On To Google Ventures

[ChuckMcM]

That people have these sorts of ties/influences seems challenging at best and unprofessional at least.

I do not believe you can make a product successful by driving rage views to the sign-up page. I do not believe you can make a product successful, as an investor, when you have such a polarizing influence on people. I don't know what that means for Google Ventures and I don't know what that means for MG Siegler. So that leaves me perplexed on this move in general.

That leaves me wondering what the angle is.

Crunchfund breakup? Propaganda piece muzzled? Impact mitigation? Arrington payback? Lots of questions and no answers.

And why does the tech industry tolerate reporters as investors? Do Hollywood Agents write for the Hollywood Reporter? Do wall street bankers report on news on CNBC? Do FDA administrators write articles about the biotech companies?

[gkanai]

FWIW, Mike Moritz at Sequoia was a tech reporter before he became a VC.

[danielrhodes]

MG Siegler is quite clearly not a reporter anymore. He's a venture capitalist and he writes infrequent opinion pieces on Apple and Google products for TechCrunch.

[brendan_gill]

I think part of the problem is that we still like to think of 'journalists' and 'reporters' as well defined concepts based on their historical nature. In an age where the barriers to entry for starting a blog or news source are nil we're going to have to expect that not only will there will be some blurring of the lines but that some of the old well trodden concepts we've become accustomed to are going to have to change.

[ghshephard]

I think MG Siegler has not only outstanding insight into the ecosystem of startups (his track record of identifying companies that are going to get traction is pretty good), he also has the ability to communicate.

Investors come from all over the place - look at Marc Andreessen, another investor who also writes and opines on a broad range of topics (If you think Siegler is opinionated, go see what Marc has to say about the New York Times)

I think this is a great move for Google Ventures, and a great move for Siegler.

[rayiner]

Wall Street bankers appear on the news on CNBC all the time.

[mikekij]

At the risk of sounding jealous, I can't quite see how MG could be that helpful to startup tech companies. I would think partners at funds like Google Ventures should have experience building things (e.g. Kevin Rose), or at least being part of a management team that facilitates the building of things.

That said, I enjoy(ed) MG's Apple coverage at TechCrunch, and wish him the best at GV. I just hope he stays long enough to make a meaningful impact on the companies he's writing checks to.

[awkward]

Remember when he unabashedly ran positive press for Path while they were getting reamed for rummaging through people's contact data without asking? And didn't announce that he had significantly invested in them?

Maybe he could do that for other people.

[OGinparadise]

Maybe he's there to hype the crap out of the companies they invest in? Hyping and writing is all he does.

[ok_craig]

This kinda makes me want to puke.

[Lewisham]

Couldn't have said it better myself. There hasn't been a more unashamedly biased "reporter" than MG Siegler in recent memory. At least Gruber never tried to be anything approaching legitimate.

I don't understand how he could be expected to be even-handed as you would hope a VC managing a large cash pool would be.

[ttrreeww]

Welcome to America :(

[frisco]

I guess deal flow trumps everything else. MG Siegler can almost certainly generate significant deal flow (I assume this was the same thesis behind getting Kevin Rose on board). Yeah, he's seen as a goofball of the internet, but I guess all that really matters here is finding the interesting deals and getting them through the door. I have no problem believing that MG can do that. As they'd say, "MG has substantial visibility."

[jcampbell1]

In addition to visibility, I can imagine having an advisor that worked in and is well connected in the tech press world would be beneficial to many startups. I think he can offer some insight into a blindspot for many startups. While his reporting was too biased and too often linkbait for my taste, his writing never led me to believe he is stupid.

[Splendor]

I can't wait to read more unbiased "news" from MG and the team at TechCrunch.

[cleverjake]

How is that comment relevant to this article?

[bdowney]

Google just paid him so no more anti-Google articles will be written. Very clever of them.

[skc]

Ahh, now it makes sense why he's able to trash a product like the Surface while praising (with a straight face) a product like the Chrome Pixel.

[PaulMest]

I see there are a lot of comments here doubting what MG can add to a venture fund or to Google. I think this comment from Sarah Lacy speaks volumes about MG's helpfulness to startups and entrepreneurs: http://youtu.be/v-0wEMr-hlA?t=50m58s

Keep in mind that Sarah and the Crunchfund had a falling out in the early days of PandoDaily. She had no problem ragging on Arrington, but felt compelled to praise MG and specifically cite how he is helpful to entrepreneurs and startups.

I am curious to see how the next step in his career goes and how this affects his writing and how he reviews products and teams.

[alekseyk]

And credibility of Google Ventures went down today.

His posts were filled with clueless rants with a side of his small minded ego. The guy is full of him self without accomplishing anything that would warrant that.

It actually annoyed me so much I wrote a grease monkey script years ago to block his garbage from TechCrunch (before they redesigned):

https://github.com/AlekseyKorzun/TechCrunch-Douchebag

[arbuge]

"The guy is full of him self without accomplishing anything that would warrant that."

This would unfortunately describe alot of the VCs out there very well indeed.

[dkuntz2]

I agree. Every time I see that he's now a part of something, or been placed somewhere that should warrant some form of accomplishment I try to see what exactly he's done. The only thing I can find is that he's written a lot of rather biased articles that don't actually have any content in them.

If anyone can cite some accomplishment, please do, because I'm just really confused by how he keeps being put in these positions.

[drivebyacct2]

Gruber took ad money from Microsoft. This is just Siegler's one-up.

[brown9-2]

What problem do you have with that?