AOL badly needs to rebrand themselves. It seems like the company has changed and is very profitable in recent years.
They could offer, "the greatest thing in the world, by AOL", but it's not a company I would ever do business with, I don't have a logical reason for this.
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by keithpeter on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:19PM
(#8033316)
"For comparison, Chrome requires 512 MB minimum. I only have 4 windows open and it's using about 4 GB of memory, and this is a very light day."
Good heavens. Below is top showing Iceweasel (Firefox in Debianspeak) with theverge, vox, fivethirtyeight, bbc news and theregister and an html5 video playing.
On an old i5 laptop with 3gb ram (64 bit OS).
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
10272 keith 20 0 1673m 460m 29m R 67.2 16.1 16:23.65 iceweasel
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by dm2 on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:44PM
(#8033450)
About 30 tabs total, 3 profiles, 2 separate gmails, a few google documents, a couple of privacy extensions, lastpass, a few youtube videos paused. On a busy day I'll have twice that many tabs open, maybe more.
Chrome does a lot of caching when memory is available. I've got plenty of excess memory, especially when there are no virtual machines running, I'd rather chrome use it and be very fast than leave it unused.
Why is your CPU so high? The video? My CPU usage from chrome without a video play is 1%, and my processor is nothing special.
In Chrome, each tab is a separate process by the way, that accounts for some of the extra large usage. Top 5 Chrome tabs using between 200 MB and 350 MB of memory each, that does seem kind of excessive...
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by keithpeter on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @04:04AM
(#8035308)
Ah, tabs.
I was confused by your window count. The cpu in Firefox spikes when I scroll a long window with lots of 'widgets' in it. On the very few occasions during testing of a pre-release version of (say) Ubuntu, that scrolling is also when I get kernel panics. Runs about 10%-15% most of time.
Doesn't alter the main fact: we demand more from our computers now than we did 15 years ago (RISC OS and then Win95 in my case)
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by jbigelow76 on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:02PM
(#8033219)
If it were 20 years old I wouldn't expect to see the 1gb RAM recommendation. How much did a gig of RAM cost 20 years ago? I'm guessing about as much as a used Volkswagen :)
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by toni on Monday July 14, 2014 @04:02PM
(#8032877)
In other words, TC does not approve charging money for providing a set of useful email addresses (even if it's wrapped in a neat Bootstrap/Stripe gift box) and regards it as good old shady pro spammers. It leads to young startups sending mass emails and giving headache to everybody on their path. They prefer to share their email addresses with you openly and free of charge.
Which brings us to the obvious question: Why is this on ProductHunt?
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by kyro on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:07PM
(#8033247)
Is descending further down towards the bottom of the barrel to leech on more publicly available, easily harvested and/or less scarce items to sell at a markup a rising startup trend? It seems building novel value into a product is becoming less important to a segment of the startup industry. We now have selling of public parking spots, dinner reservations, and now email addresses. And while this model isn't new, there appears to be a popular reemergence of it.
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by thenmar on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:35PM
(#8033404)
I think it's that we just enjoy the spectacle of companies that seem like terrible ideas or based around an ethically questionable action. Nobody gets excited about "tech startup grows revenue to $100k on niche, hard to understand product and delays investor round to avoid dilution"
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by larrys on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:24PM
(#8033348)
"easily harvested"
I get your point regarding some of the things you mention but having to pay $9 to save time guessing or tracking down email addresses doesn't seem like a bad deal.
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by mgraczyk on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:18PM
(#8033312)
TC doesn't seem opposed to PressFarm's success as a business. From the comments (Tsotsis is an editor at TC):
Wouter Smet : ...with this post you just gifted Press Farm, apparently a super tiny company/web site, the exposure and traffic startups can only dream about....
Alexia Tsotsis : Oh, yeah, you're right, we totally didn't think of that angle. Oops!
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by toni on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:33PM
(#8033400)
I don't see how you might conclude that "TC doesn't seem opposed to PressFarm's success as a business" based on that one line of comment.
I read Alexia's response as "We considered the possibility that this post will give PressFarm a much unwanted exposure, and yet we went ahead and published it anyway, just to save you the ice creams money."
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by mladenkovacevic on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:14PM
(#8033292)
This is just an email list? A more compelling product would connect a particular journalist with every story they've ever written, across all publications he/she's ever worked at. Then you could search articles by topic, type of product covered, sentiment towards particular vertical...etc and reach out only to the journalist that seem to have an interest in whatever story you're pitching.
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by larrys on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:28PM
(#8033368)
It's like stuffing envelopes. If you have to do 3 or 10 inefficiency doesn't matter that much. If you have to do 100 or 500 or 5000 all that extra time to guess name@ or name.last@ or nlast@ or n.last@ etc. is a big time waste. Paving to have the right address (even if some aren't correct because they've changed) is worth paying for.
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by tomjen3 on Monday July 14, 2014 @04:24PM
(#8033013)
I don't know that that applies anymore. I mean I used to remember using javascript and other hacks to wrap emails so the spam bots wouldn't get them, but that was ages ago and spam sorters have gotten a lot better. Gmails is nearly perfect.
It may be one of those things that we all assume we know for sure that just ain't so.
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by devindotcom on Monday July 14, 2014 @04:07PM
(#8032903)
tips are supposed to go to [email protected] but when I was there it was a total firehose you had to filter out into a folder and wade through all at once. You'd probably be okay emailing a writer directly if you have a good reason to think they rather than someone else should be receiving your pitch.
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by taylorbuley on Monday July 14, 2014 @05:09PM
(#8033260)
Word. I'll note for others that impressing a journo involves not looking up their most recent clips and figuring our how your topic is like those too, but rather understanding the needs of that particular writer in their particular beat and trying to add value for her while extracting some value of your own as well.
Re:Save $9, Here Are The TechCrunch Staff’s Email Addresses
by AustinDizzy on Monday July 14, 2014 @06:37PM
(#8033658)
I'm using AOL's Project Phoenix with an @wow.com email address. I've seen a good amount of obvious spam flow past my spam box, so that oughta tell you enough.
Are techcrunch employees required to use AOL Desktop? It looks the same as it did in 1998 http://daol.aol.com/software/aoldesktop97/
AOL badly needs to rebrand themselves. It seems like the company has changed and is very profitable in recent years.
They could offer, "the greatest thing in the world, by AOL", but it's not a company I would ever do business with, I don't have a logical reason for this.
Fun fact: "at one point, half of the CDs manufactured worldwide had AOL logos on them" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/27/aol-discs-90s/
Can confirm that we are not required to use AOL Desktop. Don't be ridiculous. Only thing we're required to use is the corporate VPN software.
Their target market for that application might have extraordinarily low-end computers (non-tech people who haven't bothered upgrading).
It looks like they still support Windows 98 users and computers with 32 MB of ram: http://daol.aol.com/software/90vr
For comparison, Chrome requires 512 MB minimum. I only have 4 windows open and it's using about 4 GB of memory, and this is a very light day.
Good heavens. Below is top showing Iceweasel (Firefox in Debianspeak) with theverge, vox, fivethirtyeight, bbc news and theregister and an html5 video playing.
On an old i5 laptop with 3gb ram (64 bit OS).
Chrome does a lot of caching when memory is available. I've got plenty of excess memory, especially when there are no virtual machines running, I'd rather chrome use it and be very fast than leave it unused.
Why is your CPU so high? The video? My CPU usage from chrome without a video play is 1%, and my processor is nothing special.
In Chrome, each tab is a separate process by the way, that accounts for some of the extra large usage. Top 5 Chrome tabs using between 200 MB and 350 MB of memory each, that does seem kind of excessive...
I was confused by your window count. The cpu in Firefox spikes when I scroll a long window with lots of 'widgets' in it. On the very few occasions during testing of a pre-release version of (say) Ubuntu, that scrolling is also when I get kernel panics. Runs about 10%-15% most of time.
Doesn't alter the main fact: we demand more from our computers now than we did 15 years ago (RISC OS and then Win95 in my case)
Which brings us to the obvious question: Why is this on ProductHunt?
As if...
I get your point regarding some of the things you mention but having to pay $9 to save time guessing or tracking down email addresses doesn't seem like a bad deal.
I read Alexia's response as "We considered the possibility that this post will give PressFarm a much unwanted exposure, and yet we went ahead and published it anyway, just to save you the ice creams money."
It may be one of those things that we all assume we know for sure that just ain't so.