Jump to content

Talk:View, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 119.252.27.81 (talk) at 19:05, 4 June 2018 (→History Update: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

Soladigm is a pioneer startup in the important Green Tech space. With its breakthrough technologies, Soladigm is poised to create a whole new industry that will allow windows, the main source of energy loss from buildings (which consume up to 40% of ALL energy consumption in the world, much more than transportation!), to dramatically reduce cooling and lighting energy consumption via controlling light, heat, glare and view. The amount of energy saving made possible potentially by Soladigm's technologies can dwarf the energy generated by all the solar cells ever made! This is an important company with critical energy conservation technologies - people would be very interested to be able to search for its information in Wikipedia.

Electrochromismexpert - The reason for the CSD is because this company, from the comments and references you have provided, does not appear notable. Linkedin references are not a sign of notability. Furthermore, if the company is deemed to be notable, your enthusiasm for the company may need to be reviewed for it's neutrality. As it stands now this looks like a new company which (while it may be promising) is gaining some advertising. Please read those links, as well as the welcome links sent to your talk page. Regards JCutter (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Considering the current energy crisis and global warming, electrochromic switchable window technology offers an important energy conservation solution. Energy conservation should be treated on the same footing as, if not higher than, energy generation (solar cells, etc.). The importance of startups like Soladigm and EControl-Glas, which enables this important technology to be transferred from the labs to the market, should not be under-emphasized. The text has been modified to better address the neutrality and advertisement issues, with a brief mention of the main competing electrochromic companies. Hopefully other contributions and improvements will be added by other users as time goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrochromismexpert (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soladigm → View, Inc. – Name of company was changed on Nov. 12, 2012 from Soladigm to View. See reference at: Soladigm Emerges as View Dmolanphy (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on View, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning Please stop. Content disputes should be settled here on the talk page. See also WP:DR for suggestions in resolving disputes. If edit warring resumes after the page protection has expired it is likely to be treated as disruptive editing and dealt with accordingly. Thank you for your cooperation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting edits

On history section: Nguyen focused on building up a team of experienced technologists and executives for developing its initial technology, which failed completely. I'm proposing you to remove "which failed completely" part. Clearly references doesn't support the texts and contents of sources are not readable. On infoBox it shows wrong info about Number of employees 500-750. We should remove the numbers or cite contents using crunchbase which indicated number of employee is 251 - 500. If you think, crunchbase is reliable then you can add it. Thanks very much. --MrSalmon (talk)

Not done: A consensus is needed for the removal of "failed", and crunchbase isn't reliable to me. A regular editor can override my decision if they think I'm wrong. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
jd22292, there are two sock farms attacking on View's page, one is to promote Nguyen as founder and technology developer, where the other group is to promote their products and working on removing content, Nguyen as the first founder. "Which failed completely" part was already removed by the other user, subsequently again added by me to "which failed". Review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeniseJZ/Archive, two helpful news references for history section are The Wall Street Journal and Bizjournals. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

revising

am walking closely through this article. much of it awful and there has been litigation happening in the background between the founder and the company, which is ~probably~ the source of all the disruption. hm. i have to go do real world stuff but will come back to this shortly. apparently some of the fuss here is over technology used. the company that emerged as View was using thin-flim deposition technology licensed from from LL per gigaom].. need to look into if there is actual reference to some prior technology... Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, a few inaccuracies on the page. View has raised $715M to date(summed all funding). Check at this link. Mulpuri joined the company in Dec 2008 and not 2009. Wall Street Journal link. He took over in December 2008.. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crunchbase is an USERGENERATED and not reliable in Wikipedia. The content follows its June 2017 source and says the company raised "an additional 500 M in its series C through F rounds."
About Rao, the content says that Rao became CEO in December 2008; this is what the cited source says as well. What are you objecting to about the actual content here about Rao? Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, agreed for crunchbase, here are the details from Series C to Series G (Total $607 million), couldn't find news for debt financing, probably added by view on crunchbase.

Series C - $40M, Series d - $55M, $62 million in a “series E”, $100 million funding, $150M Series F and $200M Series G. Following are the inaccuracies

  1. an additional $500 million in its Series C through F fundings) to an additional $600 million in its Series C through F fundings)
  2. In 2009 when Mulpuri joined the company to In Dec 2008 when Mulpuri joined the company. Sundartripathi (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good, thanks. Fixed the Mulpuri date. Am completely uninterested in the financing. I am not changing what the court decision says. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that you are probably not going to let this go so i will just add the total funding in there somewhere. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, well my intention is to let it go or any other, I was trying to post here what is correct and what is not. Another contradictory statement not supported by the source, As of 2016 the company's products were made using glass it acquired from Corning., source clearly says Corning is one of the investor and not the supplier. A California start-up called View, which has raised a whopping $500 million from investors including Corning, General Electric and Khosla Ventures. I tried to look up, but there is not even a single source that validate this sentence. There is only a press release by Corning, where it says "Corning and View Announce Strategic Collaboration to Advance Dynamic Glass Technology" but again it fails to validate that company's products were made using glass it acquired from Corning.. I hope this is a valid. Sundartripathi (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yep i goofed there, thanks. There was some ref where i read that View was using "ultra smooth glass from Corning" but it wasn't that one, and I can't find it now. so out it comes! Thnks. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History Update

Yes? What's the problem here? As per your suggestion, please use the Talk page to bring up any issues. Thanks. 119.252.27.81 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:View,_Inc.&oldid=844411360"