Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by MJR 5563 days ago
First, the domain of knowledge to create a photo sharing app is far different than the domain of knowledge required to compete with Google over self-driving cars or solar energy systems to power homes across the country. Both of those examples are clearly physical products which require teams with far different skills than creating a team to develop a piece of software.

I understand the point here, but I disagree with it completely. Let people build what they're passionate about. Fund passionate people. If there's a market for the product it will be successful. If not, the investors made a poor decision. The money went into the ecosystem, it didn't disappear, it wasn't wasted.

We hear a ton about the venture firms that fund internet and software businesses because of what we read and pay attention to. Because we don't hear about all the bio-med and energy companies on TechCrunch or HN doesn't mean that they're not out there building the exact same products and getting funded by VC firms specializing in that space. They are getting attention, you're just not looking in the right places to see it.

All I've been reading lately are opinion pieces on what people should and shouldn't be doing with their lives, their businesses and their talents. If you're so passionate that you need to tell everyone what to do, quit complaining about about what should be happening and go make it happen.

Edit - Plus the author is currently head business development at Alphonso Labs, which develops iPhone, iPad and Android applications. What sense does that make? Quit making apps and do something else, but I'm going to keep working for a company that makes apps?

1 comments

I never said to quit making apps and do something else. There are many, many apps that solve big problems. I love apps and work at a company that makes apps for mobile devices. I just don't happen to find photo sharing to be a big problem requiring $41M to solve at the moment.
It's been clear from the first article about Color that the investment was not about a photo sharing application, but about the underlying technology. The recent information that they are applying for six patents supports this.
oh... so because you have a patent... it must be REAL technology???
You're drawing conclusions outside of my argument. Please re-read what I wrote.

She said I just don't happen to find photo sharing to be a big problem requiring $41M to solve at the moment. And my comment regarding the patents was based on the $41M investment being in their technology, not a photo sharing app.

I made no other comment on the validity of the patents. I believe the investors based their investment on the underlying technology used to create the app and not the app itself. They valued the technology and the team that created it worthy of a $41M investment.