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.

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.

I don't see how SV or innovation will suffer greatly. People who don't have the nice VC connections can bootstrap and make it to profitability.

The people who stand to lose are VCs and their accredited investors. Legitimate companies with actual revenues should be able to get funding even if the VC funds leave.

One downside is that VC money is determining where the software developers go, which could lead to suboptimal allocation of skilled labor. However, some of these heretofore unprofitable ventures provide real value to the public (ie Twitter).

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?

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

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."

Is it a reaction to a form of mass social dislocation? Everyone finding acceptable ways to yell and scream for attention, not because they have something useful to share, but just because they are desperate to be part of the meta-conversation.

With that in mind, are we really advancing society with this?

Hardly. I imagine unnecessary corporate rules and other security rules being created from Color. Imagine: You are working in an office and all of the sudden someone is offended from the pictures on your phone. Or you are on a plane and suddenly become terrorized from the pics on the phone from the man sitting next to you. From a practical point of view, Color is not a viable app to advance society.

Interesting points and I think you are spot on with this assessment. I've not used Color, but been at an event where it was used. Frankly, what I saw was a mass of photos all of the same thing - various angles of the inside of a historic building. I'm not sure how it added to the event or anyone's enjoyment of it. I can see how Color could have some amazing applications, like forensic analysis of an event based on hundreds (if not thousands) of photos taken at and around the moment that something happened. Think of what would be possible if Color had existed and was in heavy use on 11/22/63.

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.

I think Slide was acquired more for the talent than for the product itself - although that's an expensive talent buy.

And who knows, maybe in some capacity it works out - I believe the Slide team at Google is responsible for the launch of Disco.