At least now we know why Color really got that funding • Hacker News Board

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#31

Post by Splines » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:23 PM UTC

(from the linked article):

> Then it will select the best picture and put it to the top of the photo feeds of people most interested in that image (like fans at the ballpark)

Great idea, but I don't think I've ever seen a description be so hand-wavey. You might as well put "Then some magic happens" there. Some details on how this happens (face recognition? social voting? views?) would be nice.

edit: I guess I should RTFA. It's still really high level, but later in the article Nguyen explains that they use views to measure photo quality.

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#32

Post by johns » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:23 PM UTC

konop wrote: post #23

To actually get the data they are going to mine, people have to actually use the thing. This is where I think color will fail... plus they spell colour wrong! (sent from Canada)

http://www.colour.com

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#33

Post by aaronbrethorst » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:24 PM UTC

eps wrote: post #22

lowglow wrote: post #6

One shouldn't forget about exif data on images.

Are EXIF tags added by the iOS when taking a picture? Or by the app calling the camera API after the photo is taken? I would guess it's latter.

UIImagePickerController, which is used to take photos, does not return EXIF data. Apparently, it is possible to hack around this limitation, but Apple doesn't take too kindly to this sort of behavior.

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#34

Post by raganwald » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:25 PM UTC

flyt wrote: post #11

Don't worry, if Apple acquires them (like they did their last company, Lala) then Gruber will suddenly realize how revolutionary the idea is.

Do you have a refutation for the articles's words? Or is this simply an Ad Hominem? Compare and contrast to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2370547, which is just as scornful but also logical.

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#35

Post by danberger » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:29 PM UTC

No one has mentioned their business model (page 3 of the interview). Basically they expect venues to pay for the ability to know the names of their frequent customers so that they could be greeted... but I thought they don't collect personal info.

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#36

Post by wulczer » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:29 PM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #29

konop wrote: post #23

To actually get the data they are going to mine, people have to actually use the thing. This is where I think color will fail... plus they spell colour wrong! (sent from Canada)

shephard-mba13:~ shephard$ for x in color.com colour.com; do echo $x; dig +short $x; done color.com 50.17.223.168 50.17.223.164 colour.com 50.17.223.168 50.17.223.164

Or even:

  ~$ for x in colo{,u}r.com; do echo $x; dig +short $x; done

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#37

Post by Zev » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:30 PM UTC

eps wrote: post #22

lowglow wrote: post #6

One shouldn't forget about exif data on images.

Are EXIF tags added by the iOS when taking a picture? Or by the app calling the camera API after the photo is taken? I would guess it's latter.

Yeah, EXIF tags have to be explicitly added to an image by the app (using CGImageDestinationSetProperties()), regardless of how a photo is taken.

As an aside, I'm kind of surprised that there's no easy way to add EXIF data with AssetsLibrary or UIImageWriteToSavedPhotosAlbum(). I would have sworn that there was one before I went and looked just now.

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#38

Post by Tycho » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:32 PM UTC

relax, it's just so they can send Groupon-style offers to people more likely to want them (Groupon would be great... if I ever actually wanted spa treatment, highlights, or weekend breaks)

on the other hand, suprised I haven't seen the obvious 'paedo/stalker threat' brought up yet. it's not data mining you'd need to worry about, it's individual predatory users

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#39

Post by jallmann » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:32 PM UTC

Jabbles wrote: post #16

They got the funding because the investors think there's a small but non-zero chance that Color will become "the next twitter/facebook". The ROI could be 100 fold. This is almost the opposite strategy to Yuri Milner, who is spreading his bets out over many companies. However, this strategy is no less valid. I say almost because the investors can make many (tens of) bets this size and still succeed in making money.

Yes. It's possible that Color could see a 100x return. It's also possible Mitt Romney will be president of the US in 2016. I think the odds are about the same for both.

Yuri Milner's strategy makes far more sense. Where is the hedging of risk by putting $40 million in a single company that's still seed stage at best?

Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding

#40

Post by twidlit » Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 10:34 PM UTC

Color is not the sonic scanning mobile device in Dark Knight, it was the multi-lens visual scanner Lucius Fox threatened to quit over and self-destructed when they found Joker.

Bruce Wayne is Nguyen and we are Lucius Fox, but in this case there is no Joker to catch.