jotspot.com/) merger and how it was handled. The company I work for builds custom JotSpot Wiki’s for enterprise class companies and “was” JotSpot’s first Partner. We were JotSpot’s only Gold Partner and were evangelist of the technology during the last two years. We made a massive investment in JotSpot, learning new API’s, developing Wiki converters and custom applications for use with JotSpot.
To preface what I’m about to say, I am very happy to have worked with the JotSpot people, I learned a lot about new technologies from AJAX, XML, JSON and Wiki technology in general. I congratulate everyone at JotSpot and wish them good luck at Google.
Unfortunately, my company was one of the few (many?) who had a negative impact from the merger. Besides us, it is the other JotSpot Partners and customers who are now “left holding the bag”. What is truly interesting from our perspective is that no one at Google cares about the people who helped build the JotSpot product. Or if they do, it is through the rose colored glasses of lots of money. I guess that cures everything.
Here is what I’ve learned from this experience:
1. If you sign a partnership agreement, get some kind of notification clause that gives at least thirty days (preferably more) notice before any party terminates the agreement. We were notified of the merger on the same day it was announced and had to play fire control with our customers.
2. Look for signs of impending trouble. Before the announcement, we noticed everyone at Jot acting strange. Upgrades were being posted quickly and these changes were causing problems with nearly everyone’s code. Little or no communication occurred prior to the upgrades. Why would a company do things to hurt its customer base? Well, I guess the answer is that Google was the biggest customer and probably demanded the changes prior to purchase.
3. Pick your hosted application service provider well. Relying on web hosted application services is much more dangerous than I ever would have assumed. This is especially true for those services that are “closed source” like those of JotSpot. If an agreement is made with an application vendor like JotSpot, get some kind of service agreement that extends beyond merger/buyout. These type of agreements are a bit shaky but if the management team is any good, they’ll include them in the buyout agreement.
4. Part of the buyout agreement should include clauses specifying a roadmap. Taking an entire company “Dark” after a merger does nothing but cause problems for customers. In the JotSpot case, no one knows what Google is planning to do with JotSpot technologies. Will customer applications
continue to work?My question to Google (and the JotSpot people) is how can you treat your customers, some of which have been there from the beginning so poorly? Does the Google mantra “do no evil” apply only when convenient? I’m wondering if the lack of customer focus will yet again provide us with another wonderful exploding “Tech Bubble” here in the valley. Just my two cents….
There was some discussion on TechMeme of the original post, but nothing significant. The interesting issue isn’t that JotSpot had an angry customer, but rather who put pressure on this blogger to pull his post and replace it with:
Sure the post was controversial, but unless it was fabricated it gave the world good information on how JotSpot treated its customers as the company was acquired. What I want to know is, what company does Kevin work for, and who pressured him to delete the post?
Its quite strange that things were handled like this. I am sure that there is some clause in the agreement to take care of existing customers. If things really did go like this then that guy is right to vent his anger. And now that this has reached the public domain, something might just happen.
Seems likely that this is Kevin Hague of Knowesys – http://www.knowesys.com
It would be interesting to see what ‘those important people’ will say now that the content is available all over the Internet.
My guess is Kevin’s boss or whomever pointed out to him that his terms of employment forbade him from airing this kind of dirty laundry in public.
Either that or Kevin’s mom told him to take the post down because she was embarrassed that he has the writing skills of a ninth-grader.
Though I did like the part about Google “(caring) through the rose-colored glasses of lots of money.” That metaphor isn’t just mixed, it’s puréed.
Yeah, so the question is: Is Kevin still in trouble now that the material is still, definitely out there?
To be honest, I think everyone should respect this user’s choice to “retract” his comments. While clearly that data has already been syndicated/replicated all over the world by now, I don’t think republishing his original comments with the knowledge that it has been retracted the right thing to do.
However, I think this would be a terrific question to pose to the New York Time’s Magazine The Ethistic column.
I originally thought that one of his friends from Jotspot, or possibly a customer, had requested he take it down. It’s certainly bad Jotspot/Google press, and does not help the company’s prospects.
Given that his site is hosted by Google’s Blogger, you could always go down the conspiracy theory path as well.
According to JotSpot’s partner directory, the only Gold Partner is knowesys.
Michael – feel free to give my site credit for this little bit of fact finding in the main article (hehe … smiles) – Anita
I agree, Chris D. There’s a fine line when it comes to respecting a retraction and the journalistic “need” to report it anyway. This could have been left well enough alone. As far as we know, the guy’s job could have been at jeopardy, as many companies don’t appreciate negative comments on a blog for all the world to read. If he’s like me, he decided he liked his job and it’s Christmas time. Poor judgment in republishing from the cache, in my opinion.
I wouldn’t consider this a “retraction” he isn’t retracting what he said, just removing the post. A “retraction” implies that the author doesn’t believe the post to be true any more and normally involves a statement “correcting” the facts of the retracted statement. I think his comments carefully imply just the opposite.
It will be interesting to see how Google/Jotspot responds. Is silence the best policy?
I agree with Anthony. Kevin simply stated his experiance with the merger and how it directly affected his company and current JotSpot customers. His position on removing the article did not state that the information was incorrect. The post was deleted and not retracted.
The interesting issue is the 4 lessons learned that Kevin described in the post.
That is worth retrieving – and not getting lost with the wind.
And without the context, why would anyone otherwise think too much about those “lessons.” The fundamental issue they address is now etched into my brain.
I can’t reveal much about my experience with Jotspot either, but our company has been heavily screwed because of the merger.
After the merger, Jotspot went on some kind of blackout as far as communications, and a portal we developed on jotspot’s servers is half-assedly done, but the developer can’t do anymore work because Jotspot has been quiet on whether they will pay him or whether google will. Unfortunately, we already have 50 customers (NOT USERS, CUSTOMERS) not understanding why basic functionality is not fully developed.
We’re probably going to dish out tons of cash to redevelop the portal on another engine entirely.
Thanks, Jotspot. Thanks a ton.
Oh, to clarify, 50 customers = 50 companies with lots of users at each company.
I just realized it doesn’t sound like a big deal if you think it’s only like, 50 people altogether.
I wonder if this is a company covering their rear or a person. If his reason for removing the blog was mundane then he would have spelt it out. Instead like the Google/Jotspot merger. There is no information.
Techies like openness.
Bizz Folks like secrecy.
Mike,
You have been getting a lot of heat on TechCrunch RE: the quality of the items that you post. I think there has been some momentum building in the comments and I think it is just a phase.
Nonetheless, I would have avoided this one. As the others have mentioned, this guy deleted the comment for a reason, and here you are explicitly disrespecting him. If I were him I would not have appreciated you re-posting it in an extremely visible place. It is not of so much importance to TechCrunch that it could not be avoided.
Ease up and lets start hearing about more interesting companies. I am fascinated with Free 411.
someone up here said that there is a fine line between respecting someone’s decision and the journalistic ‘need’ of ‘getting the truth out’. that someone is wrong; the line is not fine, the line is wide enough!
The reason I visit Techcrunch is to ‘read it first’ and not because you publish stories that ‘are not supposed to be read’. Give the guy a break, man. If he hadn’t talked to you to publish this here, so he can be let off by ‘deleting’ his post, then that’s a different story. Of course, you can easily say that, ‘now, that is true journalism, publishing something someone doesnt want published’.
republishing his post after he retracted it does not seem cool
i agree with #17
michael is acting as a journalist. you all need to respect that.
kevin posted on his blog, that is public domain. the search engines picked it up, for chrissake.
you have a problem with another blogger posting anything, you can start your own blog
I wouldn’t have had published his exact post. If I wanted to bring the truth about Jotspot-Google, I would simply summarize his post and let people know about the incident without pointing to his URL or name.
that was interesting, but michael, COME ON!
i know you like to make money and write good pieces, but if you want to try to beat cnet, you gotta learn how to have a little class and decency.
kevin’s probably not very happy, but knows if he posts an angry reply to your posting of his ENTIRE POST, you will blast him and ruin his career.
i’m done, but come on, michael.
Thank goodness for this post, Mike. I was beginning to wonder if you had stopped bashing Google.
Oh, wait, no I wasn’t.
I believe in journalism, of which too little is being committed, in this age of fear of reprisal. Thanks, Michael. You’ve solidified your independence, and journalistic credentials. You deserve your traffic.
Google’s a good company, but not perfect. We have a right to know it when they screw up. It’s done much less harm than the JotSpot customers and partners evidently suffered.
Kevin had a right to post. I don’t think he “retracted.” He had to know it was too late to retract, anyway, after the net had cached the post.
He says agreed to remove his post.
He didn’t say anything about anyone else removing mirrors, or caches.
He didn’t say that anything he said was incorrect; he said that it was “controversial”.
I suspect that he found a loophole in the company handbook and has done a good job in exploiting it; and despite anthropocentric’s comments, I say that Techcrunch has done a marvelous job at picking up on this story. Many internet news sites – especially internet tech news sites – catch a lot of flak for not engaging in “true journalism”; but I say that Techcrunch has behaved in an exemplary fashion despite Momekh’s failure to understand why the United States of America has explicit protections for freedom of the press.
It will be interesting to see if Jotspot’s lawyers are stupid enough to try to fire off a round of cease and desist demands to sites that have mirrored the post.
As for those who say that his deletion of the post should eliminate it: It’s the Internet, folks, get a clue already. We oldbies knew that there was a good possibility that USENET posts were being archived before there ever -was- a World Wide Web, before HTML was even invented and the only thing that CERN was known for was nuclear physics.
In the 11th century – an entire millennium ago – Omar Khayyam knew:
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
So, if you really object to the republishing, and you aver that Kevin’s intention was to retract it (even though he didn’t -write- that), keep in mind what Kevin should have kept in mind when writing a post:
Once you click “Submit”, your post is a part of history. Think before you hit Submit, or Send, or whatever your software uses to send a post out – because once it’s out there, *it’s out there.*
Totally agree with Steward’s comment on this.
I, for one, appreciate that you published this. There are valuable pieces of information in that post and it is public domain, retracted or not. Acquisition is a tricky thing and knowing how Google works pre- and post- acquisition is critical to anyone working with them. It is a public service. Thank you.
Kevin should have kept his blog the way it was, he vented about an issue which has valid points. Through that simple post, I could not determine the company he worked for. I doubt his job asked him to remove the post since he didn’t release any personal or confidential information about the company. Kevin actually probably removed the post himself. He woke up the next morning (after his hangover) and realized what he done! Oh! No!
I applaud Michael for posting this. If there’s something in Kevin’s post that’s libelous or that violates a contract, let one of the parties involved come forward and say so. Otherwise, individuals who post something to their blog should be aware that even if it’s been removed, it’s most likely still out there, especially when you write something like this about the darling of Wall Street.
Mike (not Arrington) is absolutely correct. This type of information is extremely valuable to many people, including Google shareholders. Having been on the record as believing that Google is significantly overvalued, is nothing more than a one-trick pony (thus far) with a single, vulnerable revenue stream, etc., I think it’s worthwhile for shareholders and potential investors to learn that Google is not perfect in its execution and in this case, appears either so arrogant or incompetent (or both) that they’re alienating JotSpot stakeholders that helped make the company into a property worth acquiring.
Also note that Kevin left the post comments intact. This is a deletion, not a retraction.
I also agree with Stewart above. TechCrunch was right to repost. Posting things we regret later happens to the best of us, but we can only regret them, not pretend that they never happened. Had this guy Kevin not removed his post, or had he removed it without explanation, nobody would have cared one bit.
And at about the same time that Omar Khayyam wrote, the great Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides also wrote, in his Epistle to Martyrdom (ca 1165)…
“You ought to know that no one has the right to speak in public before he
has rehearsed what he wants to say two, three, and four times, and learned
it; then he may speak… But if a man… puts it down in writing, he should
revise it a thousands time, if possible.”
They are so powerful to silence a blogger. Is cersorship coming to the net?
Maybe you’ll get a “cease and desist” letter from google… start collecting them!
“Gotta catch ‘em all…” PokeCrunch
Never cease to blow my mind. How about you stick to what you do best; Writing about companies rather than peoples personal blog decisions.. I’ve seen you do this a couple times and it’s pretty much a waste of your time.
There are bigger and more relevant issues you should be discussing. Respect the privacy of infividuals.
Good luck and shape up
Hi Michael (Arrington):
I was just wondering why was my comment was deleted? This was the comment that referenced the name of the company that “Kevin” worked for.
I was just answering your “What I want to know is, what company does Kevin work for” question with the name as found by raking through the web, using just the info Kevin provided. I thought it was pretty interesting … just want to make sure I didn’t violate some TechCrunch rules.
Thanks!
Anita
Anita, it’s just that The Man asked him to delete your comment, the same one who asked Kevin, ya know
.
I wonder if people would be down on Michael for posting this if it were Microsoft doing the purchasing. Google has feed the “Don’t be Evil” dog food to us for so long that we start to think that they can’t be evil. They’re a business. Jotspot was a business. It’s really that simple.
Since when do we castigate someone for uncovering what someone tried unsuccessfully covered up? Did people get after the media for calling Mel Gibson to task? Absolutely not, and Gibson’s comments directly and literally harmed nobody. The same can’t be said for the Google/Spot merger.
I personally think Kevin should have simply talked to someone like Scoble or another tech watcher who would have given him anonymity and let them take the heat.
LOL, “nope”, about respecting the privacy of individuals. Anyone who decides to publish personal materials on a blog for the entire world to see implicitly relinquishes his right to privacy *as pertains to those materials*.
Google is known to have customer service issues. I know many adword customers (with 8 digit spends) who are treated like shit.
Not sure about all this doom and gloom. We have been using JotSpot for a long time now and are currently looking to contract with some JotSpot development companies for further enhancements.
In none of the conversations we have had with these development companies have they sounded panicked about the future of Jotspot and whether they will be able to continue to develop on the platform.
I would think as JotSpot focused development companies they would be the first to freak out and we just don’t get that sense.
Sounds to me that someone is reading too much into the quiet period JotSpot has to be in to make sure they don’t ruin this deal as it is papered up.
to do something under pressue is pitty
Ah, the best part is people reposted his deleted post in his comment section. That makes so much sense.
Apparently there is no retracting or deleting anything nowadays. It’s all archived on the net somewhere FOREVER. Jst ask Kevin and Michael Richards.
Kevin is Linkedin too. Good research Joe #2.
http://www.link...file?id=2882881
Well said E. – “Jst ask Kevin and Michael Richards.”
Talking about Journalism, what about all the popular ‘leaked memos’ we like to read from Microsoft, Yahoo and Google that reveal some internal conflicts, future strategies?
Google used to treat many of their big spending clients like crap – as in wouldn’t return their calls, got back to them whenever they felt like it, didn’t give clear answers on things etc. I know because I worked with some of them. But you HAD (and have to still) be present on Google. They are the game, for now.
They have changed their tune since Microsoft jumped into the waters and started trolling for customers.
Besides, search is still very infantile. Has a long way to go to being great, or even very good.
This has nothing to do with Kevin except that no company, even one whose stock is over currently $500 /share can treat customers like crap forever and survive.
Why is JotSpot/Google not answering this? They responded to a negative review on my site within an hour of my posting. Do they think negative press just goes away?
Well, eventually it does, but people remember.
The internet is AWESOME.
Here’s my ethicist view…
Totally cool to put up the post.
Totally NOT cool to go around asking people to google stalk this poor guy. Already in enough trouble, no need to magnify it.
My name is Joe Kraus and I was the co-founder and former CEO of JotSpot and I am now a Google employee.
Let me start out at the personal level. Simply put, it sucks to hear partners or customers say bad things about you. And, it’s not because I expect everyone to say nice things. It’s because I take very personally the fact that people, like Kevin, who invested in us early, feel this way. I take a lot of pride in the companies I’ve built or helped with and it stings when people feel burned. I know Kevin personally, albeit not extremely well, and I know that what he says about investing heavily in JotSpot is true. He did and his firm did. And, JotSpot benefited from that investment.
Kevin, I’m sorry you feel this way.
Now, let me see if I can explain two things.
1. we’ve joined a company (google) that has a policy of not announcing anything about future product direction. Agree with it or not, that policy has served Google well. But, what it means is that our ability to give any sense of timeline and capability is extraordinarily limited. I know it can be frustrating and I know this comes as a turnaround from the very-open-about-future-plans nature that JotSpot’s partners and customers were used to.
2. we’re not going to abandon our partners and customers. Sure, I know that that’s a tough promise to hold onto in light of #1. And, I also understand that I’m asking you take it on faith. So, if you choose not to believe that, I understand. However, I want to assure folks that a) we are continuing to offer the JotSpot service to customers that had signed up before we were acquired and b) we will continue to do so until the time that we can (and will) migrate users to a new service.
In the end, I have great confidence that this move to Google will be extraordinarily positive for our partners and customers. At the same time I’m very sorry that a great partner of ours feels left in the cold. I will do what I can to change that.
Last but not least, I can assure you that nodoby on our end asked Kevin to remove his post.
It is absolutely right for Michael to post this. If Kevin wanted the post to go unnoticed he could have deleted it completely and probably nobody would have realized.
I had to delete a post as well some time ago, and it leaves some resentiments behind. You delete the post, let everybody know and hope somebody else picks it up, you are off the hook.
I don’t think he will get into trouble, the message is out and it is good like that. I find it important that everybody knows about Google’s behaviour.