The assertion that he intentionally sabotaged them seems just a touch far-fetched. They made an (it sounds like) informal contract with a procrastinating college sophomore, in the middle of a busy school term. Occam’s razor would suggest the delays were caused by disinterest, procrastination, and the busy-ness of his schedule, not malice or greed.
These guys were supposedly working on their site (of a relatively simple and obvious idea) for a year, with nothing to show for it, and their conclusion is: “'That's supposed to be us.' We're not there, because one greedy kid cut us out."” As if the 10 hours of work Zuckerberg didn’t do on their site was the only thing separating failure from unbelievable riches.
Yeah, its inconsistencies like these in the article that make you question just how much of the article is a good depiction of Z and how much of it is just pure spite.
These guys were supposedly working on their site (of a relatively simple and obvious idea) for a year, with nothing to show for it, and their conclusion is: “'That's supposed to be us.' We're not there, because one greedy kid cut us out."” As if the 10 hours of work Zuckerberg didn’t do on their site was the only thing separating failure from unbelievable riches.