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

71–80 of 164 posts

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

#71

Post by ugh »

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 .

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 Times has a liberal bias anyway.” – “Fox News is filled with fascists!”) — that’s just spam as far as I’m concerned.

Whether or not services where the user is the product can be valuable for the same is a very interesting question and you could write 1,000 word essays about it — but instead this crap made it all the way to the top.

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

#72

Post by alexqgb »

cydonian_monk wrote: post #67
calloc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

There's another possibility: simply using Color becomes a out-and-out dick move, like smoking indoors. The investment turns to ash because the product is (rightly) viewed as toxic.

The thing about FB is that it was useful and nice. It brought a circle of people who you knew but had lost sight of back into the realm of visibility, which - as it turned out - was something a lot of people really liked. Only after it had reached critical mass did the privacy aspect start becoming a concern.

Color, on the other hand, doesn't seem to do anything truly new AND beneficial. At the same time, the privacy issue (read: creep factor) is immediately obvious. Also, unlike FB - which relied on Ivy league students to be early adopters - Color seems to be going after a very different group of people for initial validation. And those people are rapidly concluding that this thing is an odious turd of the very first order.

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

#73

Post by Herwig »

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

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

#74

Post by balbaugh »

sandstrom wrote: post #24
jimboyoungblood wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Segaway Tycoon dies driving of a cliff on his Segway: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315518/Segway-tycoo...

Not the actual inventor, but man who purchased Segway therefrom.

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

#75

Post by GHFigs »

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 .

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 as ad hominem argument.

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

#76

Post by metellus »

ellyagg wrote: post #69
baddox wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

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

#77

Post by coderdude »

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'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.

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

#80

Post by alexqgb »

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.

And what color is bullshit?
Post reply on HN