Stardock involvement with Neowin FAQ

[Steven P. Administrators]

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?

[Steven P. Administrators]

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".

[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

[Steven P. Administrators]

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.

[Steven P. Administrators]

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]

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)

[Steven P. Administrators]

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.

[Shaun N.]

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 MVC]

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.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

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

[Steven P. Administrators]

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.

[Shaun N.]

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]

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.

[Steven P. Administrators]

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.

[Muhammad Farrukh]

I, somehow, managed to miss that news post, and now when I have read all those replies, my head is about to explode.

Seriously, people? I hate to say it, but this was like reading the comment section of an Apple product review on Engadget.

:s

[Excelsis]

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.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

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?

[UndergroundWire]

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.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

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.

[jakem1]

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.

[BeerFan]

Wow, had no idea. What was the exact date that Neowin had official monetary involvement with Stardock? I mean, you had to have an official date when you when "pub" to "pro".

[Nashy]

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.

[Glassed Silver]

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