Color as a company still has plenty of cash in the bank, which means we’re likely to see another product from it before long.
Sounds like cluelessness on the part of the reporter: You don't have a board meeting involving the words "shut down" and then decide it was really "pivot" after the fact.
The money will first go to any bondholders/accounts-payable, then the remainder back to the investors.
I still remember when Google allegedly offered $200m for this business-less startup. I know I'm playing Monday morning QB, but to reject such offer simply demonstrates lack of economic judgement - both at the management and investor level (and a lucky strike for Google).
We tend to complain plenty about Wall Street's greed but this represents no different behaviour.
I think Google (or Facebook) would have done well with their technology and people. Color is a great feature, to paraphrase Steve Jobs. Though maybe not a $200m feature.
As troubled as Color is, it represents the future direction of location data. No longer will location data be just for its own sake- apps that answer "Where am I?" "Where are you?" "Where's lunch?" It's evolving to be something bigger. The future is integrating it into new uses, to answer questions we haven't even asked yet. For some examples, see:
News.me and Instapaper - Sync your articles to your phone as you leave your house, so that when you're underground on the train, you have all your content right there
Now - Combs instagram for clustered activity in your area, and then notifies you of what's going on (i.e. movie in the park that people are enjoying)
Dark Sky - Alerts you when it is going to rain in your precise location, based on radar
Square - Automatically logs you in as soon as you arrive at the coffee shop or wherever
> The future is integrating it into new uses, to answer questions we haven't even asked yet.
Actually, I think that's the exact wrong lesson to take from this. That's what Color did: look for something that hasn't been done before and did that. It was a solution to a problem that doesn't exist: meeting strangers. People don't want to meet strangers, unless they're looking to hook up. That's why we construct amazing home entertainment systems; so we can avoid being around strangers. Ditto for Highlight and Airtime.
The takeaway from Color is not to go searching for the next big thing, but rather solve a problem that you yourself have (warning, you are probably not a normal person so don't spend too much time solving the problem before releasing something).
Everyone agrees it's the future, but how will the Geosocial mobile proximity app/network nut be cracked-- to launch and achieve mass appeal/usage? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4665294
>> "News.me and Instapaper - Sync your articles to your phone as you leave your house, so that when you're underground on the train, you have all your content right there"
That's not really a feature, it's more of a hack. The only reason Instapaper does this (not sure about News.me but I assume it's the same) is to get around background downloading restrictions on iOS. It's the only was to activate the app and download articles in the background. I'm sure they would much prefer to just check the server every 5 minutes and download new articles without the user having to set their location.
> (News.me and Instapaper - Sync your articles to your phone as you leave your house, so that when you're underground on the train, you have all your content right there
How is that location data? The sync operation is the same whether you're at home or at work.
Color was coming out right as I was starting my first company. I was just becoming aware of Valley culture, and I found the Color story really, really confusing. As other things have started to click and I've moved from "not knowing anything" to "being consulted professionally on these matters" the whole story of Color remains pretty confusing to me.
I don't mean to use hindsight to say I knew they were going to fail, just that I'm just as confused as to how this happens as I was the first day I got interested in startups.
This represents a rare (AFAICR) failure for Sequoia. I don't mean to be the naysayer but even at the time, for me, Color had disaster written all over it. All flash, no substance.
I wonder how much of that $40+ million is left and will be returned to investors. Anyone know how many employees Color has (had?)?
It's been said that the military is always busy planning for yesterday's war. The lessons of the past often don't reflect the change in circumstances. I think the tech sector suffers from a version of this, particularly for VCs. Facebook is big. Instagram sold big. Lots of people are chasing social. But IMHO social is largely yesterday's war.
Take one of my current bugbears: social search. Many view it as the Next Big Thing. Social is seen as a key future driver to recommendations and the like. IMHO this is completely overhyped. This is something that's been much-discussed already but a month or two ago I had an interesting conversation that I think shed some light on the problem.
Let's say Alice is friends with Bob. Bob likes a particular movie. We as programmers and entrepreneurs see an opportunity to use technology to solve a "problem" here: namely, how to allow Bob to express that information in such a way as to expose it to Alice, who it is argued, may well be interested in that.
The problem here is that the view of the "problem" here is backwards. We see social interactions as an inefficient way of disseminating information but in most cases in the real world, it's the opposite: that movie recommendation is simply a way of enabling and facilitating a social interaction. In other words, the movie recommendation is a means to an end not an end in and of itself. Too many social startups (IMHO) view the social interactions as a means to an end when in fact it is the end.
Anyway, my condolences in particular to the employees of Color, who I have no doubt worked hard over the last year or so. Luckily we're in a market where you should easily be able to move on to bigger and better things.
Hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to criticize now, but look at it from the investors' perspective:
- A CEO who not only sold his latest startup to Apple but who built about eight companies in the past twelve years, three that he sold and three that went public.
- A co founder team made from engineers that came from Google and Apple
... and you have a very solid foundation for a startup with much higher success odds than any other.
> I don't mean to be the naysayer but even at the time, for me, Color had disaster written all over it.
I agree with you. I never knew what the investors saw in Color. But that's missing the point, really. Betting against companies is a sure thing - to a decent approximation, none of them achieve the kind of success that a VC is looking for.
Same here. Maybe they should have been making something people would use instead of playing around with their ball pit and foosball table in their downtown Palo Alto office.
I think Color shows one of the problems faced when people think about location and geo-locking of data. Color (V1 - no idea about V2) didn't bring people together or let distant people experience something that was happening to their friends, it created a pool of photos at a geo-locked location among friends with you and strangers.
Facebook works because it brings people together. Color only worked in places where dense numbers were expected. Targeting things that only work in a urban setting seems to be leaving out a lot of people including friends who just aren't there.
Facebook, and instagram, worked because they fed into the "braggart" mentality that has seized social media.
By allowing users to post doctored photos to their friends, you've tapped into their motivation to have better social standing in their "tribe". Few people care what complete strangers think about them.
I LOVED the first Color, if it had gotten any adoption I think it would have been awesome. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) that's not how the world works, and it forces us to think beyond "hey wouldn't it be cool if everyone did THIS"
Given the amount of funding it required to get that many users, and the lack of a clear business model, I think that their active user count is about as relative as where they leased their copier from.
[+] [-] jrmg|13 years ago|reply
A source within the company tells us that the company’s shareholders and board last week voted to shut the company down.
Become, by the end of the article:
Color as a company still has plenty of cash in the bank, which means we’re likely to see another product from it before long.
?
[+] [-] jpdoctor|13 years ago|reply
Sounds like cluelessness on the part of the reporter: You don't have a board meeting involving the words "shut down" and then decide it was really "pivot" after the fact.
The money will first go to any bondholders/accounts-payable, then the remainder back to the investors.
[+] [-] devindra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antr|13 years ago|reply
We tend to complain plenty about Wall Street's greed but this represents no different behaviour.
[+] [-] arkitaip|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TillE|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hammock|13 years ago|reply
News.me and Instapaper - Sync your articles to your phone as you leave your house, so that when you're underground on the train, you have all your content right there
Now - Combs instagram for clustered activity in your area, and then notifies you of what's going on (i.e. movie in the park that people are enjoying)
Dark Sky - Alerts you when it is going to rain in your precise location, based on radar
Square - Automatically logs you in as soon as you arrive at the coffee shop or wherever
What it boils down to is location is automating various parts of user interface. Making your life better in the process. (this post a tldr version of http://adage.com/article/special-report-digital-conference-s...)
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|13 years ago|reply
Actually, I think that's the exact wrong lesson to take from this. That's what Color did: look for something that hasn't been done before and did that. It was a solution to a problem that doesn't exist: meeting strangers. People don't want to meet strangers, unless they're looking to hook up. That's why we construct amazing home entertainment systems; so we can avoid being around strangers. Ditto for Highlight and Airtime.
The takeaway from Color is not to go searching for the next big thing, but rather solve a problem that you yourself have (warning, you are probably not a normal person so don't spend too much time solving the problem before releasing something).
[+] [-] opensource|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|13 years ago|reply
That's not really a feature, it's more of a hack. The only reason Instapaper does this (not sure about News.me but I assume it's the same) is to get around background downloading restrictions on iOS. It's the only was to activate the app and download articles in the background. I'm sure they would much prefer to just check the server every 5 minutes and download new articles without the user having to set their location.
[+] [-] danso|13 years ago|reply
How is that location data? The sync operation is the same whether you're at home or at work.
[+] [-] tomasien|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomasien|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|13 years ago|reply
I wonder how much of that $40+ million is left and will be returned to investors. Anyone know how many employees Color has (had?)?
It's been said that the military is always busy planning for yesterday's war. The lessons of the past often don't reflect the change in circumstances. I think the tech sector suffers from a version of this, particularly for VCs. Facebook is big. Instagram sold big. Lots of people are chasing social. But IMHO social is largely yesterday's war.
Take one of my current bugbears: social search. Many view it as the Next Big Thing. Social is seen as a key future driver to recommendations and the like. IMHO this is completely overhyped. This is something that's been much-discussed already but a month or two ago I had an interesting conversation that I think shed some light on the problem.
Let's say Alice is friends with Bob. Bob likes a particular movie. We as programmers and entrepreneurs see an opportunity to use technology to solve a "problem" here: namely, how to allow Bob to express that information in such a way as to expose it to Alice, who it is argued, may well be interested in that.
The problem here is that the view of the "problem" here is backwards. We see social interactions as an inefficient way of disseminating information but in most cases in the real world, it's the opposite: that movie recommendation is simply a way of enabling and facilitating a social interaction. In other words, the movie recommendation is a means to an end not an end in and of itself. Too many social startups (IMHO) view the social interactions as a means to an end when in fact it is the end.
Anyway, my condolences in particular to the employees of Color, who I have no doubt worked hard over the last year or so. Luckily we're in a market where you should easily be able to move on to bigger and better things.
[+] [-] eta_carinae|13 years ago|reply
Hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to criticize now, but look at it from the investors' perspective:
- A CEO who not only sold his latest startup to Apple but who built about eight companies in the past twelve years, three that he sold and three that went public.
- A co founder team made from engineers that came from Google and Apple
... and you have a very solid foundation for a startup with much higher success odds than any other.
[+] [-] jpdoctor|13 years ago|reply
??? Too numerous to remember. My favorite is still WebVan: $200M flushed down the toilet.
[+] [-] bmm6o|13 years ago|reply
I agree with you. I never knew what the investors saw in Color. But that's missing the point, really. Betting against companies is a sure thing - to a decent approximation, none of them achieve the kind of success that a VC is looking for.
[+] [-] duiker101|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pirate-of-SV|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|13 years ago|reply
Facebook works because it brings people together. Color only worked in places where dense numbers were expected. Targeting things that only work in a urban setting seems to be leaving out a lot of people including friends who just aren't there.
[+] [-] bduerst|13 years ago|reply
Facebook, and instagram, worked because they fed into the "braggart" mentality that has seized social media.
By allowing users to post doctored photos to their friends, you've tapped into their motivation to have better social standing in their "tribe". Few people care what complete strangers think about them.
[+] [-] parfe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Irishsteve|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomasien|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timmclean|13 years ago|reply
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/color-says-not-shutting-dow...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4665928
[+] [-] aneth4|13 years ago|reply
Something is wrong here, either with facebook's numbers or this conclusion. That's not a small number.
[+] [-] rheide|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mibbitier|13 years ago|reply
For $41m investment, you could pay 410,000 people $100 to become a user.
[+] [-] brk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] desigooner|13 years ago|reply
Also, does "active" mean # of installs in this case?
[+] [-] topbanana|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kilimanjaro|13 years ago|reply
Giving them $40M was not. Right there you killed the greatest force to do the undoable.
Motivation.
[+] [-] tatsuke95|13 years ago|reply
If motivation and investment capital are negatively correlated, then the Valley has bigger problems than I thought.
[+] [-] nicholassmith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vijayr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vegas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpeterso|13 years ago|reply