Color • Hacker News Board

Re: Color

#71

Post by chriswesallen » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 1:21 PM UTC

I think may one of those situations where they invested completely in the team?

The founder sounds like a badass but I'm still concerned about viability and revenue strategy of the company....

Re: Color

#72

Post by keyle » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 1:24 PM UTC

radicaldreamer wrote: post #45

waterlesscloud wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens if it's a complete flop, if it never takes off at all?

Then they return whatever's left of their investor's money or pivot to a more promising direction?

I hope for their sake that they don't pull a cuil.

Re: Color

#73

Post by trotsky » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 1:36 PM UTC

pclark wrote: post #64

sudonim wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a warning sign when startups have the cash to invest in a domain name before they have traction. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

A domain is an asset, why would it be worth notably less after a few years if the startup were to fail?

c.f. cnet & com.com

Re: Color

#74

Post by cpenner461 » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 1:40 PM UTC

minalecs wrote: post #49

lurchpop wrote: post #38

This thing's fuckin creepy. it uses the camera and mic to get my location as well. The tech sounds rad, but for privacy i wouldn't touch this thing with a 10 ft pole.

honest question, what does mic have to do with obtaining location information ?

I think the techcrunch article (linked on one of the comments) mentioned that if they can't get a gps/wifi signal they look at lighting (camera) and sound (mic) to determine if people are in the same location. Neat use of the technology but - yes, a bit creepy.

Re: Color

#75

Post by manishm » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 2:12 PM UTC

$41M pre launch, seriously? like i mean it.. seriously? is it to the team or the product?

Re: Color

#76

Post by sudonim » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 6:12 PM UTC

pclark wrote: post #64

sudonim wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a warning sign when startups have the cash to invest in a domain name before they have traction. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

A domain is an asset, why would it be worth notably less after a few years if the startup were to fail?

For one, a glorious failure taints the name. Not many (any?) ships are called "Titanic" anymore. I tried to find good examples of famous failures having their domains reused but wasn't able to.

webvan.com still exists as part of amazon.

pets.com points to petsmart.com

An untainted domain is an asset, which is why there are many squatted domains. A tainted domain is a liability.