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

101–110 of 164 posts

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

#101

Post by jedsmith »

mmorris wrote: post #86
phlux wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say also - THEY KNOW YOUR PHONE NUMBER.

Actually, at least on an iDevice with iOS 4, they don't have access to your phone number. Unless the user types it in (or selects themselves from the address book). Seems like it's easier on Android, but I'm not certain, just googled a bit.

They removed it in 4. It was there before but it was the number from iTunes activation, which wasn't necessarily worth anything (or filled in). Apple wouldn't approve you if you touched it, either, and it was undocumented.

Device ID they don't seem to care about; I send it in my app's User-Agent and I've survived several approvals. That's uniquely identifiable, but at least you can't call the user. As you suggest, most apps pop up contacts and have you pick yourself, it seems.

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

#102

Post by ugh »

lukeschlather wrote: post #100
ugh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct but it is still sad to see that this irrelevant attack is so popular. How is this comment interesting? It’s not about what Gruber is discussing, it just attacks and doesn’t even provide evidence for its assumption. Such comments are not uncommon and I hate them with a passion. A snide, short remark, picking up a popular sentiment without any attempt of providing evidence for the same (“The New York Ti…

The article in question is a snide, short remark. I don't know why anyone would come to this thread expecting reasoned discourse.

I don’t think HN should aspire to have comments of merely equal quality to the source material.

Why exactly do you think that subpar articles must automatically lead to bad discussions? That’s far from a given for me. The topic – users as products – is certainly interesting and touches on a whole host of issues that are traditional HN lore, from Google’s business model to startup monetization.

As I said, eloquent 1,000 word essays that emphatically disagree with Gruber’s position are certainly possible. Instead there’s spam.

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

#103

Post by jarin »

coderdude wrote: post #77
baddox wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's a popular phrase around here. It seems like people can barely contain the urge to play the "ad hominem" card. It's regurgitated all the time on HN. Same with: -"Straw man" -"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" -"A bad workman blames his tools" (this one is on the rise) I'm sure there are many others I'm missing. Even HN has memes.

- Dunning-Kreuger Effect

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

#104

Post by cosmicray »

jasongullickson wrote: post #94

I think if nothing else this is proof that if you have a clear way to generate value (evil or not), there is large investment to be had for tech start-ups.

how exactly will they be able to get trademark exclusivity on this name ? isn't this much more common than windows ever was ?

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

#105

Post by mcantelon »

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.

The credibility of a source is relevant. If the National Enquirer posts commentary on a matter, you're likely to take it less seriously than commentary from The Economist.

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

#106

Post by raganwald »

mcantelon wrote: post #105
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.

The credibility of a source is relevant. If the National Enquirer posts commentary on a matter, you're likely to take it less seriously than commentary from The Economist.

Why? If they write something obviously false, then I can refute it directly.

The time I question someone's reputation is when they appeal to authority themselves. For example, if I were to write "I've been in business for twenty years, take it from me that where startups are concerned, _____," then it's perfectly appropriate to point out that I haven't worked in silicon valley.

After all, my reputation is part of my argument, so questioning it is questioning my argument. Other than that, if I say something about business, arguing that I boast of being a Socialist says nothing about whether my words about business are useful. If you "take them with a grain of salt," you are the one who may be missing out.

This principle is not new to HN. Paul Graham wrote about it explicitly in his essay "How to Disagree:"

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Have a look at what he has to say about DH0, Name calling, and DH1, Ad hominem. You may not like the National Enquirer, but if they were to write about a startup, it should be possible to disagree with their suppositions without resorting to questioning the piece solely because they published it.

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

#108

Post by mryall »

alexqgb wrote: post #79

Odious creep factor aside, they deserve credit for securing both color.com and colour.com. It's just amazing what you can do with $41mm, right?

It's interesting that they don't have their company name anywhere on the page except in small text in the footer. Also, even on colour.com the page title is still 'Color'. If it were my site, I'd be redirecting colour.com to color.com. (And swimming in pools of money.)

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

#109

Post by rmrm »

jallmann wrote: post #65
Jabbles wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-bi…

in the bubble years of the late 90's there was a startup that received $500 million in seed funding. I only bring them up because even with all the discussion around color I haven't seen them referenced (there might be others like them as well, I just don't remember any).

In similarity to color, their initial valuation and largess of funding was due to the history of their founders, and the perceived "hotness" of their target market.

Still around, but have never managed to do much of anything.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=zhne&ql=1

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

#110

Post by signal »

Herwig wrote: post #73
mrshoe wrote: post #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 gues…

Couldn't agree more. Also; people don't want to use the app whether it be because they dont want strangers seeing their pics (I know I dont) and that its yet another photo sharing tool

I think this is the natural reaction of the hacker news (intelligent and savvy) crowd, but I see more and more every day that the average human desperately wants to be seen by anyone. Hence the success of youtube, twitter and facebook.
Post reply on HN