Talk:View, Inc.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414223234/http://venturebeatprofiles.com:80/company/profile/soladigm to http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/soladigm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If NatureFAC is going to add three paragraphs of material that's already been the subject of discussion, should be discussed here. 158.46.218.139 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea who NatureFAC is, and my previously reverted edit had nothing to do with him/her, as far as I know?119.252.27.81 (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

158.46.218.139's COI

158.46.218.139: you seem to remove anything that's written, regardless of whether supported by well-documented sources or not. This is impolite and violates Wikipedia's policy. Please reveal your COI. 89.97.174.66 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

IP Edit War

Seems to be a slow engaging edit war between IP addresses with accusations of COI and content removal of litigation section. I would suggest that anyone with a COI declare it in accordance with WP:COI, especially WP:UPE. In the meantime, the litigation section needs to be discussed here on the talk page. I am removing it because it contains WP:OR. The lawsuit may very well be part of the company history, but the references I find are all to legal firm websites or blogs. The actual lawsuit filing is original research and also not a reliable source for what is written. Wikipedia will require a reliable source to add the information. On the other side, the page currently reads like an advertisement for the company and needs a major cleanup. I would suggest that both IPs discuss to find a consensus on content instead of edit warring. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:CNMall41 I had been involved with this back in August 2017 when there was an earlier edit war between accounts who seemed to represent the company or the fired former CEO, who were avidly socking as well (see list of connected contributors above). I had left the page in this state. I realize that the litigation is sourced to the judgmement (not to any briefs), which is a primary source, but is a reliable one. For business matters, sometimes primary sources like judgements or SEC filings are the only RS. I summarized the judgement carefully and used some chancery litigation summarizing blogs as well. If you look at that version you will see that the litigation was a huge deal for the company - as the judge said, the outcome of the litigation basically blew up the capital structure of the company. From a business perspective that is something that needs to be said, and this page will fail NPOV by a long shot if that is not included. WP articles about businesses should have this kind of stuff in it; it is useful for people to learn from. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for weighing in and I trust your judgment with the past issues since you deal with a lot of COI. I took a closer look at the history it looks like both sides of the litigation are trying to edit page (add and remove the litigation). My neck hair just stands up when I see original research. I will take a shot at it in a few days to see if I can find a few sources - even if paywalled - that are more secondary. And yes, I agree that it is important to summarize aspects like this as long as it can be sourced. Who knows, there may even be more out there we haven't found yet. Thanks again. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I am the same way. There was no OR in the version I linked to above. Trying to find the Wikipedia way (orthogonal to the warring factions) I had to follow the policies and guidelines rigorously. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to ask this, but you get what happened, right? The founder raised money, the investors took over but the founder retained a veto; for the next funding round, the now-in-control investors made the mistake of closing on the financing before the time window for the veto closed, and the founder vetoed the deal after it was signed. That started the litigation; the company went on to raise 3 subsequent rounds as the litigation/arbitration went on, and as of last summer the former founder had succeeded in invalidating the B round, which meant that shares and rights given to all subsequent investors, all fell apart as well. (!!) A disaster.... I am so interested to see how this resolves. The company seems to have a good business otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

WOW! I didn't get that far into it yet. I was looking at the product itself and thought it was pretty cool though. In my experience, someone else will likely come along and pay everyone involved and then produce the product under a different name. Will be exciting to see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This one is not the best, but it isn't original research and supports what you had written. We can likely swap it out with this. I am going over some additional information and working in my sandbox to come up with a few proposed additions. Feel free to work on it as well - ALL the drafts in my userspace are open drafts so anyone can work on them.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted this from IP user as it is attributed to Forbes (contributor, not staff writer). We can likely add information on the projects, but would advise IP users to discuss here first to ensure nothing added is promotional. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi CNMall41, the way it was written, it made this company look like a law firm with all of the lawsuits heavily highlighted. This is a product company and should have much more heavily emphasized technology, product, and marketing sections. I or you or others should probably study them and add them over time, but please don't mess up the current page by heavily emphasizing the lawsuits just because you & a couple others may find them interesting. And please be careful not to inadvertently use your extensive knowledge of Wikipedia to imposing your personal point of view using esoteric Wikipedia rules (don't remove reasonably supported info without replacing it with something better) or claiming COI to prevent other editors from making sensible edits. COI is important but we should focus more on the content: is it necessary, does it make sense ...? Lastly, please apply your rules uniformly, including to yourself, ie, don't change others's edits without discussing here first. In case you may try to invoke COI to support your personal bias, I don't work for View or their competitor Sage (I will add to Sage's Wikipedia page their lawsuit with View shortly for completeness). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.195.46.78 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a few quick things here. First, edit warring can get you blocked from editing. I reverted and provided the reason why (source is not reliable). You were reverted per WP:BRD. You reintroduced an unreliable source which is disruptive to Wikipedia. This was a bold edit which was reverted and now needs to be discussed here on the talk page. Next, you seem to talk about COI quite a bit which leads me to believe that you may have one. Defending yourself from an accusation that hasn't been made doesn't look good. If you do have a WP:COI, it would be wise to disclose it. Finally, you keep talking about discussing the addition of products yet I have not seen you propose any edits for such. You need to propose them here for a discussion instead of engaging in an edit war. That is how Wikipedia works. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your started the edit war by reverting my edits. I gave good explanations and you ignored them, giving no explanation on why you treated this technology company like a law firm, heavily emphasizing the lawsuits to the detriment of other much more important subjects. I've read the history of this page and see that the previous editors keep using COI as an excuse to impose their own biases and hence don't want you to do the same. Your behavior actually suggests that you have a COI. In any case, please provide reasonable explanations for your changes and improve on my changes instead of your engaging in an edit war by blindly reversing all my changes. I hereby acknowledge your "unreliable source" by replacing the product paragraph with better sources. Again, I'm not at all interested in your editing war, I'm interested in improving the content via reasonable discussions with you point by point. Hope we can reach an agreement on each point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.216.78.66 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read WP:BRD, but if you feel I am the one edit warring, please feel free to report it to administrators. If you're not willing to, then don't make the accusation. I am simply giving you ample warning so that you can stay here and discuss without being blocked. As far as my COI, please state (with evidence) what my COI is. Finally, I guess since you are not proposing the addition of content here, you don't want any addition to the page and we can consider the discussion closed. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"Business" section

Unsurprisingly :) I think the "business" section from this old version that i had worked on, was a good thing; ditto the technology section. I would like to see those come back in some form. The technology and business model and product are what the company exists for! Otherwise it is too much about the founding and litigation.

Trying to make buildings more energy efficient is a tough business; it is hard to get people to pay up now for longer term savings. People can learn from this article if we cover the whole business well. (Without being promotional! Just describing it) Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we can have a lot more about the technology, but not based on Forbes contributor pieces (as supplied by the IP user). I wanted to take a pass at the entire page last week but didn't get into it. Looks like I will try to do it quicker (likely tomorrow) and maybe get a balance to keep IPs from edit warring. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hm.

Here are the sections. There is nothing by a Forbes contributor...

Technology development

Electrochromic technology has been discussed at least since the 1964 New York World's Fair but it took until the 1990s for any company to sell the first products using it.

In December 2008 when Mulpuri joined the company, the technology still needed a great deal of work; it is common for technology-based companies to have a longer than expected development path. In 2009 the company learned about a factory in Milpitas owned by Seagate that had sputter deposition equipment in it, which Seagate was intending to junk; the company under Mulpuri's leadership acquired it and hired many of the employees who had worked for Seagate.

The company's technology involves depositing five layers of metal oxide and two conductor layers that are altogether 1 micron thick on a piece of glass, and laying another piece of glass on top; voltage changes in the conducting layers change the color in the metal layers. The company had licensed intellectual property related to using this approach in large panels from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The company used the sputtering equipment to perfect the technique and to try to make it cost efficient. In July 2010 the company said it would build a factory in Olive Branch, Mississippi. In late 2010, General Electric selected Soladigm to be a winner out of 3,800 contestants in 150 different countries in the Ecomagination Challenge. In February 2011 the company announced that it intended to start shipping product out of the Mississippi factory in the first quarter of 2012; it started production in November 2012 and it was at that time that the company changed its name to "View".

Business

As of 2016 the company made panels that could be retrofitted as well as panels based on builders' specifications. The tint of the glass could be controlled manually, through an app, and could also be controlled through a centralized software system that could change tint in response to weather or interior temperature. As of August 2016 the company was not profitable, but said that its glass was installed in about 200 buildings.

As of 2016 building owners bought the company's glass systems primarily to save money on heating and cooling, and also to be able to avoid using shades, which block the view. At that time View had been trying to emphasize the benefits to building occupants. As of August 2016 it was unclear if people who build office buildings speculatively would be willing to risk money on smart glass, which was more expensive to acquire than regular glass panels.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Here is a reference that was removed back in July. Not sure if anything can be used or not. Working something up on Products and Technology in my sandbox but want to go through all the references before making any suggestion here. Going for the night as I have a contract job early in the morning. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)--CNMall41 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CNMall41 and Jytdog for being fair and addressing my concerns. I love green tech & View has one of the most interesting technologies. I'd hate to see that by over-emphasizing the lawsuits & neglecting the much more interesting Technology, Products, & Markets Sections, we fail our readers by inadvertently focusing them on the wrong thing, potentially hurting the company's reputation & the green tech area as a whole which has already suffered so much lately. Since you're working on it, I will stop now knowing that the article is in good hands. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.195.46.78 (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

IP editor, please be aware that if you work for View, directly or as a contractor or employee of a contractor, etc, you must disclose that. If you have some other connection with view, please disclose that. It is fairly obvious that you have some connection, so I am looking for you to be forthright here. This is related to the WP:PAID policy and the WP:COI guideline. Please respond to this before you do anything else in Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I don't work for View, although I know people who do. Please be careful not to label everyone who disagrees with your point of view as COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.195.46.78 (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing that you "know people who do." You have a conflict of interest and you should not be editing directly. Please stop doing that. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops, got this message too late. In any case, I'll check Wikipedia's rules again but it seems too restrictive not to be able to edit directly even when you don't work for a company?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.216.78.66 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In WP we don't have the level of regulation like there is in the real world; the policies and guidelines function more on the level of law in the real world and all of us use common sense in following their spirit. Your contributions -- Special:Contributions/187.216.78.66 and Special:Contributions/189.195.46.78 (and I am not wasting my time looking for other IP addresses you have used) reflect a single purpose -- as I wrote above it is obvious from your behavior that you are connected to the company. So please follow the guideline and please don't edit directly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

newer refs

• Bachman, Justin (April 17, 2018). "Airports Are Using 'Smart Glass' to Make You Spend More". Bloomberg.
• This one is extensive on the industry as a whole: Spivak, Jeffrey (7 March 2016). "Smart Glass out of the Shadows - Urban Land Magazine". Urban Land Magazine.

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I used a combination of everything that has been added or attempted to be added in the past. Removed promotional tone and rewrote so it fits what the references say. Some of it had already been incorporated into the history section. It's only a start as I know more can be added, but at least there is a foundation. Here is the addition. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You left out the essential business question the company (and every company in this space) has to solve but this is better than it was. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's only a start. Wanted to get something up immediately. We can always tweak in the near future. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think cost for the product and profitability is one thing that plagues the industry but didn't find anything (yet) specific to the company (unless I missed it in the references I already looked at which is quite possible). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is information from Forbes about the cost (disadvantage) and savings on other construction items (advantage). What are your thoughts on rewording and incorporating into the technology section? Here is the exact information from Forbes - "While View’s dynamic glass currently costs builders about 50% more per square foot than standard architectural glass—the fact that they can install smaller heating and air conditioning systems and that the dynamic glass can result in up to a 25% reduction in HVAC energy consumption and 30% reduction in peak load and requires no additional window treatments like blinds is starting to close that gap. Considering that roughly 40% of all energy generated in the industrialized world is consumed by buildings, both the opportunity and need for better energy saving solutions is immense."--CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Content discussion

Hi @Jytdog: Lets discuss this content. eg, Natural Light Discussion in Havard Business Review. 67.227.70.123 (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It was horrible advertising content that has nothing to do with providing the public with knowledge and everything to do with promoting this company. What do you want to discuss, exactly? Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Fact based customer section I'd like to add back in...

Customer

As of June 2017, the company had 150 commercial installations in process, and had finished more than 350 projects. As of September 2018, the company had over 450 completed installations across 35 million square feet of real estate, with an additional 250 committed projects. View also has over 700 patents filed.

References

67.227.70.123 (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Unacceptable PR copy. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Would "View, Inc has 705 patents currently issued." be acceptable with citations? 67.227.70.123 (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Please respond at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Answered on my talk page. Is there any level of discussion of customers or their technology that you would find acceptable? Thank you. 67.227.70.123 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not done on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Great - I'll go there right now, thanks for all of your help. 67.227.70.123 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Page organization

Should we add mgmt team or awards section similar to SAGE Electrochromics? Gortathammer (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that is just marketing crap. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gortathammer (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we move some of the product info above the history section? Most of it is 10 years old, and the company seems to have resolved the past issues. Gortathammer (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Message re: neutrality should be removed.

I reviewed the whole article for non-neutral language, and it seems to me that the current published version is now quite factual and neutral. Nick-SFBayArea (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)