Mike

Just by the way – I have a hosting business operating in the US, UK and Australia, and started building web sites in 1995.

Difference is, Google has a viable business earning cash. Naked doesn’t, nor is there any immediate prospect that this will change. Your comparison isn’t so much comparing apples with pears, but apples with s**t. No undue disrespect to Naked (good for them for trying, etc) but to draw comparisons between a failed BETA stage start up and Google is a flawed argument.

Also, your statement that ‘it doesn’t necessarily cost anything to keep a website running’ is blatantly wrong, as no doubt anyone reading this can figure out for themselves. (Hosting charges, tech support, ongoing fixes if there are any stability issues with the BETA, etc)

If you need to confirm this, ask one of your colleagues who knows about websites and costs.

Read it here: http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/05/30/disecting-naked/

I think there is logic in keeping a private beta running, as if there is any rescue possible, there is an active customer base for investors to consider as part of the equation when making a valuation of the product and its intellectual property rights. Assume Google goes into liquidation – would they shut down their search engine and Adwords?

I had lengthy one-to-one conversations and exchanges of messages with a number of individuals who were the core team around Naked, in conversations that took place just a few days after we covered the story of their sending a message to their private beta users.

However, I decided in my old-fashioned style that there was not a story to write until there was a change in their status. There has been no change. When there is, you’ll hear about it here on The Next Web. Or we may decide it’s a non story – we’ll see.

I fundamentally disagree that the best way to deal with a liquidation is to keep running. Costs will continue to build up and the hole being dug will just get bigger.

- So basically this comes down to the fact that your reading of my story is that is was “tabloid”. That’s your opinion, not a fact.

- You didn’t bother to check why the company had cashflow problems on May 7th. That’s kind’ve amazing.

- I never said the site was not still running.

- You refer to a “vengeful wife”. I just said Bonnier was getting divourced, that’s all.

- You were “made aware of administration status later in May, but did not think that was a story worthy of attention.” Enough said.

- “There was never a question of our hiding facts, just choosing not to write a story.” What’s the difference?

- “How come it took you so long to find this story anyway?”. Did you actually HAVE a story? All you did was repeat their May 7 email.

- “Perhaps it’s rather the case that someone pitched you this story”. No, actually, I just did some old fashioned reporting. Calling people etc.

Listen, I was not attacking you for reporting the facts, just being critical of the way that you reported the facts. I felt you were being a bit ‘tabloid’ – but that’s just my opinion, and your article was good reading – I really am sorry if you felt I was attacking you – no – I was being critical. Different.

We didn’t have confirmation of administration status on May 7th – nor did we seek it – we just reported the message going out, and our thoughts about that. We were not protecting anyone, but we though it best to be supportive of people in some trouble, rather than shouting ‘deadpool’! So we said – take a look – ask us for an invite to see inside Naked.

The fact that Naked is still up and running, and users can still issue invitations was what I’d say was an important omission from YOUR story (but one that I did not criticise) – and you and a lot of others people requested and received invitess to Naked through me a few minutes after I mentioned it, when adding a comment to your story on Techcrunch.

Mike, I realise you are just the messenger with news, but sometimes it’s good to be selective and analytical in reporting what people tell you – for example with your coverage on Bonnier – it is selective – as is any piece of writing – to support your story. The fact that the employees at Naked may have been turfed out of work by an unwitting but vengeful wife or ex-wife trying to fill her boots is a great story – but not one we think deserves coverage here – we’re not writing that kind of blog. Well, not yet.

I was made aware of administration status later in May, but did not think that was a story worthy of attention – we were just interested in the first place in the fact that someone had chosen a very honest, open, and transparent way to tell people they were in trouble – and reported about that to simply applaud the honesty, which we found refreshing.

We also believe that there will be something still to come from Naked – because, unlike Techcrunch, we had seen and used the beta release – and we know there are moves in place to keep it alive – and if that does happen, then we’ll write about, or perhaps, reluctantly have to report its death. There was never a question of our hiding facts, just choosing not to write a story because it was, in our opinion not yet a story – a decision you I am sure have to make many times a day. We don’t think the story is over, so there’s no story for us yet.

Speaking of transparency – here’s something I find very odd – how come it took you so long to find this story anyway? We were there with it a full three weeks ahead of you Mike! How about that? Perhaps it’s rather the case that someone pitched you this story by making direct contact to reveal the gory details? That would be a very PR sort of thing to do, wouldn’t it? ;-)

And while we’re on PR – no, I don’t think there’s any danger of this blog becoming a PR company or paid mouthpiece – but thanks for the flattery. The Next Web Blog just entered the Technorati Authority Top 5000, which is not bad for something that only started in January. We’ll be sure to let you know at Techcrunch the moment we get any nice offers.

The Next Web Blog respects transparency and honest debate, and we know you hold the same viewpoint Mike – but we just happen to both be writing different sorts of blogs. I think such diversity is good and healthy, as is being able to debate and offer different views on an issue publicly.

I look forward to any discussion over a malt whisky Mike, and thanks for being so open and honest with your views. (I have some Glenrothes in mind, as consumed on Diggnation #144 in Amsterdam)