And when it does happen, I’ll publish my story. Over and out.

And for the record: (Sound of underlining in background)

- The post I wrote was *not* simply a criticism of your report, it was pointing out that there were two important facts missing from your story about Naked:
Fact 1) The site is still up there.
Fact 2) You can check it out for yourself.

- You did not include those two facts – you said “We will now probably never know what Naked was capable of.” You could have played around with the Naked Beta with our compliments, for over three weeks now – and we published that fact! Duh!

- As for taking the story/blog no further – 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 their sending a message to their private beta users. I’m waiting for something to happen before I write my story. Liquidation is only a story when you establish who bought the assets.

- The great thing about a blog is that I was able to add my thoughts to the debate and say – wait – no – you can find out what it’s capable of – look here. Sorted. But that doesn’t mean I can be critical of what you write.

Now, you put a pretty heavy slant on what I said, and put words into my mouth in this article today. However, that’s no big deal – I am not going to pick apart every phrase you used – you’re entitled to your opinion. We move on. We have aired our opinions. It’s cool.

But for the record:

- Well done, you posted about this three weeks ago referencing an email Naked sent out. *Slap on back*. But you took it no further.

- Well done, yes the site is still there. Wow.

- “Nothing has changed in a fiduciary sense for Naked in 3 weeks”. FYI Going into administratoin is one thing. Liquidation is irreversible.

- “he Next Web didn’t report on the fact that the company was in liquidation because that’s not interesting.” Oh come on, are you serious?

- “Techcrunch wrote stories or blogs?” Depends on the hour of the day mate.

- “I don’t think you can characterise what I wrote as having ‘attacked’ you.” You say tomato, I say tomato. Let’s call the whole thing off. But to be honest a pretty long post “criticising” my report is pretty borderline. Whatever!

The cash position and burn for getnkd would have been available to an investor prior to an investment. An article that points this out doesn’t hurt. Startups are routinely undercapitalized. Bad reviews can hurt but they are a necessary byproduct of having reliable vetters which , on balance, are essential to the start-up ecosystem.

If the value proposition is there, then any publicity actually helps a start-up. Heat is the friend of good products. As you have pointed out, getnkd was trumpeting their challenges in the hope that this could shake-out more investment or trials.

Most start-ups underestimate the time/challenges of the capital formation – stories like this are a great reminder to keep cash burn lean.

Bill

(yes, this is a “kind’ve” pointless comment)

I’ve added my response to your comment you made on The Next Web blog, but I see this has now popped up, so I guess I need to respond here.

1) The story/blog you ran missed out one important factor – Naked’s web site is still up and running, and invitations to use it are still available – and requests for invitations formed a very significant part of the comments on your story/blog – but only after I pointed out this omission.

2) Your story/blog is 3 weeks behind ours, and nothing has changed in a fiduciary sense for Naked in 3 weeks.

3) The Next Web didn’t report on the fact that the company was in liquidation because that’s not interesting. You can get that news from the statutory notices. The product and the way the admission of being in trouble was made was what was interesting – as was the fact that it was still open to people to use it – the very piece of news you missed.

4) Is it a story or is it a blog? Asking direct questions in a story, and then answering them yourself, or with others’ comments (especially if anonymous) is a great technique for persuasive argument. But I have to ask – does Techcrunch wrote stories or blogs?

5) Everyone loves a good online spat, especially if the language starts getting colourful and people get personal – but I don’t think you can characterise what I wrote as having ‘attacked’ you. Attack is rather an emotive word – very sorry if I touched a nerve – but ‘criticised’ is more how I’d describe it. I do apologise.

Best regards, David