|
|
|
|
|
by Jun8
5391 days ago
|
|
Pardon my naivete (or nosiness, perhaps) but, why isn't it our business? When a well-known co-founder leaves a company they started, isn't it news? Why isn't it in this particular case? When Jobs leaves people dissect the event to its constituent quarks, admittedly Fake is not that big, but still, she is well-known. So isn't it natural for people to be curious? Other than idle curiosity, isn't news of this kind important for investors? If you were to invest $10M in her next startup, wouldn't you want to know why she left the previous one, heck, isn't the first questions one gets asked in an interview "Why are you leaving your previous company"? Do you counter those by saying it's nobody's business? |
|
It is natural for people to be curious, which is why gossip exists, and why there's a market for publishing it. However, our tendency to gossip is something we should resist and overcome.
There's a large distinction between Fake and Jobs (or Schmidt, or Bartz). The former was an executive of a small private company. The latter was the CEO of one of the largest public companies on earth, owned in part by many thousands of investors, all of whom have a financial interest in his health. Executives do have to explain things to their investors, and in a public company, the investors and the public are the same.
TechCrunch and similar publications have long tried to treat Silicon Valley and high-tech entrepreneurship in general as 'Hollywood for geeks', and the founders of startups as the equivalent to entertainment figures. But entrepreneurs aren't politicians or movie stars, no matter how much the tech press (and certain entrepreneurs!) might like it to be so, and subjecting their private lives to the same amount of scrutiny is repugnant.