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

121–130 of 164 posts

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

#121

Post by ThomPete »

metellus wrote: post #76
ellyagg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suggest…

Except he's not trying to discredit Gruber. He's pointing out that Gruber is able to be unbiased because the product isn't owned by Apple.

Huh? So when the product is owned by Apple he is unbiased?

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

#122

Post by Apocryphon »

I rewatched The Social Network. I just realized that Timberlake's final rant as Sean Parker in that film was essentially the premise of Color.com- to wit:

"The next transformative development, a picture-sharing application. A place where you view pictures that coincide with your social life. It is the true digitalization of real life. You don't just go to a party anymore. You go to a party with a digital camera, and then your friends relive the party online. And tagging."

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

#123

Post by rbarooah »

ngsayjoe wrote: post #118

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!)

It did eventually disappear from the stream for me, and for me, it look as though there was nobody else around to see it!

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

#124

Post by joshu »

Apocryphon wrote: post #122

I rewatched The Social Network. I just realized that Timberlake's final rant as Sean Parker in that film was essentially the premise of Color.com- to wit: "The next transformative development, a picture-sharing application. A place where you view pictures that coincide with your social life. It is the true digitalization of real life. You don't just go to a party anymore. You go to a party with a digital camera, and…

Did he really mention tagging? Woot.

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

#125

Post by archgoon »

jallmann wrote: post #39
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.

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?

Intrade currently places Mitt Romney to be President in 2012 at 11.6%. I would think that he'd have a better shot in 2016. Do you think that Color has about a 10% shot at returning 100 fold?

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

#126

Post by Rariel »

cosmicray wrote: post #104
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 ?

Apparently it's already trademarked--they have the TM right next to the name when you search it in the app store. I am really surprised by this...

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

#128

Post by dpe82 »

jad wrote: post #52
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.

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.

So does that mean that the comment has social proof and is thus more likely to be valuable? Discuss.

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

#129

Post by tenaciousJk »

anigbrowl wrote: post #97

I feel so prescient now: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2366765 Seriously, I think people are seriously overthinking the photo sharing aspect. That's just the first thing they could think of that seemed like it would have mass appeal, but I imagine the company has little to no interest in private photos or in tracking individual users. Here's how I see the possible future applications. You go somewhere and use y…

Agreed 100%

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2370501

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

#130

Post by mambodog »

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.

Useless and irrelevant comments such as this one, along with it's many replies, contribute to signal-to-noise degradation of the discussion section of many popular HN posts. Maybe collapsible comment threads would help to mitigate this.
Post reply on HN