Live data from Hacker News

At least now we know why Color really got that funding

daringfireball.net

51–60 of 164 posts

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

#51
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?

Your comment isn't helpful if you don't provide a value. I'm not interested enough in the politics of the American Republican party to gauge whether you think it is 1%.

As for one strategy making more sense, you cannot simply assert that when you have no numbers to back that up.

You cannot hedge a single bet by definition. Clearly the hedging of risk takes place in the other investments of the companies Bain Capital, Sequoia, and Silicon Valley Bank.

I have no inside knowledge of what Color is doing, nor do I think it's particularly likely that they'll succeed in becoming a multi-billion-dollar industry. But it doesn't have to be likely, when your ROI is potentially so high.

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

#52
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.

As of about 6:50 PM EDT, this ad hominem attack on the article's author has almost as many upvotes (56) as every other top-level comment on this thread combined (67).

Sad.

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

#53
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.

flyt's comment is certainly an attack on Gruber, but I wouldn't call it an ad hominem argument since flyt isn't attempting to discredit Gruber's reasoning by proposing a flaw in Gruber's character.

In fact, I don't think flyt is claiming that this wasn't the reason for Color's funding. flyt seems to merely be noting that, while Gruber sounds cynical and disapproving in this post, Gruber would probably approve of and attempt to justify the product if Apple were to acquire Color.

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

#54
post #38

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

There's already relevant laws about such things. If I had to guess Color will not be offered for minors to use right away, precisely because of those laws. (At least, that's not something I'd implement before shipping out the MVP.) And when it is, there will be controls for this sort of thing that have been gone over with a fine-tooth comb by some expensive lawyers.

I understand what you're getting at, but I would submit this isn't the secret thing that only a few people can see that will sink the product, it's a pretty blindingly obvious thing that everybody including the Color team plainly sees. If they do ship something that makes the "paedo/stalker threat" easy to implement they'll deserve the resulting PR conflagration.

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

#55
post #20

What a lame commentary. He's surprised why? What about google search, gmail, facebook and twitter? When the "product" is free, YOU are the product.

Gruber's point is that the CEO should not have tried to justify the value of their product by pointing out the data mining aspect. It is not good PR.

(BTW, Gruber blogged the "you are the product" last Sept.) http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/09/11/reece-iad

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

#56
post #53

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.

flyt's comment is certainly an attack on Gruber, but I wouldn't call it an ad hominem argument since flyt isn't attempting to discredit Gruber's reasoning by proposing a flaw in Gruber's character. In fact, I don't think flyt is claiming that this wasn't the reason for Color's funding. flyt seems to merely be noting that, while Gruber sounds cynical and disapproving in this post, Gruber would probably approve of and…

That had occurred to me, and I was going to suggest that it is semantically equivalent to claiming that John's mother wears army boots. Possibly true, possibly false, but irrelevant and off-topic.

However, I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that somebody would suggest that insulting the author in a thread purportedly discussing the author's words is an indirect way of discrediting the words.

I could be wrong, in which case I would suggest that such a comment is not contributing to the discussion.

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

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Gru…

flyt's comment is not an ad hominem argument, because flyt is not trying to link the validity of the premise (that Color's funding was the result of their data mining potential) to a characteristic of its advocate (Gruber's pattern of Apple apologetics).

In fact, the way I read flyt's comment is that flyt actually agrees with Gruber, but is predicting that if Apple were to have something to do with Color, Gruber's cynicism would disappear.

Unless I'm misunderstanding flyt, this was in no way an ad hominem argument.

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

#58
I remember attending a Startup School talk wherein Max Levchin explained that Slide wasn't a "pimp my MySpace" company, but rather a data mining company using MySpace widgets as the trojan horse. So, Nguyen isn't the first serial entrepreneur to receive loads of funding based on his reputation and attempt to exploit the trend du jour to mine data from the masses.

We all saw how well that worked out for Slide. My guess is that Color will see a similar fate. It's unlikely you'll build a great social photo sharing application if that's not your primary focus.

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

#59
post #52
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.

As of about 6:50 PM EDT, this ad hominem attack on the article's author has almost as many upvotes (56) as every other top-level comment on this thread combined (67). Sad.

As of 6:05 PM Central time, at least three people have used the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly. Unless flyt was attempting to discredit Gruber's premise (which I don't think is the case), the argument is not ad hominem.

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

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really said that? That's just utterly delusional in a Wired on push as the future stylee. Anyways, to get at that real world data they crave, they're gonna need tons of users, and if they ever get even one tenth of a percent of what Google has I'd be shocked.

The hyperbole around Color sorta reminds me of another revolutionary product from a decade ago: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001/12/03/here-it-is.htm

At least "ginger" had a well-defined and well-understood purpose and leveraged some of Kamen's groundbreaking gyro/wheel knowhow.
Post reply on HN