Apple just jumped the shark if this is true.<p>Bill Nguyen is massively talented at making things work for Bill Nguyen - his prior business bought by Apple for ~$80m, Lala.com, was lackluster at best.<p>Under Jobs you could kind of, sort of get your head around $80m for essentially a talent acquisition in streaming / digital music which is/was an important revenue stream for AAPL.<p>But even under Jobs the supposed golden boy, Nguyen, bailed. Taking his vision and some of his best people with him.<p>So I see this as "Apple makes the same mistake twice" - and if Apple is going to jump into the "social around you, bullshit, blah blah blah" game through this acquisition I am truly sad.
My HN timeline for today:<p>(morning) "Color to be shutting down"
(afternoon) "Color IS NOT shutting down"
(evening) "Color is acquired by Apple"<p>wtf just happened.
Nope, this doesn't smell right...<p>In fact, this smells like an intentional leak by someone on Color's side in an effort to boost their price to some other potential buyer (counting on Apple's legendary no-comment streak to bolster the appearance of the rumor).<p>Think about the last time something leaked about an Apple acquisition before the deal was closed...right, never! In fact, Apple has notoriously remained quiet about acquisitions even <i>after</i> they close. They are not a company that does a triumphal sounding press release for every acquisition.<p>Yeah, occasionally you get leaks about Apple products. You think those aren't intentional? You think Apple's not leaking <i>just enough</i> about their upcoming products to keep people's interest. That's <i>their game</i>.<p>But leaking information about an acquisition? What does that gain Apple? If Apple really did want to purchase Color, leaking that information would only raise their price. No, the only entity here that benefits from a leak like this is Color.<p>If the rumor turns out to be true, the fact that details of an acquisition were leaked is much more concerning to me than the particulars of what company and for how much.
As a fellow member of our startup world, congratulations to Color! They deserved success after spotting the opportunity the new mobile era presents for transforming the way people share the stories of their lives. Their constant innovating and striving to learn and grow was sure to bring them plentiful benefits.
Sad if true, for all the hardworking companies out there that are working very hard to make a difference in customer's lives. Only overpriced products with no product/market fit can be acquired for "high double digit" millions.
"High double digits" seems like a lot to pay for color.com and @color (although it is a great domain and handle).<p>Maybe they have some really cool patents that they can use to sue Samsung or Google for $500 million and make the acquisition a net profit.
I would downvote this story if I could. Color operates in a parallel bizarro world that most of us will, thank god, never know. $40M in funding and no users? Check. Three months off to Hawaii as founding CEO? Check. CEO who says he would pivot if he was back in the office? Check. Move along, there's nothing to see here.
It was obvious from day one that Color was going to be acquired for a pretty penny. It's even in their pitch deck:<p><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/kitseeborg/color-faux-pitch-ddeck" rel="nofollow">http://www.slideshare.net/kitseeborg/color-faux-pitch-ddeck</a><p>See slide 45: "We're going to flip this bitch like flipper!"
There's no reason for Apple to buy Color. A couple of patents on recently invented stuff? Unlikely. Buying the patents would make sense, not buying the company. Acquire a team? Why not just hire them? Is the team really that attached to a company going nowhere?<p>So I call this rumor nonsense. On the other hand, if this rumor is true it says a lot about Apple management and none of it good.
I'm surprised Palantir didn't buy them just to take over their prime downtown Palo Alto real estate leases (one of the few big spaces not taken already by Palantir...)
I would have liked to see Hacker News applauding Bill Nugyen for landing in such a way if these rumours are true. Colour has a team, with no products nor leadership and they're going to sell for tens of millions of dollars. To the most successful company on the planet.
I've been a quiet fan of Color since the beginning, from a technology/team standpoint, not a product standpoint. I think its smart for Apple.<p>We can all agree that the product launch and the product itself was terribly implemented, but that doesn't mean the technology behind it can't be impressive. It also doesn't have to mean that Apple can't make good use of the technology and talent at Color by embedding them into existing teams and apps.
I for one am shocked that The Next Web seems to have done some original reporting here, and not just copying someone else's blog post word for word.[1]<p>Unless of course the original source blog post for this can be found somewhere...<p>[1]<a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/05/14/next-web-dirtbaggery" rel="nofollow">http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/05/14/next-web-dirtbag...</a>
Not to be confused with "Apple acquires Silicon Color"<p><a href="http://appleinsider.com/article/?id=2147" rel="nofollow">http://appleinsider.com/article/?id=2147</a>
It's entirely possible that Apple saw, in Color, the ability to acquire some valuable patents, talent, or capabilities at fire sale prices that it would spend a lot more trying to develop in house.<p>Remember that distressed assets in one company's hands are highly productive assets in a different company's hands. If the company actually has been run into the ground, all the better for Apple, because it can get a steeper discount on the assets it's after.
It will be interesting to analyse this once we know more.<p>Previous Apple acquisitions went quiet for a while but then became part of Apples plans in a big way:<p>Siri, Inc. --> Siri<p>PA Semi --> A6 chips in Apple devices<p>Lala --> iTunes Match<p>I suppose the difference is that they all had viable products prior to acquisition. But what I'm thinking is that Color have been working on stuff which is quite clearly close to Apples photo offerings (cameras in all their devices, photo stream, iCloud, gps, Facebook integration). How much would it cost Apple to develop all that stuff? A few million I guess. But what would the <i>oppurtunity cost</i> be of Apple putting one of their development teams to work on these features? A lot more (judging by how much Apple's profits keep growing).<p>Apple don't have enough staff to capitalise on all the oppurtunities that they have (hence their massive pile of unspent cash). They can only do so much at once. But what if they find a project basically tailor made to their standards (strategically aligned, patented to the gills, high quality code-base, iOS compatibility)? Might make sense to spend their pocket money and just acquire it for a somewhat inflated price.
If Apple has done this it would make me really consider their management's judgement.<p>Color has never been a successful business or even an innovator in its space.<p>From what I can tell they never even considered how to monetize the company, on that basis it should be allowed to go bust.<p>I can't see what value there is there apart from the team, and that isn't worth a blockbuster sum.
The startup Gods are just messing with our heads.<p>"Color raises 40 Million"
-"OMG.. we're in a bubble"
-"Ridiculous... waste of money"<p>"Color is about to shut down"
- "See I told you so"
- "Ha.. saw that coming"<p>"Color acquired by Apple"
- "WTH is going on?"
- "I work 100 times as hard making a product people want! Where's my payday?!!"
Well if it's true it would go some way towards explaining why Color took a fair few hours after the story broke to say "No, we're not shutting down", if the deal is there it's quite likely they'd need to speak to all sides (board, investors, potential Apple negotiations etc).<p>If Apple pay $40mil for it then they're as stupid as a sack of rocks. If they've ponied up $10-20mil as a talent grab I can kind of see it. Either way we're talking about pocket change to a company with as much cash reserve as Apple, but if I was an investor I'd be interested in hearing why Apple thought it was a good idea.
Interesting... these guys had a heavy presence at my campus last year (Texas A&M University) but have since been nowhere to be found. I know of no one that uses the app anymore at all, not many people did in the first place.<p>It should be interesting to see what Apple does with this acquisition.
IF this is actually true, I can sort of see the fit. Apple is very good at turning pieces into products. Color, clearly, isn't, but may be very good at producing pieces that have value in the proper hands.<p>I'm throwing this out there to stimulate discussion a bit, and there's a pretty good chance I get downvoted for saying it, but there's an argument to be made that this actually is a success for the patent system. Companies founded on "get a bunch of smart people together and innovate" should be something that we encourage as a society. They create value, and there should be a structure to encourage this to actually happen. I'm not sure that academia should have a monopoly on this sort, and patents are the other current method of doing this.
If true this might actually make it even easier for Nguyen to raise in future. If they have done little right and managed to deliver a return on a $40mil investment.
Post from Gruber today about Color: <a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/10/17/color-shut-down" rel="nofollow">http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/10/17/color-shut-down</a><p>> Like I Said, $41 Million Down the Toilet
Oh good. Another failed startup with massive over investment, a sucky product and no revenue gets bought for megabucks. Nepotism and back-room deals abound.