Anti-Jotspot/Google Post Deleted Under Pressure

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Anshul
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 5:18 pm

   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.

2. Joe
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 5:49 pm

   Seems likely that this is Kevin Hague of Knowesys - http://www.knowesys.com

3. Wes
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 6:00 pm

   It would be interesting to see what ‘those important people’ will say now that the content is available all over the Internet.

4. ginchy
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 6:03 pm

   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.

5. Brian Laesch
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 6:09 pm

   Yeah, so the question is: Is Kevin still in trouble now that the material is still, definitely out there?

6. Chris D
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 6:11 pm

   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all over the world by now, I don’t think republishing his original comments with the knowledge that it has been retracted the right thing to do.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.

7. Say No to Crack
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 6:18 pm

   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.

   

8. Say No to Crack
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 6:43 pm

   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

9. Gerard Sorme
   

   November 30th, 2006 at 6:48 pm

   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.

10. Anthony Richardson
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    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.

11. David Mackey
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    It will be interesting to see how Google/Jotspot responds. Is silence the best policy?

12. Ian
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:12 pm

    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.

13. Nick Nichols
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:14 pm

    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.

14. Can't - could lose my job
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    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.

15. Can't - could lose my job
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:19 pm

    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.

16. No Fun
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    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.

17. anthropocentric
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    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.

18. Momekh
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:35 pm

    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’.

19. Todd
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:40 pm

    republishing his post after he retracted it does not seem cool

20. Ez E
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    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

21. Gaurav
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    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.

22. alex
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    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.

23. KD
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    Thank goodness for this post, Mike. I was beginning to wonder if you had stopped bashing Google.

    Oh, wait, no I wasn’t.

24. Dave Newton
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 8:13 pm

    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.

25. steward
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    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.*

26. Mike (not Arrington)
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    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.

27. Webmaster
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    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!

28. Drama 2.0
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    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.

29. Mike Abundo
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    Also note that Kevin left the post comments intact. This is a deletion, not a retraction.

30. Jean-Michel Decombe
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:00 pm

    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.”

31. w3vc
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    They are so powerful to silence a blogger. Is cersorship coming to the net?

32. Diego
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    Maybe you’ll get a “cease and desist” letter from google… start collecting them!

    “Gotta catch ‘em all…” PokeCrunch

33. nope
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:07 pm

    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

34. Say No to Crack
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:08 pm

    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

35. Jean-Michel Decombe
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:18 pm

    Anita, it’s just that The Man asked him to delete your comment, the same one who asked Kevin, ya know ;-).

36. Chris
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:22 pm

    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.

37. Jean-Michel Decombe
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:24 pm

    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*.

38. G
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:29 pm

    Google is known to have customer service issues. I know many adword customers (with 8 digit spends) who are treated like shit.

39. Larry Velez
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:29 pm

    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.

40. Denver Wang
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:34 pm

    to do something under pressue is pitty

41. E
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 9:41 pm

    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.

42. Bazily
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 10:26 pm

    Kevin is Linkedin too. Good research Joe #2.

    http://www.linkedin.com/ppl/webprofile?id=2882881

43. Pramit Singh
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 10:43 pm

    Well said E. - “Jst ask Kevin and Michael Richards.”

44. Soyapi
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 10:57 pm

    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?

45. Armadillo
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 10:57 pm

    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.

46. Robyn Tippins
    

    November 30th, 2006 at 11:13 pm

    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.

47. kai
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:11 am

    The internet is AWESOME.

48. LJS
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:15 am

    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.

49. Joe Kraus
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:16 am

    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.

50. Xenia Tchoumitcheva
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:16 am

    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.

51. Xenia Tchoumitcheva
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:31 am

    Just read #49. It is good that Joe Kraus from JotSpot gives an open answer instead of trying to suppress posts. I believe him that he didn’t ask Kevin to remove the post. But…

    He can promis as much as he likes, it is now Google that dictates what JotSpot does with customers.

    Imagine you have a small (compared to Goolge) company and get an offer from Google for several million dolllars. It is very tempting to sell your company, you feel flattered and you already dream of how you spend the money, you also get very excited.

    But some time later, you realize, that your “baby” in which you have invested so much time is completely changed by Google, policies for the employees are changed, custumer support is different etc. In the end, Google wants something for its money.

    Same happenend to writely and many others. BTW, M$ and other big companies act the same way, it is not only a “Google” behaviour.

52. Robyn Tippins
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:38 am

    So, do you think that Google requested he remove the post?

    It’s hard not to empathize with Joe on this, but I’d love to hear from Kevin on this.

53. ljon
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:41 am

    I agree with #4.

    Google “(caring) through the rose-colored glasses of lots of money.” I was having a bit of difficulty following the rest of the post, and then I hit that gem. So then I had to read on until I got to this, which is also hilarious in a more worrying way - “Relying on web hosted application services is much more dangerous than I ever would have assumed.”

    I’m guessing you did very, very little assuming?

54. We had the same problem
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:49 am

    after Google acquired a partner we worked with, the partner contract was canceled immediately, the service stopped, witch put us in trouble too.

55. Anon
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 1:27 am

    While i can sympathize with the affected company, they must understand that this is capitalism. Nothing is guaranteed, even if it is in writing, and basing your product off of someone else’s product = not a good idea. Its a cut throat world, deal with it.

56. Jim D
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 2:04 am

    I think this raises an interesting tough (old) question about switching costs and risk - which is independent of the details of this particular case

    If i build on an ASP I always have some level of risk of business interruption/change in direction, which is more immediate than if a similar thing happens to an underlying software product (e.g. a compiler or database). This is true of any partner that provides a day-to-day part of my business.

    However I want to build on an ASP platform because it offers huge advantages in terms of scale, speed and cost.

    So either
    i) I wait until the market is matured (e.g. like the Java standards) so I can switch later if I need to (e.g. to another app server)
    ii) I insist on working with Open source/ escrow software - but this limits my choice of partners (often including the higher-growth VC funded platforms)
    iii) I take a level of risk

    I have to add - Jotspot were always very good about users being able to export the full XML for a site at any-time - which gives you all the content and semantics you need.

    Hope it works out well for all.

57. James
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 2:13 am

    I agree with Chris D; we should respect Kevin’s wishes and leave him alone.

    Sounds like hassle from ‘the mob’ is the last thing he needs.

58. Rajeev
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 2:22 am

    People are interested in controvorsy so people create it.

    http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com

59. Darrin
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 2:41 am

    WE NEED AN IMMEDIATE CONFIRMATION ON IF JOTSPOT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY GOOGLE……

    &

    BASED ON COMMENT NUMBER: ——

    FUTURE ANALYSIS, OPINIONS & WRITE UPS OF:

    Companies acquiring other companies: For Business or the Future of the Stakeholder (and NOT the stockholder/sole benefit of the company/)…

    We need to start looking at how companies, businesses, products, services, applications, programs, wikis, plug-ins, write-ups, imaginations & dreams, that will actually take someone/company/business/idea to a level that’s not just about money (however, the monetization of anything will provide value) but to provide significant change into a ever-changing world.

    Bottom Line…….Improve & Innovate the world to a better place.

60. Hiptrigger
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 2:58 am

    Newsflash: TC & VW to merge!

    Talk about a blog entry that should be deleted - how about this one?

61. Andrew
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 3:06 am

    Re: 59 - Darrin…

    Ah, where’ve you been - just go to http://www.jotspot.com and it tells you right there on the homepage they were acquired by Google.

62. Rodney Rumford
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 3:16 am

    Look at the conversation flowing. This is great. I admire Joe for stepping up to the plate and telling his side of the story and expressing his genuine concerns.

    I can only say that we (the consumers and future users) will all most likely benefit by having google and jotspot coming together. I am only sorry to say that i did not get my jotspot account earlier.

    Rodney Rumford

63. Seamus McCauley
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 3:23 am

    I can see a lot of problems - technical and ethical - with Kevin’s “decision to retract his comment”. Mainly, though, commentators who think his decision to retract should have carried more weight appear to want journalists to act as if some of the properties of the web exist and some do not.

    If a newspaper “retracts” a story, the story is still out there in the copies it was printed in - there’s a note in a later edition saying something like “whoops, sorry, didn’t mean it” but no-one makes the words that were printed originally disappear.

    Online, if you “retract” a story, practically speaking you can delete it from your own site and replace it with something else (an apology, an explanation, nothing at all) but it’s still cached and often cited all over the place. So…if someone “retracts” something they posted online it should be treated as if it’s actually disappeared? I think not. Making stories disappear once they’re out there has never been (realistically) possible and it isn’t (realistically) possible in digital. Mike’s simply treated the medium as it actually is - evanescent, but at the same time persistent. Fair play.

64. Stuart
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 3:52 am

    I am a little confused. Where is the controversy? For one thing, I would suggest Kevin spend some time with a lawyer and/or reading some business management books. Some of the elements he described as needing to be in place such as - “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.” fit squarely under the title of “No Kidding”. Pretty basic stuff really that any good contract lawyer would identify.

    Not to be too critical, but is anyone really surprised by Google’s alleged behavior? Nothing more or less than any large company would do in a similar situation — which may be the point. Google apologists who still buy into the “Do No Evil” mantra are extremely naive. Google is a large company acting in their own self interests. Isn’t that what our system is all about? If you believe anything else, you have been standing too close to the Kool Aid dispenser.

65. Jay
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 4:05 am

    Certainly not the first time Google has screwed paying customers over of a company they acquired.

    A reminder: http://onotech.blogspot.com/20.....4055483341

    “Google isn’t acting like a real business, they are acting like an over-enthusiastic Golden Retriever puppy. Oh, they just knocked the vase off the table with their tail, but aren’t they cute? Um, no. Google, grow up.” — Ethan Stock

    I’m sorry, Google is yet to grow up.

66. Hiptrigger
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 4:22 am

    1. You are all full of it. If I find some scraps of paper near Steven King’s garbage can that are obviously his writings, say there’s a different ending to “Carrie”- can I publish them and say they are/were his intent? I think not. They are curiosities - but are quite outside ‘the collection’ -i.e. the published works of the author. This sort of thing has been going-on in literature, art and music for centuries. The unpublished or retracted works are ‘declasse’. Francis Bacon destroyed most of the works he painted - never released. If we found one (damaged, etc.) - could we hang it in the Tate? The Cure retracted the song “Killing An Arab”. There are copies about for sure, but it is no longer officially published - and I would make note of the fact that they “wish to undo it”. (even though it is about Camus’ book “The Stranger” - and was never meant to incite, etc.) Newspapers write corrections and make retractions all the time. Big deal.
    Who is to say the blog entry published above is as the author intended? For one - we do not have any of the authors’s context - his other writings, etc. Has it been changed? Digging some crap out of a cache somewhere proves nothing. It’s like finding a draft. It’s not the real thing. The real thing would be on the bloke’s blog with his name below it. This is Arrington just stirring up some pap.

    and 2. If the blog fragment is true - then the author and everyone needs to get real. This is business. Partners and other ‘redundancies’ always get screwed when companies merge or realign. This guy is taking it personal.. everyone is looking for ‘the big bad’ angle into the Google story. Capitalism is dog eat dog. If you are spending all yer time sucking the ankles of a tiny startup with no concrete arrangement then you are going to get what’s coming.
    It’s like no one has spent any time in the business world. *jeez* No, no the fantasy where the ‘rents pay for your vacation at skool where you get jiggy with rails and decide to start a social networking site, debiting latte’s & mac book pros on your trustfund… I mean the real bizworld. Where people have to grab their stuffed dogberts and lavalamps and get out now.
    This kid was dreaming if he thought it was going-down any other way.
    I mean really - announcing a deal before they can announce a deal? He wasn’t *in* the company.

    And Arrington as a lawyer should know this and not be trying to pump life back into this kid’s dead comments. They again, he’s not a *practicing* lawyer.

67. RqTect
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 5:34 am

    Come on Guys how many times have you wanted to take back a post you have made. You know that felling just after you press the send button and go oh shit what have I done.

    http://rqtect.com

68. Paul S
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 5:52 am

    re #49: To Joe

    ‘..what he says about investing heavily in JotSpot is true. He did and his firm did. And, JotSpot benefited from that investment.’

    I’m glad you publicly say that your company (and you personally) “benefited” (got enough $$ to not care what happens with JotSpot in the future) from Kevin’s dedication.

    Joe this is a bunch of crap. You added nothing to this conversation. I find it insulting that you hide behind your new “employer” and state the obvious… that you can’t say a word about the future.

    If Kevin was part of the reason you no longer have to worry about payroll, taxes, marketing, employee issues or the competition and only where your next vacation will be… compensating him or his company is the right thing to do. Not a “Kevin, I’m sorry you feel this way”.

69. paul
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 6:35 am

    how come the above cached version is different from the cache version here http://tinyurl.com/y2n45l ?

70. Daniel Scocco
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 6:40 am

    Is it clear why the guy removed the post? I think this is the first thing to be explained

71. tom
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 7:26 am

    I’d point the finger at Google; those guys don’t care AT ALL about anyone.

72. Christian Romney
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 7:43 am

    The only thing that shocks me is that some readers of this site (which I count as very savvy) still don’t get the web in 2006. If you don’t want it to be public, don’t publish it to begin with. The web is a giant cache of information. What you say *will* live forever and come back to bite you. Period. He may have decided to pull the content off his site (and please stop using the word retraction which connotes correction) because someone he cares about asked him to, but that is a personal decision. If there is a real story here, and there is, a responsible journalist would indeed publish it. It’s just too bad if it gets Kevin in trouble. I have no wish to see anyone get in trouble or lose their job, but ultimately the responsibility lies with him. By publishing this comment, I accept the same responsibility. These are just the rules of the game. Good reporting, Mike.

    Lastly, Joe Kraus deserves a lot of credit for monitoring the web for mention of JotSpot and clearing up the facts on in the comments to this post. Openness goes a long way toward establishing credibility and while Google may not be very open as an organization, I think people should give Joe the benefit of the doubt when he says he’ll do everything in his power to improve the situation. Time will tell if that faith is misplaced.

73. Drama 2.0
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 8:04 am

    “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.”

    It’s served Google well? They have nothing outside of search/AdWords, and according to quite a few people, a significant part of the AdWords revenue stream is hampered by fraudulent clicks. A bunch of twenty-somethings beat out Google Video in less than two years and forced them to buy for $1.65 billion, and only recently has Google admitted that it needs to focus on product development and shut down “projects” that aren’t going anywhere.

    And apparently it’s not serving Google well because you have some unhappy customers and other posters are reporting that the same thing happened with other acquisitions, indicating that Google hasn’t learned anything. They either don’t care or are incompetent.

    “This is business. Partners and other ‘redundancies’ always get screwed when companies merge or realign. This guy is taking it personal.. everyone is looking for ‘the big bad’ angle into the Google story. Capitalism is dog eat dog.”

    Hiptrigger: This would be somewhat true if JotSpot wasn’t a service provider. You don’t acquire a company that has become successful because of its PAYING customers and partners, as you obstensibly want to maintain existing revenues and grow them. Otherwise what’s the point of the acquisition? Your view of business is highly oversimplified. Dog eat dog might be true, but there’s no dog to be eaten here, only customers and partners which are crucial to your continued success after the acquisition. And if for whatever reason you want to play tough, you do it strategically. Business isn’t checkers. It’s chess.

74. Chris
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 8:22 am

    Hardly a useful contribution to this debate so please delete if needed, but I just wanted to say what an intriguing and fascinating story this is to see it unfold before our eyes. This is why people come to Techcrunch. I’m learning a lot from what I read here, thanks are due to Michael and all contributors.

75. Dave G.
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 8:30 am

    I heard it was Nick Denton from Valleywag that made him delete the post. He also advised JotSpot to ignore their partners and customers…that is the word on the street.

76. bubbatex
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 8:45 am

    “do no evil”….I laugh my a** off everytime I see that! I mean, does anyone REALLY believe that?!?

77. Kevin
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 8:51 am

    *** The post on my blog was NOT removed at the request of JotSpot / Google. ***

    In response to #49

    Joe,
    It took a lot of work to build JotSpot and to find liquidity for your investment is great. Obviously it is a difficult choice to have your baby bought for any amount but it’s the choice almost every entrepreneur would make.

    I can imagine the synergies Google can provide and can’t wait to see what’s in store for the Jot platform and I’m sorry you are unable give more answers about this future. It’s a real bummer for us.

78. Anon
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 9:14 am

    Kevin, you should re-read your posts before you publish.

79. Kevin
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 9:26 am

    Anon, you’re right.

80. David
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 9:45 am

    It’s one thing for consumers to “put our trust in JotSpot/Google”. We don’t have as much invested. One or two wikis, no big deal. What financial hardship could we possibly endure from the acquisition? On the flip side, not only has Kevin invested significant money, he has to answer to his customers about whether or not they will be around, to what level, etc. He’s in an impossible position. “I don’t know” doesn’t retain a lot of clients, I can guarantee that.

    In my opinion, the ethical/right thing for the owners of JotSpot would have been to negotiate heavily with Google to let key customers/partners know what was up. The fact that this didn’t happen (again this is my opinion) says that the owners of JotSpot, while retaining employment at Google are looking at this as a “cash and carry”.

    Bridges have been sufficiently burned.

81. Bill
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 9:54 am

    Google is evil, it’s as simple as that.

82. bill g
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:07 am

    Google is evil, it’s as simple as that and more. Move to hotmail.com and use office going forward. Google desktop blows.

83. bill g
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:08 am

    Use X1.com instead of Google desktop.

84. Denver Wang
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:19 am

    agree, #82, Google is evil…monster….

85. Who
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:21 am

    New story please. This has gotten blown way out of proportion.

86. HoHoHum
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:39 am

    Hey Joe:

    “Let me start out at the personal level. Simply put, it sucks to hear partners or customers say bad things about you.”

    But clearly doesn’t suck enough for you to turn down the loot.

    Seeing as you feel so bad, how about you dip into your own pocket and make it right?

    Hypocrite.

87. Alan Price
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:40 am

    Bubble 2.0, get used to it.

    From what I can tell, no one was left out in the cold. Support is still ongoing, and nothing was changed except who is writing the checks.

    While Kevin should feel free to voice his concerns, those of you not at Jotspot or at Google should refrain from offering unqualified commentary. It shows your ignorance.

88. Out of Your Minds
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:47 am

    I’m fairly sure that most of you reading this consider yourselves capitalists - some of you, proudly. When companies purchase companies, a level of ’secrecy’ is required in order that people without ethics don’t attempt to make money out of the information. At the same time, existing systems sometimes do - and more often do not - work. Looks as though jotspot didn’t fit the mould. Yes, it’s very upsetting for people who worked for them and were left out in the (alleged) cold. Or is that (allegedly) left out in the cold?

    The point is that if you adher to a system - be coherent! You don’ want to lose your job? OK … then suck it up.

89. Kathleen
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:52 am

    My name is Kathleen Romano - Kevin and I are the co-founders of Knowesys, JotSpot’s first partner. I hate to burst everyone’s bubble, but nothing so exciting as jeapordized jobs, regrets of posting opinions, or forced removal by ANYONE is going on here. Kevin posted his personal opinions; I mentioned I didn’t fully agree with him and wanted it clear that these were his views and not mine; he mistook my comment as a request to remove the post. That was not my intention. He has every right to voice his opinion and should’ve left the post up.

    Man - the truth is never as exciting as we hope!

90. DavidEzra
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am

    I’m delighted that Michael A. posted this story … as I have benefited on many fronts. Namely, its been very educational to see the story throught the eyes of multiple viewpoints - Kevin’s take, Michaels take, Joe’s take, and all of the poster’s take.

    As for Google, I hope they’ve become all the wiser - which I doubt - because of this incident (I’m not suggesting that all the “nasty allegations”are true or untrue, but even if they all turn out to be untrue, there is wisdom in knowing why someone would be driven to write such a post to begin with. As for me, I’m inclined to sympathize with Kevin.)

    Finally, as for “Do No Evil,” I’d be curious to know how much maintaining / growing a $500 stock price has blurred / cannabalized / dissipated / destroyed / overshadowed this once “enviable objective?”

91. HoHoHum
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 11:05 am

    “Finally, as for “Do No Evil,” I’d be curious to know how much maintaining / growing a $500 stock price has blurred / cannabalized / dissipated / destroyed / overshadowed this once “enviable objective?” ”

    Google senior execs never cared a jot (no relation) for “Do No Evil”. China proved that mantra was never intended to be anything more than a strategy for keeping the cult members employees docile.

92. Jean-Michel Decombe
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 11:31 am

    Oh, Kathleen, why did you have to ruin the soap opera for all of us? Let’s all pretend now that you are in fact working for The Man in a vast conspiracy (that involves Kim Jong Il and Steve Ballmer among others) aimed at putting Google out of business within the next two years.

93. SickOfJot
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am

    We are sick of Jot…….and don’t trust google.

    We tried: http://www.near-time.com , http://www.weboffice.com , and ended up choosing http://www.centraldesktop.com

    Central Desktop is the unknown dark-horse here….who provides a better business platform than Jot or Socialtext (if you want something that is wiki-ish)

94. evanb
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    People have had lots to say about corporate ethics and the post takedown soap opera, but no one has pointed out the lessons we can all learn from this episode.

    * Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
    * Beware of reliance on proprietary software. It can and does disappear. Open Source isn’t just for commies and religious zealots; it often makes good business sense.

95. Jorge
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    Google = evil.

    Did anyone really think that Google wasn’t evil?

    Case in point:
    1) Censors media when they expose Google’s hypocrisy for freedom of information, especially in regards to its own staff. This courtesy is not extended to any others, not even people who have been threatened with death by stalkers.
    2) Google refused to hand over legally adequate data for Orkut users that was a confined to a specific period of time and for specific groups. The users were using Orkut to arrange drug deals and the sales of children for sex.
    3) AdWords and AdSense. Your accounts can get canceled without any action on your part, for even the slightest thing. You can’t challenge it, AND they keep the money you legitimately earned. That’s breach of contract and theft.
    4) GooTube. Both Google Video and YouTube profit off the creative works of others.
    5) China. Google censors for China. There’s no excuse for that, it is akin to a company helping South Africa with its apartheid policies.
    6) Censorship of the American media.
    7) “Backdated” stock options and other financial misreporting.

    That’s just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. There’s way more.

96. david8
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    From #87:

    While Kevin should feel free to voice his concerns, those of you not at Jotspot or at Google should refrain from offering unqualified commentary. It shows your ignorance.

    …actually, Alan, this shows your ignorance. People are NOT going to refrain from commenting on whatever. It’s the INTERNET for crying out loud. Get used to it.

97. Hiptrigger
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    For the few that said “good reporting” - you are out of your minds. Pulling a turd out of a cache somewhere is not reporting. In journalism school they teach you, among many other things not observed here on this little blog - that one needs three sources to verify a fact. You are Arrington’s suck-ups.

    For the many who are using this as an opportunity to trash Google - you are naive. Grow up. Your collective lameness is evil.

    I wonder how many of these posts above are actually Arrington under another name?

    He must love this stuff - thinking he’s “selling lots o’papers’. What an utter waste of time this blog has become. …between the copied news posts and the lame ignorant/noob pansy comments. It’s like no one has studied history or has a real job in business and seen a contract or dealth with the web of laws and agencies that a company has to operate under (SEC filings, corporate governance, Sarbane-Oxley, Sherman anti-trust, and on and on). Google didn’t ’screw somebody’s customer’ - by law they can’t even mention the impending deals.

    And if the post by Kathleen is true above - then you are all lame for yet again, naively believing that Arrington had something real here. I’d like Arrington to post an article about drinking bleach as a fantastic way to get high and then see how many people get sick and die. Talk a bout a cheer-leading bandwagon of dolts. This blog has been around a year and you treat it like it’s the Times or something…

98. HoHoHum
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Hiptrigger, this blog is great for those few of us who actually think for ourselves. Google fanbois such as yourself should look elsewhere (try under the desktop) for your entertainment.

99. Capitalism
    

    December 1st, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    Ok guys, the important bit is what we take away from this.

    I hope that next to every newspaper article about Web 2.0, which claims that Google & the likes will be the king of your desktop, they will mention this incident. Basically that anytime for any reason, Google & the others can change the service whatsoever without any regard to their customers, because that’s just the way things work.

    Thanks Google for screwing up the market for the rest of us: this indeed sends out a very encouraging message to all the businesses that were considering to sign-up with less-established ASP company.

    Mr. Joe Kraus, I hope you can sleep well at night. You could have tried to negotiate with Google, prefering the interest of the people who got you to where you are, but apparently you just didn’t bother. Hiding behind your new employer is a bs - don’t be a p@#sy, take a full responsibility for the mess you caused by your love of $$$.

100. Anon
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pm

     Techcrunch seems to be adopting sensationalism!!

     Tabloid Magzines, Tabloid TV and now Tabloid Blogs

101. Hiptrigger
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 1:51 pm

     Dearest Hobag, I can’t stand Google - it is destroying the Valley (gives you some idea of where I live). I see them as potentially worse than Mr. Softy ever hoped to be…
     Shows you didn’t read/understand what I was writing - just another knee-jerk reaction like I was pointing-out.
     I was defending Google’s situation only from the standpoint of being a company buying another company and their inability to inform people such as Kevin - the purported original blog writer. It’s only incidental that it happens to be Google.

     Under my desk? What - are you down there? ..hohoHummer?

     Seems like you drank the bleach.

102. Madness...
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 1:54 pm

     This blog is like a love-child of Slashdot and the National Enquirer. Some high standards being set here.

103. Bob Haugen
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pm

     Get real, people.

     Rising Technologies was Jot’s second development partner.

     Our customers are still being supported.

     None of them are panicking.

     We expected Jot to be purchased by somebody, and are happy that it is Google.

     We are even getting new customers after the acquisition.

     We expect bigger and better opportunities.

     We wish Google would tell us more, too, but we are not surprised that they aren’t.

104. webonics
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 3:59 pm

     This was a great post. I think it was informative and educational from a variety of perspectives. Thanks for posting and all the valuable community feedback.

105. HoHoHum
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pm

     My darling Hipfiddler, apologies for misinterpreting you.

     Google is turning out like Microsoft, only far more hypocritical. At least Microsoft never pretended not to be evil.

     But I am curious: how do you think Google are destroying the valley?

106. mike aronson
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pm

     Yaaaawwwwn.

     A large company buys a small company. And the small company’s friends and supporters feel hurt.

     So what?

     Deal with it friends or get out of the business.

     The good news is these people don’t matter. And that is as it should be.

107. Dave Newton
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 6:21 pm

     One of the laws of physics — right up there with action-reaction: humans love success, and hate successful people and companies exponentially.

108. Stephen Bronstein
     

     December 1st, 2006 at 6:43 pm

     Hey Joe, we fe