33 replies to this topic 4 votes

[Neobond]

I've put together a little FAQ due to the ill informed comments here. Neowin is a self sustaining independent company, we don't receive money from Stardock, and they also won't determine our fate like other sites that are taken over by large companies such as AOL. Neowin will disappear when we can't fund ourselves, and even then Brad probably wouldn't take that lying down as he is partly responsible for turning Neowin from a hobby into a company.

Q: Does Stardock own Neowin?

A: They have a 40% stake in Neowin, with 60% equally shared between the two founders Steven Parker & Marcel Klum.

Q: Why?

A: Stardock turned us from hobby site into a limited liability company (at their own cost) which also included legal representation and a budget to buy our own servers.

Q: What changed as a result of Stardock involvement?

A: Not much, we already covered Stardock news before they became involved in 2005 and Brad Wardell was actually already a newsposter as well (and a member since 2002). Additionally we immediately became self sustaining and didn't have to rely on 3rd party rented servers. We went from being hosted on one (rented) server, to the current 5 of which Neowin LLC owns.

Q: Why did Stardock want to become involved?

A: For the first 3 or 4 years Neowin leaked a lot of Microsoft information about Windows, Microsoft was also (unintentionally) able to get our server wiped once, and we've been taken offline a number of times because we didn't have control over the server. Brad wanted to give us the opportunity to control our own destiny which from 2005 onward is exactly what has happened.

Q: Is Neowin required to cover all Stardock related news on Neowin?

A: Simply put, No. Compared to other news sites we cover very little Stardock news, and Stardock as a shareholder has every right to require this, although Brad feels that Neowin needs to stay independent. Whatever news we do cover is because our staff want to cover it.

Feel free to ask any questions and I'll do my best to answer them.

[Nashy]

Can you talk more about the Microsoft server wipe? What happened there, or is this best for another thread?

[Neobond]

Nashy, on 22 March 2012 - 08:57, said:

Can you talk more about the Microsoft server wipe? What happened there, or is this best for another thread?

Here you go http://news.cnet.com...025-991624.html this was the worst of the problems we had with Microsoft, but they continued well into 2004 which is when Brad contacted me and said "lets do something about this".

[Muhammad Farrukh]

Did you guys asked Microsoft for an elaboration, as Tom said that they didn't contacted you but you were told by the ISP.
Sounds to me a bit too harsh

[Neobond]

Muhammad Farrukh, on 22 March 2012 - 09:07, said:

Did you guys asked Microsoft for an elaboration, as Tom said that they didn't contacted you but you were told by the ISP.
Sounds to me a bit too harsh

Microsoft later admitted it was a communications error, normally they would have contacted us, but the legal company representing Microsoft decided to go straight to the provider instead (who panicked for some reason). In their (Microsoft's) defense they offered a team to get us back online and other things such as hosting, which we declined.

[+Vice]

I don't understand where the "Ill Informed" comments are coming from. Those posters said Neowin is 40% owned by Stardock and you just confirmed it? So where is the misconception coming from. Seems people are more informed than you give them credit for.

[Neobond]

Vice, on 22 March 2012 - 09:11, said:

I don't understand where the "Ill Informed" comments are coming from. Those posters said Neowin is 40% owned by Stardock and you just confirmed it? So where is the misconception coming from. Seems people are more informed than you give them credit for.

The ill informed is that we're required to cover Stardock news, or that they pay us as well. I wanted to clear that up

[+Vice]

Neobond, on 22 March 2012 - 09:15, said:

The ill informed is that we're required to cover Stardock news, or that they pay us as well. I wanted to clear that up

Ok I understand. I've never believed in my mind that you guys have ever covered them more than any other company and I think you guys are quite objective with your stardock coverage and always have been.

[Neobond]

Vice, on 22 March 2012 - 09:17, said:

Ok I understand. I've never believed in my mind that you guys have ever covered them more than any other company and I think you guys are quite objective with your stardock coverage and always have been.

Thanks I've also instructed the newsposters to include a link to this post when we cover Stardock news in future, as a sort of disclaimer.

[Shaun]

They invested in Neowin and now own 40% of it, Doesn't mean we have to like their products or views. Just means they have their posts babysat to make sure no trolls upset them.

[virtorio]

Vice, on 22 March 2012 - 09:11, said:

I don't understand where the "Ill Informed" comments are coming from. Those posters said Neowin is 40% owned by Stardock and you just confirmed it? So where is the misconception coming from. Seems people are more informed than you give them credit for.

There are people in there claiming Brad Wardell was influincing the creation of some "negative" Windows 8 editorial articles to somehow benefit Stardock.

[+Mephistopheles]

It's sad how threads like this become necessary again and again, isn't it?

[Neobond]

Shaun, on 22 March 2012 - 09:20, said:

They invested in Neowin and now own 40% of it, Doesn't mean we have to like their products or views. Just means they have their posts babysat to make sure no trolls upset them.

No comments were deleted from that newspost that I know of, even if I don't like the unjustified harshness directed toward them. You should give us a little credit Shaun

virtorio, on 22 March 2012 - 09:21, said:

There are people in there claiming Brad Wardell was influincing the creation of some "negative" Windows 8 editorial articles to somehow benefit Stardock.

Yeah that isn't true, the editorial I did was my own words and many other sites have posted similar views. Just because Brad has a problem with it doesn't mean we have to. Plus those editorials were written before Brad said his piece publicly.

[Shaun]

I didn't say any posts were removed, just that there are a lot of posts with negative views on and as soon as one from Stardock gets some it warrants another thread reasserting their position. It's like a rank pulling thing an it's if anything makes me not like them a little bit more each time, even if it's not requested by them.

[+Vice]

virtorio, on 22 March 2012 - 09:21, said:

There are people in there claiming Brad Wardell was influincing the creation of some "negative" Windows 8 editorial articles to somehow benefit Stardock.

I don't believe that. And I agree with what Brad said.

I think there is a lot of bias from many people that seem to have this notion that anything bad posted about Windows 8 is trolling or has an ulterior motive behind it. The fact is Metro is a very controversial feature that has split people down the middle on if they like it or not and the people who like it need to accept the fact that there is a large amount of people that don't and that they are free to air their opinion just like those who like it are.

And to be honest it makes no real logical sense as to why Stardock would choose to push negative articles about Windows 8 because they will make a mint selling software to bring back the normal Windows 7 desktop experience once Windows 8 ships. No question.