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

#111

Post by adora » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:15 AM UTC

cft wrote: post #99

adora wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data mining at Slide was top tier but there was an unfortunate mis-timing with the economy tanking (read: advertisers had no money) ... and hence the eventual shift towards virtual goods. I don't think many people understand how advertisers eat this stuff up. When they start throwing money around again (probably soon), you bet the big guys (like Color?) will repeat the benefits.

Just wait till the oil goes back to $150+/barrel- the value of data mining will diminish again rather soon.

Hm, what exactly do you think data mining is? How much money do you think Facebook gets out of data mining?

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

#112

Post by Rantenki » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:18 AM UTC

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.

Actually, I am just plain less likely to read it, but I agree with your premise.

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

#113

Post by jgruber » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:19 AM 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.

Funny, I can't seem to find the article where I said much of anything about Lala, post- or pre-acquisition by Apple, let alone the one where I claimed they were "revolutionary".

Please let me know the URL for that piece.

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

#114

Post by nir » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:21 AM UTC

cft wrote: post #98

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…

Max still made about $40M personally on Slide. The real loser in that acquisition is Google. I think the VC scene in the Silicon Valley is becoming more and more screwed up (becoming more resume/track record, rather than innovative product focused), and the Silicon Valley will pay dearly for this.

That's what happens in a hype-driven market - when startups aren't expected to make real money (eg Twitter's evaluations vs income) decisions are made based on hype, which is influenced by track record, celebrity status, media attention etc.

All publicity is good publicity for Color right now and following Slide's lead is exactly what it's meant to do.

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

#115

Post by peter78 » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:32 AM UTC

signal wrote: post #110

Herwig wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since most office workers spend the majority of their time behind a computer screen, it makes up for all the contact we lost Pre-Internet.

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

#116

Post by crasshopper » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:45 AM UTC

adora wrote: post #111

cft wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait till the oil goes back to $150+/barrel- the value of data mining will diminish again rather soon.

Hm, what exactly do you think data mining is? How much money do you think Facebook gets out of data mining?

In all seriousness, I would love to know. (not the 1st Q but the warum's and wieviel's of data dollars)

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

#117

Post by mbob » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:47 AM UTC

signal wrote: post #110

Herwig wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Brings to mind a blog entry of Chris Dixon's back on 8/5/09: "Reading my friends’ tweets helps me keep connected with them, the same way bumping into them on the street and exchanging small talk does. The content isn’t as important as the connection shared and presence felt."

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

#118

Post by ngsayjoe » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 5:13 AM UTC

I uninstalled it the moment I realized i can't remove my photo from the app. I guess it will be stored permanently public in Color.

(Yes, you can slide the photo left to remove it, but it'd still show up in my stream!)

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

#119

Post by waterlesscloud » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 5:21 AM UTC

danberger wrote: post #35

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.

I thought that was pretty much 4sq.

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

#120

Post by baddox » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 5:28 AM UTC

GHFigs wrote: post #75

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 .

Are you suggesting that disparaging the author without attempting to discredit their argument is somehow better? I ask because I'm really not understanding what drives your pedantry or the apparently resounding agreement with it that voting readers have expressed. Frankly, the Hacker News I want to read is one where the top comment is not a personal attack, regardless of whether people agree on whether it qualifies a…

I'm only suggesting that disparaging the author alone doesn't constitute an ad hominem argument.