Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbreunig | Hacker News Reader

I bet the IP TechCrunch owns is simply the brand "CrunchPad." Good luck with that suit.

Fusion Garage's story is infinitely more believable than Arrington's. After both sides have spoken, I imagine it went down like this:

They show him their OS in hopes of getting press and subsequent funding. Arrington loves the idea and wants in on the concept. Fusion Garage goes and actually builds the thing. Meetings take place with Fusion Garage probably passively hoping for funding through Arrington's connections and Arrington monopolizing the conversation with "product ideas" that are more pie-in-the-sky thinking than actual engineering.

In the meantime, tablet fever grips the nation and a Fusion Garage with a working prototype has no trouble scoring VC meetings. They probably had to fight off the cash being thrown at them. Suddenly they don't need Arrington and those that actually came through with funding demand they end the charade of him being a participant. All they have to do is come up with a new name (Joojoo? Come on...)

What remains to be seen is how TC's audience will react. The idea that Arrington apparently tried to glom onto the project with no engineering contributions perfectly fits the tropes discussed on HN: MBA-types make a buck off the back of those who actually built the thing. I wonder if this tale will actually hurt his rep?

Who here will approach TC and Arrington differently after today?

View on HN

The idea that Arrington apparently tried to glom onto the project with no engineering contributions perfectly fits the tropes discussed on HN: MBA-types make a buck off the back of those who actually built the thing.

The fact that you already have so many upvotes just perfectly illustrates how so many people still don't get that sales and marketing are just as important to product success as engineering. Maybe more. Characterizing Arrington's involvement as an attempt to "glom onto the project with no engineering contributions" is both unwarranted idle speculation and irrelevant, as there are many other contributions to be made beyond just engineering.

TechCrunch has already given the project tons of visibility. Maybe they just needed an initial press push. I guess we'll see...

TechCrunch is a technology blog, they give lots of products visibility. You're not going to claim they own everything they report on? They own the name Crunchpad, but this product isn't the Crunchpad.

If they had a business relationship, they should have had a contract. One that locks this product into using the Crunchpad name. But they (apparently) did not.

> You're not going to claim they own everything they report on?

I made no such claim. What I meant was that TechCrunch's job is pretty much done from Fusion Garage's perspective. They're in the press.

If they never had any prior involvement with TechCrunch, they'd still be in the press. On Engadget just as they are now. Hell, they'd probably be on TechCrunch too.

The difference is, the press might be a little more positive that it is now with this big mess.

Engadget wouldnt have been doing a "Press Conference Live Blog" if it weren't for the TechCrunch scandal.

That may be true but Fusion Garage has decided to go without Arrington's marketing. That may be a bad idea; I'm already not impressed with the name. But the point is that there's no evidence that Arrington has any claim to the product.

IANAL, but I highly doubt this is automatically the case. The lack of written contracts is troubling, but I suspect that a competent legal team could demonstrate significant enough contribution to warrant joint ownership, assuming such contributions exist.

IANAL either. Arrington says they contributed IP to the project -- that's pretty significant. I'm curious to find out exactly what it is they contributed. They do have the staff for it.

As for marketing, so far it's consisted of a few blog posts. They do blog posts for other products too. I don't see much in the way of any ownership coming from that.

The last time I heard this much pissing and moaning about a product's name, it was aimed at another Asian tech company who came up with the ridiculous name "Wii."

As an employee at an ad agency, I completely agree. (I mean JooJoo? Really?)

Perhaps I wrote that sentence a bit odd, but I don't mean to imply myself that this is what happened. The 'idea' central in this story simply fits similar tropes and themes I see on HN all the time. And you're right, the up-votes verify this.

they don't even own joojoo.com, it's some asian language site.

thejoojoo.com

Which is just lazy, terrible marketing. If you don't own the most obvious domain, do not use it as the name of your product.

If I go to joojoo.com and don't find what I'm looking for, there's not a chance in hell I'm going to start iterating through other possibilities. I'm either going to hit up Google or give up.

It worked for a while for dropbox :)

That was a great recovery for dropbox - but note that at the end of the day they still needed dropbox.com. This isn't to say that you can't succeed despite a crappy domain name, but rather that when you haven't even locked down your brand yet, why commit to something that you can't secure the domain for?

You're missing the fact that most people use Google as their 'location bar' and not the actual location bar. People literally do a Google search on Yahoo.com to get to Yahoo's site.

And in Chrome they're the same thing

Folks who search for the term "yahoo" at google.com to get to yahoo probably don't use Chrome.

Also in IE7 (maybe IE7 onwards)

Seriously! I know this moron who named his site Facebook but hosted it at thefacebook.com!

JooJoo is pronounced "joujou" in French, which is the diminutive form of "jouet", a toy. This form is only used when referring to the toys of little kids up to 7 year old. $500 for a little kid toy? Not for me, sorry.

They are definitely missing the TechCrunch ad agency now to not make such a basic check.

it also is Cantonese slang for penis

The screen is 12 inches. I suddenly feel... small.

That same french term became synonymous with supernatural fetishism in the US (via west african slaves) and was turned into "juju", which is almost always preceded by the word "bad" as another way of saying bad luck or a feeling of impending doom....

In Spain it was introduced by Tarzan films.

It's a little kid's toy because the name sounds a bit like the French word for little kid's toy, so you won't buy one?

Did you buy an Acer Ferrari laptop because you thought it was really a Ferrari sports car?

What a daft reason for not buying one.

The name sounds _exactly_ like 'little kid's toy' in French, so, indeed, it follows that it will carry those connotations to French speaking people (you're not one, I'm guessing). Shakespeare may have found a rose by another name smelling just as sweet, but in the centuries since his time we've learned that varieties called 'poo-poo' just don't sell at the garden center.

Not exactly the same. An English speaker would pronounce d-sounds before the js in "JooJoo" that wouldn't be there in the French "joujou".

The 'Wii' sold OK in English speaking markets so I don't see what the problem is.

Nintendo also has a lot more marketing to back up their choice of name.

Ha - I'd thought this was smart. We expect Japanese things to be a bit oddball by our standard, and this delivered.

The Chevy Nova completely flopped in Spanish speaking countries, primarily because in Spanish, "Nova" means "no go".

No, it didn't: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

Whoops! Thanks for the re-education.

But there were some other cars that had their names changed, like the "Pagero", that sounds like someone that frequently masturbates :-)

That's an urban legend, kind of like saying a dinette set called "Notable" would flop in English speaking countries because we would assume it has "no table".

Here's the snopes: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

Same way with softimage back in the day. It is pronounced softimazh, but it took bazillion of dead trees and marketing to explain to users how it is pronounced. You're doing something wrong if you need to use dictionary explanation in your marketing material imo.

FusionPad or Fusion Tablet would have been fine. Neither are already being used for anything that i could see.

"sales and marketing" != "having a popular blog"

EDIT (for some reason reply doesn't seem to work): TC is a hugely popular site, of course, but my point is that sales and marketing is a lot more than what any website can do. They can have huge impact on a website's traffic (though the long term effect is arguable) but getting readers to follow a link isn't the same as getting them to pay a few hundred $ for a product.

Since when is TechCrunch just a blog? They have multiple blogs that get millions of readers. They have conferences and meetups throughout the world that are covered by major media outlets. They run the most successful startup contest around, where companies like Mint, Dropbox, and Yammer publicly launched.

It sounds like Fusion Garage and TechCrunch did a terrible job at setting clear expectations about the partnership from the beginning, but to call TechCrunch just another blog is not accurate.

http://redeye.firstround.com/2006/05/53651.html?cid=17189379

Good point. But TechCrunch has become 1 or 2 orders of magnitude bigger since this post. Also, I think a large segment of the target market for this product is this exact market that is very familiar with TechCrunch.

The "53,651 readers in the Silicon Valley echo chamber" argument in 2006 had more force than "only 3,739,000 readers in 2009." TechCrunch now clearly has a larger reader base than early adopter in Silicon Valley.

I was considering getting one of these when it was released and I live in Wausau, Wisconsin.

It does look like they did more than just lend the project the blog; for instance, TC sent people physically to Asia to do some unspecified thing. But that fits with a narrative of the original agreement being fuzzy, and TC getting more serious towards the end when they saw the project was actually going to come to fruition.

People tend to forget, and especially so here, that there is another world outside of interwebs - with different approaches to marketing/sales, and those work on a few levels above web in terms of volume pushed.

But marketing does not give you an automatic right to the product. (Note I am only mentioning marketing, because Arrington did not sell any of the products, obviously). You may tell how great your iphone is to all your friends, but that will not give you a right to any share of the iphone's profits.

If Arrington signed a contract with fusion garage to do their marketing, than he is entitled to what the contract gives him. But to say that he has an ownership interest in the product just because he did some marketing for it is imo just not true. While he may have ownership interest in marketing materials he may have created (such as the crunchpad name) I don't see how he can get ownership of the actual device.

BTW -- this is just wild speculation based on incomplete facts, none of it is legal advice.

>If Arrington signed a contract with fusion garage to do their marketing, than he is entitled to what the contract gives him

I'd like to see this contract. Fusion Garage says there were no agreements.

You're right, but in a case where one side is contributing mostly intangible business value, you expect written contracts. The alleged lack of them is damning.

Marketing, of course, is not about the product name. It's feature/function, pricing, ship dates, channel development, and general promotion/branding.

Thank you for your $0.02; this might be really obvious to you, but could you be kind and enlighten the oblivious engineering crowd on this forum and be more specific as to what kind of value-add does sales and marketing add to a early-stage hardware startup or any consumer-oriented tech startup in general?

I disagree with your assumption that this is an engineering crowd. I would say entrepreneurship is at least as important to the HN culture as engineering.

You ask a huge question, which is discussed every day all around the internet.

But to take a high level stab at it:

Marketing is crucial to an early-stage hardware startup to start to determine if anyone actually wants to buy what you're proposing to build. Good luck getting money from a VC, much less a customer, if you can't talk intelligently about your target market, and demonstrate an ability to connect with it.

Sales becomes paramount after Version 1.0 is released, when you have to demonstrate that your business is actually profitable. Many engineers are under the impression that, if the quality is high enough, the product will sell itself. While this is true for the (tiny) subset of your market that cares enough to really investigate your product, it seems that a great sales team with a mediocre product will outsell a mediocre sales team with a great product more often than not.

You can start here: http://southeastvc.blogs.com/southeast_vc/2009/11/vcs-hear-i...

and

http://redeye.firstround.com/2009/11/lets-just-add-in-a-litt...

There's a lot of nuance to getting partnerships and getting distribution on your product. It's a different mindset that needs to be learned. In most cases, early-stage web startups should have at least one person who is capable of getting in the door (at minimum, an engineering person who can also do biz dev). It is rarely the case that you just make something and let the orders stream in. People don't know about the product yet and there's a lot of work involved in convincing them that you are capable of actually producing the device at scale or even at all. Just off the top of my head, if you see things like Twitter using bit.ly instead of tinyurl like what happened earlier this year, that wasn't a technical decision, that was done through business development and leverage.

It really depends on what it is you are producing, but in this particular case of the JooJoo/Crunchpad/whatever marketing and sales is probably part of the fundamental strategy. If a lot of time and money has been invested in something, it would be a major oversight to not have somebody who can specialize in distribution/marketing.

Get yourself a copy of Four Steps to the Epiphany.

Think about it this way.

If you have no product, having the best marketers in the world will not make you a single penny (unless you do preorders, which you still need a product eventually).

If you have a product and no marketers, will you still be able to sell some units? Most certainly.

Because of this, the actual engineering of the product is more valuable than the marketing if you were forced to choose between all engineers, or all marketers.

Just because you are a marketer doesn't mean you can't build some crap and sell it. Just because you're a prod dev guy doesn't mean you can build it and sell it.

Actually it does mean you can't build some crap and sell it when your product is high tech.

In this case Arrington only had pie-in-the-sky hand waving ideas about a $200 touchscreen computer that could do everything. He clearly wasn't interested in putting actual effort and resources into the project until someone else started working on it. The project would have died if Fusion Garage didn't start working on it.

And in this situation, a "prod dev guy" actually did build it. And I am willing to bet you that he can sell at least one.

  And I am willing to bet you that he can sell at least one

Okay, even if he can sell one, so what? That "one" is pretty arbitrary.

I can bet you if Arrington put up a preorder page of a product called SUPER-CRAP, he could sell more than one. Again, so what?

The end goal is not to sell one. It's to build a successful business. And that requires significant(even if unequal) contribution from both prod dev and marketing.

I can bet you if Arrington put up a preorder page of a product called SUPER-CRAP, he could sell more than one. Again, so what?

People like to exaggerate that a good marketer can poop in a box and sell it, but at some point it becomes scamming. And I guarantee you that the likelihood of getting sued and losing even more money goes up astronomically.

If you have no product, you wont make a single penny, Sure. But, if you have no marketers, you will not be able to sell enough units to make up for the fixed costs involved, and you would end up with a loss, which is even worse.

So there would be no costs involved marketing a non-existent product?

I am absolutely speechless that I am being downvoted while you are being upvoted...

What exactly are these imaginary fixed costs that marketers don't have? You mean hiring advertisers is free? You mean buying commercials is free? You mean flying out to conventions is free?

I can tell you of quite a few startups led by MBA marketers who burnt all their cash trying to outsource their technical work. All the money went into hype which they don't even have a product for. Would you rather have imaginary hype or would you rather have a physical product?

I believe he is referring to an economies of scale type scenario. With a high-tech product (or most any for that matter) the manufacturer/developer has to pay huge sums of money before a single commercial unit is shipped. Fixed costs such as plant and manufacturing equipment are cash drains whether one or one million units are sold--hence the name fixed cost.

Yea, Fusion Garage has created a tangible product. To get it to the masses, however; they must convince the public they want it. Of course theres people who are already excited about it, but that certainly won't bring in enough revenues to keep the lights on at the end of the day.

I'm personally just getting tired of the same tired Business vs Tech banter. If we are to advance our industry and continue to create great innovative products, we must recognize eachother's strengths and weaknesses. Thats when the magic happens IMO.

With a high-tech product (or most any for that matter) the manufacturer/developer has to pay huge sums of money before a single commercial unit is shipped.

This really only holds true for a cutting edge product like a new CPU or the first iPod.

For everyone else like the JooJoo/Crunchpad, these electronics are assembled from commodity parts and manufactured in Asian factories on the cheap.

If preorders are taken, there is absolutely no reason for Fusion Garage to maintain a huge stockpile and the corresponding risk. This is why made to order companies like Dell are so successful.

economies of scale and fixed costs apply for most products that involve manufacturing. Not only for cutting edge ones

Have any of you bothered to see how much it costs now to produce a prototype in China now? And do you really think that Fusion Garage is funding these factories themselves?

Wake up to the 21st century please.

Non-cutting edge electronics are cheaply produced in Asia. The "JooJoo" is made up of commodity electronics which means that these "low-tech" plants are easily able to solder and assemble the components together.

Fusion Garage is not building the factories, mining and smelting the ore, nor fabricating their own silicon...

Could you elaborate on how much it actually does cost to produce a prototype in China? Further, how about a finished and consumer-ready product? I understand that what you are alluding to is a cornerstone of the modern economy, but I find it difficult to believe that the affects of manufacturing costs are essentially null on a small firm from Singapore.

Like I mentioned above, it depends on how cutting edge your product is. I can't give you any specifics but you can try contacting a Chinese supplier through Alibaba.com they will be able to give you a rough idea. I know from the downvotes I've received that I won't be wasting more time trying to convince people about their misconceptions.

As a rule of thumb, the more exotic and cutting edge your product is, the more savings you will get from mass production obviously. The JooJoo/Crunchpad is not unusual. From what I've read, it's a commodity touchscreen attached to an Intel Atom motherboard.

If your product is unsellable due to a small difference in the quantity you are able to sell, you have bigger things to worry about: namely the quality of your product. There's a reason why the cost of new products such as consoles or cpus are sky high in the beginning. Why should your company be any different?

> I can't give you any specifics but you can try contacting a Chinese supplier through Alibaba.com they will be able to give you a rough idea.

Then your reply serves no purpose. If you do not have the data how can you make the claim?

I don't have the exact data for an item like the crunchpad/joojoo, but for nearly everything I bothered checking, the price differences are quite often less than 25%.

Regardless of exactly how much this margin is, it is not wise for anyone to be straddling the fine line between the maximum consumers are willing to pay and the minimum a factory is willing to charge.

I leave it as an exercise to the doubters here to investigate by themselves. I am done wasting my time finding specifics just to further an argument on the internet.

Getting FCC approval for the device costs thousands, even if all the parts are individually certified.

I am absolutely speechless that I am being downvoted

Let me propose an analogy of what you're saying: some say a roof is important on a house, but without the basement, a house would collapse. Without the roof, on the other hand, the house would be fine for quite some time, especially in a warm summer climate, like LA.

In reality, a roof and a basement on a house are like marketing and engineering: both are necessary and neither is sufficient for a good product. Engineering without marketing is blind, and marketing without engineering is lame.

You made a nice analogy there, but other than you saying so, why is it exactly like selling a product? I can make up an analogy too.

Let me make this clear. I am not saying that marketing is completely useless. What I am saying is that when you go up to a marketing guy, chances are that he has no idea how to make the actual product. When you ask an engineering guy how to sell the product, he at least has an idea of how to sell it.

What I am saying is that when you go up to a marketing guy, chances are that he has no idea how to make the actual product. When you ask an engineering guy how to sell the product, he at least has an idea of how to sell it.

Marketing != Sales. Deciding what to make (market research) is the first part of marketing. If you make the wrong thing (if you are blind to the market), you're not going to sell a lot of it.

The analogy to the house holds because both a roof and a basement are necessary for a good house. Similarly, both good marketing and good engineering are necessary for a good product. Both are necessary, neither is sufficient on their own.

The analogy to the house holds because both a roof and a basement are necessary for a good house. Similarly, both good marketing and good engineering are necessary for a good product.

Again you offer no proof to the validity of your analogy other than because you said so.

I don't think anybody believes that sales and marketing are as important as engineering. I think instead that most people here believe that all the sales and marketing people treat engineering as if it doesn't matter at all. And we'll cheer for anyone who says it's not the case.

I meant to say "I don't think anybody believes sales and marketing _aren't_ as important as engineering....

The lack of contracts seems to indicate that Fusion Garage's story is more accurate. It's entirely possible that the original idea, however, was Arrington's and that Fusion Garage simply decided to build it. However, Arrington says that they contributed IP to the project -- I wonder what that is supposed to be.

The original idea is something everyone had the moment they saw the first iPhone.

Actually, it's an idea I had when I first saw a Newton...

Nah, a phone that you need two hands to use? When I can use the magic wheel of a blackberry and do everything with one hand? Preposterous. It'll never sell.

It's not really "original" though is it, it's the natural conclusion that everyone's coming to.

What about the Nintendo DS?

infinitely more believable than Arrington's

Well, no doubt many people are happy to assume that the person holding the soldering iron is automatically the one who is right.

I will make no such assumption; "infinitely" is more than a little strong. ;) All I will say is: What a lose-lose situation.

He has two really compelling pieces of (alleged) evidence: a new working piece of hardware and the fact that there were no written contracts.

That doesn't get them out of the woods legally, but if all TC has is incriminating snippets of email, it does make them more credible than TC.

The existence of the device is hardly evidence of who was responsible for creating it. The claim in question is that Arrington and crew contributed nothing to the piece of hardware in question. Michael Arrington could have built the entire thing by himself in his basement and the situation from our perspective would be the same as long as FG could get ahold of one of the devices.

I got the impression from Arrington's own writing that Fusion Garage was primarily responsible for the nuts-and-bolts tech.

> Well, no doubt many people are happy to assume that the person holding the soldering iron is automatically the one who is right.

I can't believe how many are making that assumption. I had been reading TechCrunch for years before the day I saw Arrington post the original hypothesis for the CrunchPad. In fact, I can probably look up my comments on Google encouraging his going forward, and suggesting features. I'm blown away at how off track this has turned out. Unfortunately, if he didn't handle the legal stuff he has to take the turmoil I guess.

"many people are happy to assume that the person holding the soldering iron is automatically the one who is right"

Well... If it were a chainsaw, then there would be no question whatsoever.

As it is, it's the team who has the soldering iron, who wrote the code, who designed and built the prototype, who figured out production against the other guy who is known for having occasionally hidden ties to companies he talks about on his blog, who has thus doubtful journalistic standards and who posted a couple pictures, promoted the device and published stories about how it would change the world, painting himself as an internet visionary turned hardware mogul.

I stay with the guy with the soldering iron on this one.

Interestingly, I also can't see US$ 299 as such a ludicrous price. I doubt an e-paper display is much less expensive than a LCD twice its size and there are devices in this space that cost $299.

They have reoccurring revenue - this does not.

That could be with the Barnes & Noble and the Nook, but I doubt the Sony's generate much revenue beyond the unit purchase.

I'm honestly really surprised (and a little appalled) at the number of upvotes your comment has received. There's a mob-like response whenever a story comes up about MA or TechCrunch. As far as I can tell, Fusion Garage's response (from this Engadget article) is hearsay as well.

> I'm honestly really surprised (and a little appalled) at the number of upvotes your comment has received.

Me too, considering it's basically an attack on Mike Arrington based on an imaginary situation where Arrington/Techcrunch do things the author dislikes so he can paint him in a bad light.

It's no more worthy of upvotes than: "I imagine Mike Arrington met the CEO of Fusion Garage and kicked his children in the face. Isn't he a horrible person?"

I'm not surprised.

The last time this lawsuit came up on HN, people were saying how Arrington was arrogant and they said that parts of the story probably weren't being mentioned.

Given enough exposure, everyone looks like a dick.

FG's claims are more easy to refute than TC's. FG says they did virtually all the technical work and they signed no contracts. Easily refuted claims are more credible than vague ones.

http://twitter.com/arrington/status/6442811004 "There aren't any more CrunchPad posts coming from us. It's all in the lawyers hands now." This is what Arrington/TC had to say....

this guy would be talking to a wall if it wasn't for Techcrunch. He would have never been able to raise any money either, since most of Asia won't talk to him and certainly nobody in Singapore does since he burnt his last startup in much the same way.

This guy is a complete scammer and has a track record of doing exactly this. Watching HN people take his side after watching his video spin and not knowing anything else about him is just sick.

Do you have any links for information about his last startup? I would like to see it.

Here is a link to an article that provides the name of the company, Radixs Pte Ltd: http://www.e27.sg/2009/12/03/who-really-killed-the-crunchpad...

If you go to this article in the comments you can see one related to the folding of that company: http://blogs.todayonline.com/techtalk/2009/01/fusion-garage-...

The Radixs site is now a parked domain. I did not have time to do more searching for information about the company.

I agree. When reading those Arrington articles, it was obvious that he had no technical contribution to the thing.

That being said, Fusion Garage really fell on their face. The only thing they needed to do is come up with a name better than crunch pad, which should not have been too hard. And they come up with joojoo??? Ouch.

Significant missing detail: there seems to have been disagreement on the pricing, with Arrington presumably wanting a lower margin product that was closer to his original vision. This seems to be the thing that Fusion Garage's investors balked at.

Engineering is not the only story here. They got a lot of attention that they never would have gotten w/o the biggest name in tech news singing their praises from his bully pulpit. Imagine the uphill battle these guys would face trying to sell what is essentially a new computer on its merits alone.

It seems to me the FusionGarage people have gotten what they need from Arrington; attention. Now that he is no longer useful he's been sidelined. Kind of a Machiavellian move, since no lawsuit can undo the press they got.

Arrington was using them and they were using Arrington. Which, in the end, is the nature of all business relationships.

I have only the foggiest idea of what's going on here (this is a tablet PC running a web OS, right?), but this whole thing smacks of desperation.

ChromeOS just went public, Apple may or may not do some tablet thing, Arrington is somehow involved and seems to be acting like an ass again, etc.

I think someone pushed the panic button and said something along the lines of 'we go live now or the whole thing is dead!'

All-in-all not a good way to start. My magic eight-ball tells me this project is doomed.

I have no idea about the whole mess, but I think the statement "techcrunch is just a blog" would probably resonate with a lot of people and actually get them sympathy.

I do think the TechCrunch PR and marketing probably could have made it better, but perhaps there is a bit much credit and attention given to the louder mouths then is deserved.

In any case, interesting to watch, and a device like this for that price point would be awesome if anyone can pull it off.

If Arrington is spouting off and doesn't have contracts in hand, he's severely hurt the credibility of FusionGarage among their core market for the product. A countersuit might be in order.

definitely. I mean both HP and Apple have engineers, but I could never figure out what makes Apple better - please explain? Since the argument is that it is all engineers and 'lines of code', that means that it comes down to who writes the code, right? Which explains why Apple is so great, or maybe not.

The sooner you wake up to what marketing really is the better

Reply on news.ycombinator.com