Dislike the name. Doesn't suggest anything relevant to what the service actually does. Worse, it actively suggests something else -- something to do with color, perhaps for artists or a color-involving game. I also have a personal pet peeve of people hi-jacking existing words and trying to give them an Nth meaning. If the new meaning is at least similar to one of the existing ones, fine, especially if just in a different context or field or medium. But if the new meaning has nothing to do with the original ones, it just worsens the language for everybody. And yeah, could be useful service. May make sense for some existing bigger company or social network to buy and integrate them. But $41m for this, and this stage, feels very Bubble-y to me.
That's ...err.. apples and oranges. Apple got its name before there was a web, before search engines. Plus, Apple isn't a term that is used frequently when working with computers. What do apples and computers have in common? Nothing.
Color is too generic a term and it's already used in computer lingo. This company might be able to make Color their brand, they might be able to one day own it like Apple owns apple, but it will take years if not decades.
