Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At least now we know why Color really got that funding

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 164 posts

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

#41

Post by vegashacker »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #33
eps wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it matter though? The iOS app already asks to get your location information. It's that same location info that would go into the putative EXIF tag, so Color already has the info. Or is there something else in EXIF that would be relevant in this case?

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

#42

Post by danilocampos »

raganwald wrote: post #34
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.

I'm with you, but stand by my claim that if Adam Lisagor had shot an ad for Color, Gruber's tone would be entirely different.

Here's another post about a photo-taking application earlier this week:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/22/everyday

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

#43

Post by Batsu »

Although Gruber is summing it up based on a developer's words, they do state this ridiculous data collection in their privacy policy (which is an implied agreement, based on your downloading of the app).

http://color.com/privacy

--

We also collect pictures, videos, comments, and actions you take through the App (“Content”), and information on your location. When our App is active, your Device provides periodic updates to our server of your location, which allows us to show you fresh Content based upon where you are at that moment. We share your Content with others. Sharing Content publicly with others from different locations is what this App is about. If you find this objectionable, please consider not using our App or Site.

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

#44

Post by aaronbrethorst »

vegashacker wrote: post #41
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it matter though? The iOS app already asks to get your location information. It's that same location info that would go into the putative EXIF tag, so Color already has the info. Or is there something else in EXIF that would be relevant in this case?

The user may have agreed to let the Camera app access their GPS data, but refused to let your app access their GPS data. For the case of Color, no it's not relevant. For the question posed by the (G?)GP, I think it is.

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

#46

Post by sidmitra »

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.

What is interesting is, if a few person in the graph start identifying themselves on their profiles. Then there might be a way to identify the others in a picture based on his nearby graph, other attributes(like gender + common friends).

Others have already shown how easy is to de-anonymize a social graph from public datasets[couldn't find the relevant paper]

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

#47

Post by bad_user »

tenaciousJk wrote: post #9

Actually, I think it will be much worse than that. Think: location based advertising. In order to use color you have to allow GPS for the app and, optionally, push-notifications. A perfect combo for pushing ads when you're within X range, etc. I sent a tweet to them yesterday, but got no response. https://twitter.com/#!/tenaciousJk/status/51033367050846208 edit: group response to the below No geo-ad platform has this…

I live in a crowded city -- I would personally love an effective location-based advertising engine that would learn my preferences.

The only problem is, these people are doing it wrong. A location-based app that serves deals shouldn't collect data in indirect ways.

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

#48

Post by toddmorey »

The tech explains the funding, but I still question whether Color will be widely used. I'm thinking Segway: amazing technology that didn't translate into an experience people enjoyed / wanted enough for mass adoption. This is why Apple does so well: they get both the technology and the experience right.

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

#49

Post by raganwald »

danilocampos wrote: post #42
raganwald wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm with you, but stand by my claim that if Adam Lisagor had shot an ad for Color, Gruber's tone would be entirely different. Here's another post about a photo-taking application earlier this week: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/22/everyday

Interesting, however I would point out that Gruber isn't reviewing the app, he's reviewing the founder's quoted claim that the app is a data collection play.

Personally, I disagree with Gruber: Facebook and Foursquare seem to be evidence that people will gladly give up their personal data in exchange for a "social" experience. But whether Gruber is right or wrong is not the point I was responding to, it's whether Gruber would hypothetically like the app if it was hypothetically bought by Apple.

This is irrelevant to what he's saying now. Even if he does like everything Apple does and does hate everything Apple doesn't do, appealing to his bias is the textbook definition of an Ad Hominem:

  An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem,
  is an attempt to link the validity of a premise
  to a characteristic or belief of the opponent
  advocating the premise.
If he's wrong, we can attack his argument directly. How can we have a meaningful discussion about what he might say if some hypothetical future acquisition takes place? Worse, what if he's right now and would be wrong if he did change his mind after some hypothetical future acquisition?

In that case, dismissing him because of his bias might rob us of a valuable insight.

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

#50

Post by calloc »

d_r wrote: post #30

Not to bring pop culture to HN, but this "photo data mining" reminds me of the ultrasound/sonic contraption in "The Dark Knight" that collected visuals on everyone in the city. What I find fascinating about Color, though, is that I can open the app in downtown Palo Alto and actually see photos of startups nearby, peoples' lunches, offices, whiteboards, window views, and so on. Mobile/GPS-based photography is an idea…

As a company owner I'd be afraid that people are taking pictures with product ideas and information on whiteboards which is leaking internal information and documentation...
Post reply on HN