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

61–70 of 164 posts

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

#61

Post by baddox »

raganwald wrote: post #56
baddox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If a comment is not contributing to the discussion, then down-vote it. A non-contributing comment is not the same thing as an ad hominem argument. Also, an attack on someone's character is not the same as an ad hominem argument.

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

#62

Post by macrael »

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

Besides the fact that those two apps involve the taking of photos, they couldn't be more different. I don't think Gruber's like of one and dislike of the other can be seen as any kind of hypocrisy.

I'm also curious what how his response (or others') would have been changed had Lisagor shot an ad for them. But, as a data point, Gruber hasn't linked to at least one of Lisagor's ads. (The 3D one for jawbone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm981pbrJg)

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

#63

Post by nikcub »

wulczer wrote: post #36
ghshephard wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

or just:

    $ host color.com; host colour.com

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

#64

Post by FirstHopSystems »

Wow. Is anyone still surprised that social networks do this? Really? "Oh! so that's what they are really doing?, Aha!' I would think that's has been established as the status quo for a awhile now.

a 42$ million investment, I would be curious about any thoughts on how a company would make a profit from that investment. Other than selling information about it's users.

I think the gotcha would be "Oh the company is NOT selling customer information!" So that's how they are doing it. This article seems like they just uncovered some new revelation.

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

#65

Post by jallmann »

Jabbles wrote: post #51
jallmann wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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

I can't give numbers, because they are simply impossible to quantify at this stage. (Note I said 2016, which is about the same time it'd take for Color to ramp up to its full potential.) My point is, Color is a long shot.

> 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.

"potential" is the weasel word here. You can't possibly begin to anticipate ROI numbers for a particular investment at the stage Color is in. And you most certainly don't pump $40 million in a company if you think it's unlikely they'll succeed in becoming a multi-billion dollar industry.

This is all just a bit WTF-ish.

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

#66

Post by nikcub »

LargeWu wrote: post #17
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.

Considering Twitter isn't turning a profit yet, I'm not so sure that "the next Twitter" is such a great thing to invest in.

there is a market for selling Twitter stock at $5B+ today. You would be crazy to turn down investing in a seed round of twitter on the principal that it isn't making money.

given the choice of being the idiot buying twitter at $5M or $5B, ill take $5M please

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

#67

Post by cydonian_monk »

calloc wrote: post #50
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...

That was exactly my first thought. I was just ready to go home when the $41MM! news made the rounds and decided to check out the app before the commute. When it asked me to take a profile picture I had trouble finding an angle that didn't include a shot or reflection of my whiteboard (among other things), so I took a picture of my nose.

If Color takes off, and is used carelessly, it could become the single greatest social engineering weapon ever made. Who needs to sneak into your competition's office when you can just get within 150 meters and fire up an app. I would expect more secure organizations to outright ban it.

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

#68

Post by jonursenbach »

raganwald wrote: post #49
danilocampos wrote: post #42

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…

He already reviewed it, and panned it then as well.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color

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

#69

Post by ellyagg »

baddox wrote: post #57
raganwald wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cy…

Ah, these "that's not ad hominem" comments you read in every single thread that points out ad hominem get so tiresome.

It most certainly is ad hominem. The premise of Gruber's post is approximately that, based on the latest information we're learning about it, there's something distasteful about Color or its value proposition to consumers. The original commenter seeks to discredit Gruber's implied argument by suggesting he's an Apple apologist, that his industry analysis is not based on facts at hand but by inherent biases. This is right in the sweet spot of ad hominem. Just read the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on ad hominem to confirm.

Regardless, it's certainly poor form and disappointing to see so highly upvoted.

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

#70

Post by raganwald »

baddox wrote: post #59
jad wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

It all depends. Sometimes these attacks on the character or reputation of the argument are indirect ad hominem arguments. Consider a fictitious debate between a Christian and a Muslim politician about whether or not to strip Americans of even more civil liberties.

The Christian candidate listens to the Muslim candidate make a point, then says loudly and clearly, "Folks, he's a Muslim!"

He doesn't say "And therefore he's wrong," but nevertheless it is rhetorical device for discrediting his opponent and getting the audience to ignore his point.

Wikipedia calls this Ad hominem abuse:

  Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks)
  usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent
  in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve
  pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or
  actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

  This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and
  even true negative facts about the opponent's personal
  character have nothing to do with the logical merits of
  the opponent's arguments or assertions.
http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominem
Post reply on HN