Last night paging through Zite (my new favorite iPad application), I came across a TechCrunch article on Color‘s launch. Color uses your smartphone (iOS or Android) to take geotagged photos and share them with whomever is very nearby right now. The use case mentioned is that of being in a restaurant and taking a a photo with Color, then seeing all the other photos that are being taken with Color right now, right there, in that restaurant.
There’s a gap in group photo sharing that needs to be filled by someone, something on the order of this: I’m at an event with 5 of my friends and we’re all taking photos of this event and we all want to see in one place all of those photos in a meaningful, usable manner. What Color gets right here is the elasticity of getting the photos from smartphones in your location near you right now and the apparent ease with which these photos are shared. Cool.
What Color gets wrong here (among other things) is that it’s all dependent on being in the land of early adopters and start-up/
dot.com/web2.0/insert-silly-name-here. This may work and be very awesome in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, New York City or SXSW (where, oddly, they did not launch), but it’s likely not going to get much traction out here in Middle America (or either, apparently, in
England outside of London).
I live in Colorado Spring, Colorado, which has a population of ~400k people, is the seat of the most populous county in Colorado, whose primary industries includes aerospace, homeland security, information technology, biotechnology and national sports governing bodies (an Olympics training center is here). We also house Colorado College, a private liberal arts school, and the University of Colorado. We are not the middle of nowhere, but we have nowhere near the adoption rate on sites like Foursquare, Gowalla or Twitter that San Francisco/Silicon Valley does. Facebook does rather well here. I already know that firing up Color here will net me the same thing it netted
Robert Scoble in Half Moon Bay – nothing. And it may well be a long time before 1 other person here starts using it – and then we’d be lucky to find each other in the same place here at the same time, since the Springs is pretty large.
Color just received $41 million in VC funding, which is a phenomenal sum. What truly irks me about that — beyond that this is likely more than Flickr ever got from Yahoo!, a rant for later — is how much money is being given to a product that will likely only have meaningful adoption in densely populated, high tech communities, has no FAQ to speak of (see the
reviews it’s getting in the Apple Store about apparent non-ease of use), and ultimately does not solve the group photo sharing problem. Also, it’s dependent on solely users with iOS or Android (so, forget about your friends using point and shoots or DSLRs). That’s a very narrow field for 41 million, no?
Color’s got a neat concept in locating the serendipitous – whatever happens to be nearby you right now – which is valuable in its own right and something Flickr meant to do (with the money they are not getting from Yahoo!), but it’s still not providing a central location for unique people to upload photos from the same event regardless of method used to capture the photos.
Wait, Flickr does that, right? I mean, I can create a group and the 5 of us at an event can all upload our photos into that group, no? Well, yes, and of all the photo sharing sites out there, Flickr still does this the best. But look a little closer and you begin to see a need for improvement. There is no way to sort photos in group pools, there is a barrier to entry because you need to have a Flickr account (although the recent changes to login should make that easier), the map could use some loving in that you can only view X many photos at a time on it and there is no real group functionality on mobile, unless you’re willing to fire up the main site on your smartphone. But it’s got the privacy controls that many appreciate (Color has none – it’s all public), so photobombing isn’t as likely as it will be on Color.
Facebook doesn’t support group albums, so you’re reliant on people tagging the photos in order to sort them, but has no way to see them on a map and no way to print them. There is privacy, but only if you’re savvy enough to navigate the morass that is Facebook’s privacy controls. Google shines at its collaborative albums on PicasaWeb, so that mom can add her photos to Aunt Sally’s album, although it suffers from not having the rich discussion environment of groups on Flickr.
So, there is a lacuna here. I’m curious to see what
ZingZang is all about, but they are in a closed beta. I’m also not impressed by the gimmick they are pushing to get higher up on the wait list – invite your friends to sign up for the beta. I’m not going to invite anyone to anything that I have never used – that’s just bullshit. Flickr got that one right when they launched, they did their word-of-mouth marketing deal with Pro accounts *after* they launched, when people could try their product.
Flicsy is another contender for this space, however their product is based (for now) solely around Facebook’s social network (although that might work in their favor, based on how many people use Facebook).
I guess I’m irked that Blake Irving isn’t throwing $41 million at Flickr (a rant I will save for later). I may be missing what’s so hot about Color, but perhaps the next time I fly out to the Bay Area (to see the Giants, of course), I’ll actually be able to use it to see what the fuss is about. And then I’ll come home to… oh right, it’s only useful in
the Silicon Valley bubble land.