Creepiest part- "it uses the camera to check for lighting conditions, and even uses the phone’s microphone to ‘listen’ to the ambient surroundings." The auto-social network based on proximity is awesome, though. I can't wait for this and the creep factor will be gone in five years anyway since we are all moving to a more open society.
"The app Josef Stalin would have used..."
Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
121–130 of 185 posts
Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#122I just tried out the iPhone app and I'm pretty disappointed. Color seems like one of those ideas that would be pretty rad if 1 million people already used it. Because no one has the app yet, if you fire it up it's totally blank. You take a picture of yourself, post it, then the rest of the UI is whitespace. There's nothing to look at or do. It's possibly the worst first-run user experience I've ever seen. I wonder if…
For my own startup-wannabe, I had to pivot because of the same problem: the app would only be useful if millions of people were using it, the way it was originally conceived.
Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#123I just tried out the iPhone app and I'm pretty disappointed. Color seems like one of those ideas that would be pretty rad if 1 million people already used it. Because no one has the app yet, if you fire it up it's totally blank. You take a picture of yourself, post it, then the rest of the UI is whitespace. There's nothing to look at or do. It's possibly the worst first-run user experience I've ever seen. I wonder if…
Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've previously been in the camp that there isn't a bubble. This seems like its a valuation of 1 or 2 hundred million for a company that hasn't launched yet. It's very hard to see how this deal could make sense in a traditional way. Don't get me wrong I think this sounds like an excellent idea that could turn out to be an excellent company. It's just such a large amount of money to raise that it kind of raises the qu…
I think the VCs realize that this is the start of a bubble and soon wall street will bring loads of public money through fancy investment instruments to the game. It is always wise to invest at the start of the bubble and withdraw your money before the euphoria peaks. Maybe they are hoping to create a bubble with these ridiculous deals.
I am setting up a photo-sharing company, like, now.
Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#125It's mobile, it's social, and it's local! They managed to hit all the buzzwords in one startup!
Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#126How does that algorithm work? Is that like a point-in-a-polygon problem? It could be lots of updates as to who is near what, etc. I just don't know.
Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#127Title doesn't do it justice. The photo-sharing part isn't what's novel. They seem to be building a social graph automatically weighted on physical proximity+frequency, using smartphone sensors (the most important one of which happens to be a camera). That's cool, and potentially game-changing. "All of your contacts are presented in a list of thumbnails ordered by how strong your connection is to that user. Whenever C…
Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#128Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#129Re: Sequoia gives photo-sharing startup more money than they gave Google
#130I just tried out the iPhone app and I'm pretty disappointed. Color seems like one of those ideas that would be pretty rad if 1 million people already used it. Because no one has the app yet, if you fire it up it's totally blank. You take a picture of yourself, post it, then the rest of the UI is whitespace. There's nothing to look at or do. It's possibly the worst first-run user experience I've ever seen. I wonder if…
Even if 1 million people used Color, I could those users concentrated in a few cities. Not only does the app require a vibrant, heavily active user-base that's willing to sacrifice their privacy, but it seems only useful in areas where the population density is relatively high. A 100 foot radius is an extremely limited area.
Furthermore, what's the point of seeing other people's pictures? I find very little "social" value in the realm of location sharing. I, for one, would not approach anybody that I see in my stream. Even in Twitter, I use location based services little to never. What am I missing out on?
Someone please tell me that I am wrong, but the success of Color requires far too many assumptions and is riding on a trivial purpose. I don't see how it deserves $41 million in funding... Color would work as a novel Facebook feature but, on its own, seems pointless.