Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Media Technology

Gigaom Closes Shop 101

Posted by timothy from the that's-a-shame dept.
Presto Vivace writes "What a loss for the tech community," linking to this announcement at Gigaom that the site is shutting down: Gigaom recently became unable to pay its creditors in full at this time. As a result, the company is working with its creditors that have rights to all of the company's assets as their collateral. All operations have ceased. We do not know at this time what the lenders intend to do with the assets or if there will be any future operations using those assets. The company does not currently intend to file bankruptcy. We would like to take a moment and thank our readers and our community for supporting us all along. — Gigaom management Reader bizwriter adds a link to this story on the shutdown.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gigaom Closes Shop More

Gigaom Closes Shop

Comments Filter:

  • The tech site of my dreams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:33AM (#49224231)
    Tech is escapism. I want the tech site that doesn't preach political bullshit of any persuasion, yet still isn't a tech industry PR news feed.

    • Views that are worth having are worth defending against opposing ones.

      • Re:The tech site of my dreams (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rob Riggs ( 6418 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @09:03AM (#49224481) Homepage Journal

        Views that are worth having are worth defending against opposing ones.

        Why exactly? They are your views. Why do you need to defend them? Either they hold up on their own, or they don't.

        In fact, I would argue that the exact opposite is true. The only views worth having are those that need no defense. They are well-supported by established evidence. All views should be treated with a commensurate level of skepticism based on the evidence available to support them.

        • They are well-supported by established evidence

          You might have a point, if the internet ^Wworld didn't have an abundant supply of nitwits willing to ignore any and all evidence that might conflict with their "individual" world view.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by mi ( 197448 )

          Why exactly? They are your views. Why do you need to defend them?

          You don't have to defend them. But they better be worth defending...

          Either they hold up on their own, or they don't.

          Opinions don't — can not — "hold up on their own". They need to be expressed — verbally, in writing, or in some form of art...

          The only views worth having are those that need no defense. They are well-supported by established evidence.

          Would care to defend this view? How about a Periklynian dialog [dlma.com]?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rob Riggs ( 6418 )

            The only views worth having are those that need no defense. They are well-supported by established evidence.

            Would care to defend this view? How about a Periklynian dialog [dlma.com]?

            Nope. I have no need to. And certainly not in public, on the internet, with a stranger. That sort of activity is, like sex, best done in private and with people I know and trust.

            There is a subtle difference between expressing ones views and defending them that you (and others) may have missed.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mi ( 197448 )

              There is a subtle difference between expressing ones views and defending them

              I'd argue, that the difference is merely quantitative — as in, how much you are willing to say (or do) in support of your opinion before shrugging and walking away. As opposite to qualitative — as in whether you are willing to say (or do) anything at all.

              Though we all have some threshold, that quantity for each individual depends more on each personality and priorities (both lifetime and minute) than any kind of princ

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Rob Riggs ( 6418 )

                There is a subtle difference between expressing ones views and defending them

                I'd argue, that the difference is merely quantitative — as in, how much you are willing to say (or do) in support of your opinion before shrugging and walking away. As opposite to qualitative — as in whether you are willing to say (or do) anything at all.

                Defending one's view presupposes that the view has come under attack. Expressing one's view does not.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mi ( 197448 )

                  Defending one's view presupposes that the view has come under attack.

                  An "attack" can be subtle — like what I managed in this very subthread. You've now responded twice to defend your view from it...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )

          Why exactly? They are your views. Why do you need to defend them? Either they hold up on their own, or they don't.

          Why are you arguing with him about whether views worth having are worth defending? Clearly you don't need to respond. Either his view on that subject holds up or it doesn't. Right?

          They are well-supported by established evidence. All views should be treated with a commensurate level of skepticism based on the evidence available to support them.

          Presenting evidence to support a view is defending that view. So we shouldn't defend point of view; because the evidence (that nobody would now be gathering and presenting) should speak for itself?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      well then certainly you will not miss gigaom that would write about any startup with an app that has 10 downloads.

  • Never heard of it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rbanzai ( 596355 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:35AM (#49224245)

    Can someone summarize what it's value was to the tech community?

    • Re:Never heard of it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Culture20 ( 968837 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:39AM (#49224297)
      Exactly. Seems like there was a reason they closed shop.

      • Re:Never heard of it (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Isca ( 550291 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:47AM (#49224375)
        The sad part is that I went to their main page and scrolled back the last few weeks of stories. It seems to have an Ars Technica feel to it, which is a good thing. I may have even bookmarked it and read it on occasion had I known it existed...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jandrese ( 485 )
        With one exception their articles never garnered more than 15 comments. It's clear that they had utterly failed to get their name out.

      • The only reason I even knew it existed was because of This Week In Tech podcast that I've listened to for years. They often had Om Malik (the founder) on the show and he was entertaining enough to listen to. However, I didn't go to the site more than two or three times because they offered me nothing new. I get all my tech news from Slashdot (though less and less these days), ArsTechnica and Reddit. I don't need another news site... in fact I often think I need to trim down that list. Oh, you can probably a

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by alen ( 225700 )

      most likely they wrote the truth instead of the click bait crap of BGR, Ars and The Verge

    • Re:Never heard of it (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:54AM (#49224429)

      Can someone summarize what it's value was to the tech community?

      The proprietor was a self-styled tech elite asshat. He impressed some people, but not enough apparently. He always struck me as a phony. Gigaom as a site had enough insider scoops that they were useful for breaking news in the actual tech industry (not the consumer tech industry that gets hashed and rehashed by Engadget, Slashdot, and a dozen others) so it had a little value, but it was never the tech thought leadership paragon that it pretended to be.

      • they were useful for breaking news in the actual tech industry

        This. If you cared more about big transit than trends in cellphone style, Gigaom was worth having in your Google News feed. I'm not sure what the alternative is right now. Back in the day ComputerWorld (in print) used to carry this kind of stuff.

        Hopefully the writers (what, the content doesn't auto-generate?) will find a home at other outlets.

      • The proprietor was a self-styled tech elite asshat. He impressed some people, but not enough apparently. He always struck me as a phony. Gigaom as a site had enough insider scoops that they were useful for breaking news in the actual tech industry (not the consumer tech industry that gets hashed and rehashed by Engadget, Slashdot, and a dozen others) so it had a little value, but it was never the tech thought leadership paragon that it pretended to be.

        If you are referring to Om, he's sold out a year ago. So it could be said he did have enough, and his successors did not. (I don't know / don't care which .... I've read some of their stuff but not enough to have an opinion on the quality).

      • The proprietor was a self-styled tech elite asshat.

        This summary deserves some sort of internet fame.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skegg ( 666571 )

        The proprietor was a self-styled tech elite asshat

        Aside from Gigaom, my knowledge of Om comes from watching him many times on Twit, and he seemed like a very genial, knowledgeable individual.

        Now if AC has personal experience with Om, that's another story.

      • The proprietor was a self-styled tech elite asshat. He impressed some people, but not enough apparently.

        He actually left the site over a year ago, which, according to at least one other site, was about the time that it seemed to began its decline.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Typo-squating GigaCom best I can tell.

      Next we'll hear that Slashsot.org (Mews for Berds, Dtuff that Katterz) and Dixe.com (Hobs Search for Technolgh) are closing shop.

    • I'm as much "in the tech community" as anybody I know and I'd never heard of them. Browsing their web site and reading about the apple watch, well, I don't know. I still don't know what they were doing.

    • Can someone summarize what it's [sic] value was

      Om Malik is a first-rate tech writer/reporter. Though I'm sure he'll land somewhere.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

      Before today, I have never heard of Gigaom.
      Looking at the content on their frontpage, I doubt I will ever hear of them again.

      • I knew of Om Malik due to him dropping in on Twit.TV once in awhile to chat with Leo Laporte on This Week In Tech, but never followed his site.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by azav ( 469988 )

      > what it's value was

      what its* value was

              it's = it is

      Learn this.

    • In newspaper publishing, what Slashdot and Dice Holdings management writes are called "Blind Headlines". You can't know whether you want to read the story until you have read the story.

  • Who or what is Gigaom? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nighttime ( 231023 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:37AM (#49224273) Homepage Journal

    Until this story, I'd never heard of them. Would it have hurt to included a brief sentence or two in the summary as to why it's "a loss for the tech community"?

    • Yes. I am waxing and waning on this news.

      On the one hand I am at a loss because something is no longer available to me as a resource and on the other, I never used them as a resource because I was never exposed to them.

      Damn life's bitchery and stuff.

    • A tech blog, apparently. And no, I haven't heard of them before either.

    • Re:Who or what is Gigaom? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jeffmeden ( 135043 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @09:07AM (#49224523) Homepage Journal

      Until this story, I'd never heard of them. Would it have hurt to included a brief sentence or two in the summary as to why it's "a loss for the tech community"?

      Gigaom is a media company (mostly news aggregation and blogging) founded by writer/journalist Om Malik, who turned out to be the company's only asset. After he left for greener pastures in 2014, the site slid quickly into obscurity.

      • Gigaom is a media company (mostly news aggregation and blogging) founded by writer/journalist Om Malik, who turned out to be the company's only asset. After he left for greener pastures in 2014, the site slid quickly into obscurity.

        Mr. Malik followed the typical Internet business model, in other words. I feel bad for anyone working for the site; however I'm not going to shed tears for the foolish investors who bought it.

        But remember - this isn't a bubble.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jhecht ( 143058 )
      Gigaom was a good site for tracking telecommunications news for several years, founded by Om Malik, who wrote a very good book on the 2000 Bubble called Broadbandits, which focused on telecomm giants -- including giant scams like MCI. Malik was a perceptive analyst and writer, and I read it frequently in the 2000s. Its demise reminds me that I hadn't visited it of late. It also reminds me there are a lot of tech websites out there, and a new wave of companies turning out what apparently are tech news apps

  • I've never heard of the site...and I don't feel like RTFAing. What the heck was Gigaom and why should I care?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jeremyp ( 130771 )

      I had a look at their home page and it looks like some sort of technical blogging and news site. The fact that nobody who has commented on this story seems to know who they are (or were) is probably a clue as to why they have gone tits up.

  • They appear to be a news site of some sort, nothing much on there I would read though (how many articles can be there about HBOGo before saturation?).

    • They appear to be a news site of some sort

      Folks used ta say that about Slashdot, back in the day... *cackle* *spit* *ding*

  • Oh no! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Wait, what in the fuck is Gigaom?

  • Great story, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:50AM (#49224397) Homepage

    Thanks very much for this story about a website no-one has heard of shutting down. Bonus points for not even telling us what the website's raison d'etre was in the first place, or why we should care that's it closing.

    As you can see it has stimulated much discussion, all of which is so far on the topic of "what the fuck was Gigaom?"

  • I only knew of them... (Score:3)

    by Red_Chaos1 ( 95148 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:51AM (#49224409)

    ...because of NoScript. I don't think I ever went to see who they were, I just knew I never needed to allow them to have a page work right.

  • Not Enough Apple! (Score:5, Funny)

    by GNious ( 953874 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @08:58AM (#49224457)

    Clearly they didn't post enough Apple news, Apple reviews, Apple opinions or other Apple-related articles, since no-one here seems to have heard of them...

  • And nothing of value was lost... (Score:3)

    by Rob Riggs ( 6418 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @09:05AM (#49224499) Homepage Journal
    I feel sorry for the creditors. Really, who the hell cares about this web site? Tag this story "slownewsday".

  • I have an idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @09:05AM (#49224507)
    Good thing Slashdot posts slashvertisements, job leads from 1000 miles away, and show stupid bullshit spam ads to its 100% ad-blind readers. I guess that's how you stay afloat in this business.

  • Well there's your problem right there... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @09:08AM (#49224531) Journal

    Gigaom reaches over 6.5 million monthly unique readers and continues to be the leading independent voice that demystifies emerging technology through its news, events and research. We’re a new type of media company with a business model that leverages technology, transparency and access to information. The company’s growth has been propelled by great writers, journalistic integrity, industry depth and audience engagement.

    We offer integrated advertising programs across all of our channels: Cloud, Data, Media, Mobile, Science & Energy, Social & Web, and Podcasts. With a strong mobile reach of over 2 million monthly readers, our mobile advertising on Flipboard is highly targeted. With an array of podcasts, newsletters and other custom campaigns, we have a campaign offering to fit any client’s budget and marketing goals.

    I don't know who these "6.5 million monthly unique readers" are, but if the regular crowd at Slashdot has never even heard of their site, then they weren't really reaching 6.5 million people, or they were the wrong 6.5 million people. According to their careers page it looks like they had a lot of overhead and tried to run like an old fashioned news company with two offices in major cities. They certainly weren't lean-and-mean.

    https://about.gigaom.com/caree... [gigaom.com]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They also pay for VIP Wordpress, which costs $5000 a month starting with support starting over $1000 per month... to host wordpress. I guess their staff is all tech fluff writers and no actual tech. Figures

  • This surprised me. Then I thought about it, searched my entries in Movable Type, and realized Iâ(TM)ve only linked to Gigaom once in the last six months, and four times in the last 12 months. I used to link to reporting at Gigaom a couple of times every month. Theyâ(TM)ve been going downhill for a while.

    Source [daringfireball.net]

    Om Malik's a good writer. Looks like the site shit itself after he left to work for Apple

  • Recently or at this time? Make your mind up.
  • ....wait what's a Gigaom anyway?

  • The name, Gigaom, just seemed like another bullshit made up name just so that they could play in the market. It seemed disingenuous and shady from the get go and nothing I saw on it gave links to substantial reputable information to give it legitimacy.

  • This site that "no one has has ever heard of" managed to squeeze [crunchbase.com] out $22M in VC money. It was a navel-gazing site for silicon valley that made it's money through subscriptions to exclusive content and ads.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close