Stardock involvement with Neowin FAQ


Recommended Posts

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.

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/2100-1025-991624.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".

  • Like 1

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.

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 :)

  • Like 1

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. (Y)

  • Like 2

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. (Y)

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.

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.

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 :p

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.

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.

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.

  • Like 3

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.

The Start8 posts didn't warrant this kind of response, the comments in the linked article did. I don't like having to sit back and allow people to spout something which is untrue. We should be able to tell it like it is because otherwise people who know no better will start to believe the comments. I also agree we need to add a disclaimer to the posts in future and this topic provides that.

I've known about Neowin since 2004 or something like that and this is news to me, had to idea Stardock owned parts of Neowin.

Never felt there was too much Stardock news. If anything else I'd say there isn't a whole lot considering all the different programs they have. When was the last time there was a news post about WindowBlinds, for exemple.

  • Like 1

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

Sad or childish?

The part about "Why did Stardock get involved"... You have noted that they did this as a result of Microsoft's harassment (?) of Neowin. But what was their motivation? Why do they care?

+1

I too would like some clarification on this.

Sad or childish?

Sad. The Stardock involvement with Neowin has been explained countless times. It shouldn't be necessary for Neobond to have to explain it again.

  • Like 3

The Start8 posts didn't warrant this kind of response, the comments in the linked article did. I don't like having to sit back and allow people to spout something which is untrue. We should be able to tell it like it is because otherwise people who know no better will start to believe the comments. I also agree we need to add a disclaimer to the posts in future and this topic provides that.

Personally I think you exposed yourself to criticism when you jumped in and attacked rfirth's perfectly reasonable comment. You've got to admit it doesn't look great when the owner of a site with such strong links to Stardock jumps in to defend them so quickly.

It also seems strange that Stardock's opinion warrants a news article given the fact that they are a fairly irrelevant company.

  • Like 2

The article was only created because they own part of the site. which is the only reason Startdock invested in Neowin, and everyone knows that. No one honestly cares about Stardock's views on anything.

To say Neowin receives no money from stardock is just silly as well. They pay your legal fees and servers costs. So basically they pay for neowin to be online, and without them you wouldn't do as well, As you stated years ago when Neowin sold out.

Why the hell are you arguing with the owner of the site? He knows more than you about the operation behind the scenes, so just shut up spreading these BS lies.

  • Like 2

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

Indeed, on the other hand though, it's good to see they are created to get anything out of the way and not sit there in a stubborn manner and wait for the shi*storm to fade.

This ensures that Neowin gives a damn about its reputation in terms of ties and dependencies.

I can't say Neowin is overly praising Stardock. I don't read the software news about SD products too often, but when I do I never had the thought that our affiliation influences the coverage in any way.

And I've been a long standing member (even longer standing visitor, but that goes well before the incident and the transition to a LLC) and I must say I'm very confident about all this.

Just my 2?

Glassed Silver:mac

  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!