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

81–90 of 164 posts

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

#81

Post by kelnos »

jonursenbach wrote: post #68
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…

He already reviewed it, and panned it then as well. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color

"Nice domain name, though."

I wonder how much that cost them...

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

#82

Post by jsb »

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

I disagree. Everyday is a part-time collaboration by 4 people that hasn't taken on funding, let alone $41M worth. And Everyday has a business model that doesn't mine data about you: it's $1.99 on the app store.

So, I guess it's like Color in that it uses pictures, except that it's different in just about every other way.

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

#84

Post by kelnos »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #33
eps wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are EXIF tags added by the iOS when taking a picture? Or by the app calling the camera API after the photo is taken? I would guess it's latter.

UIImagePickerController, which is used to take photos, does not return EXIF data. Apparently, it is possible to hack around this limitation, but Apple doesn't take too kindly to this sort of behavior.

UIImagePickerController does indeed return EXIF data. In the delegate method:

  - (void)imagePickerController:(UIImagePickerController *)c
  didFinishPickingMediaWithInfo:(NSDictionary *)info
you can retrieve a metadata dictionary from the 'info' dictionary. One of the keys in that dictionary is "{Exif}" which points to another dictionary that has all the EXIF data.

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

#85

Post by chibimagic »

kelnos wrote: post #81
jonursenbach wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He already reviewed it, and panned it then as well. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/24/color

"Nice domain name, though." I wonder how much that cost them...

$350,000

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-...

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

#86

Post by mmorris »

phlux wrote: post #45
lowglow wrote: post #6

One shouldn't forget about exif data on images.

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.

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

#87

Post by [deleted] »

baddox wrote: post #61
raganwald wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by d2 »

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…

I think Color was funded for a variety of reasons, but it has very little to do with product. It's unfortunate that Bill feels he needs to defend the startup at this stage on the merits of it's product or future product - it's not a battle he can win until he has the social proof that traction provides.

For now they have cash, a great network and PR buzz that can kickstart traction.

In terms of product development, it's unfortunate they've raised so much money so early in their lifecycle. A cash surplus can really muck up the natural evolution of a product. e.g. you hire too fast and and up with a staff of 100 people all trying to justify their existence by pulling, pushing and shoving the product. No matter how strong a leader you are, it's tough to control that situation.

My prediction, and I don't feel good saying this, is that Bill and his team are going to do a lot of innovation that won't evolve into a business but will provide much inspiration for other businesses that will succeed.

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

#89

Post by neutronicus »

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…

100% agree with you.

An "irrelevant personal attack" and an argument that relies on one are equally undesirable to me.

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

#90

Post by sequalia »

How much time we need to understand, that the big business is surveillance of human resources (google, facebook). There always be a ton of cash for data mining and selling it to governments, political parties, advertising companies etc. If governments try to do it, its a privacy problem. But when corporations put a cool, color(ful), free app, you will give them your data, they can sell it. And its perfectly legal. Thats why they have all the money. But you are decision maker. And only by conscious action and wise choice you can make difference. Big elites(politicians,corporations,big investors) listen only in two cases, when they loose money, and when they are afraid for their life.
Post reply on HN