I don't think the problem is with the Californian model. Silicon Valley knows how to do technology right for its own sake, and every technologist everywhere can learn a lot about how to do technology right by looking at Silicon Valley. Sure there is a gold rush mentality driving media and politics, and there is a lot of greed at play as well. But rich guys in Silicon Valley are no more greedy (and the true technologists among them are probably less greedy) than rich guys everywhere else in the world. The big difference between finance and tech is that deep down at the heart of tech is a natural curiosity and passion for problem solving, whereas finance is fundamentally about arbitrage.
In order to take the right lessons from tech's failings you need to separate the tech from its social consequences. The fundamental problem with tech is that it kills jobs. It is about seeking greater efficiency in all things. This is why politicians are wrong to try to solve unemployment with tech. It would be great if everyone could move up the food chain in terms of creative and technical work and that tech could create more jobs, but the problem is that by its very nature, the 1% in the tech world will be more efficient than the bottom 90% no matter how much training they receive. 100 great developers will produce better returns than 10000 bad developers. There's no way around this fact. Hell, if you have a powerful enough intelligence that was orders of magnitude smarter than the smartest human then it could obsolete developers entirely by being more productive on its own than all the worlds smartest developers.
Increased efficiency is theoretically good, but we're reaching the point where we don't have the social capabilities to cope. We are wired to work, and to need to feel needed, and to feel that we have an upward trajectory in life. These things make it very difficult to cope with the impending unemployment crisis and the environmental consequences of a ballooning disposable culture. Tech is at the very heart of these issues, but Silicon Valley is not the cause of these problems, it's just one microcosm of them.
> The fundamental problem with tech is that it kills jobs.
> This is why politicians are wrong to try to solve unemployment with tech.
The second does not follow from the first. Technology will always be killing jobs, and local politicians can do nothing to prevent that. The only difference they can make is where the profits from the old jobs go to; if they just stand by and watch, they will all go to companies in a few global tech centres, most in the US. However, if they encourage the development of a local tech scene, the efficiency problem might be solved by local entrepreneurs, meaning that they can still tax the profits, etc., making the local population better off.
Also, I strongly disagree with your claim that "We are wired to work". We are raised to work. And by "we", I mean particularly the people far away from the equator, who always needed to work to survive. Personally, I would not work if I didn't need it for survival (or more free time in the future), and I'm certain there's many more people like me in the world. Why do you think kids play in their free time, and teenagers party?
A powerful critique. As developers we have the ability to effect profound change. But mostly we funnel our expertise into better advertising solutions.
Our industry leaders (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.) are all monopolies which pay little tax and employ anti-competitive practices to squeeze out competitors.
And few seem concerned with inequality.
Let's shape our companies towards something better.
> But mostly we funnel our expertise into better advertising solutions.
That's the thing that pays most. For some reason our society rewards advertising platforms. Everything from popular films and music, to every successful medium ever, was founded as or taken over as an advertising platform.
Maybe we as a society simply value advertising above all?
Personally I try to only work with companies whose business model is providing values to users directly, but I can't argue with the fact that I am far more willing to give my money to advertisers (so I can make a profit), than I am to services that help me make the products I advertise.
Why is that? I don't know. But I think the feedback loop from "put money in, get money out" is much quicker with advertising platforms than it is with services I use during creation.
Companies are for making money. If the people they make money for are concerned about that, they can vote - or distribute their own money - accordingly.
As the author states the tech sector does not directly employ Berlin's currently unemployed and has to import talent from outside (disclaimer: I'm such an imported talent into Berlin), it still creates demand for services and increases employment in other sectors as it grows, and gives an option for the city's youth to consider the tech sector for their future.
However as the author states, the sustainability of the tech sector is very critical, but this not specific for Berlin. Even in the silicon valley there is a trend towards more sustainable growth models as the hundreds of SaaS startups here on HN would testify.
Being a really open and relaxed city with a high quality of life, Berlin stands a good chance of attracting talent, allowing them to try out their ideas and hopefully create an IPO or two in the next ten years. I can't see why the author categorically dismisses that option.
I asume that's due to his insight in the germany industry at general. I'm german and I don't see that neither. I try to explain that, at least a little bit.
Germany, despite being technologically strong, is not very inovative. At least not in the sense of new, scaling products. One of the most famous examples is MP3. Also, Germans in general are quite risk averse. And if new companies are founded and are successfull, they tend to end up in the mittelstand model. While that indeed is one of the cornerstones of the german economy, these companies are most of the time too small for an interessting tech IPO.
Yet another reason is the way the german industry is structured. We are very manufacturing driven, which extends all the way back to education. And manufacturing companies is what the german economy wants. So, if a start-up devlops a new way to manufacture, say, ball bearings there are basically two outcomes.
They either find enough investors to built an own construction site and / or the necessary structures to outsource production and sell to the various industrial customers. That's expensive, especially compared to the archtypical SV start-up, that's risky which drives of most banks and goes against the common risk aversion and takes time and people. People, again, are hard to come by since most tech people (read: engineers of all colors, mathematicians, physisits,...) all want to work for one of the big names instead of a small, newly founded company. More on that and education later.
The second outcome is that they either get bought by some existing company or the patent is liscensed or bought. In this case it doesn't really matter wether the product in question actually the light os day or not, the company simply doesn't IPO.
Finally, what in my opinion makes it very unlikely that a company has a sucessfull tech IPO in germany anytime soon is people.
There's education, focusing on producing people for the existing technologies and, even worse, companies. Some universities have programs for entrepreneurship, but these programs are small, young and mostly producing start-ups that end-up aquired. But it's at least a start.
Another problem start-ups are facing on the people side is that most students in technical domains want to wrk for, say, BMW or Audi. Meaning these companies can pick the, at least in theory since there's always the chance of missed talent, the brightest people leaving the rest for the smaller players. And for a start-up to succseed you need the brightest (try to beat BMW here).
Finally, failure and unemplyment carries a certain stigma in germany. So once you tried a start-up and failed in terms of future emplyment you are facing two major problems:
- You failed, by definition that's your fault and we don't hire losers (slightly exagerated)
- You have been your own boss for a while, which means you are unable to work under a boss. We can't need people like that.
And finally, German engineering and technology tends to be over engineered. And the shows in all aspects, be it tech, processes, products, you name it. That's great for existing products since it usually produces quality (if this quality is actaully needed or not is completely different question). But that also makes things like a MVP very hard to built and almost impossible to sell in Germany. And why building something in a market you can't sell to.
That's my take on why the author and I see a (major) tech IPO out of Berlin unlikely.
The tech sector does absolutely nothing for the unemployed or to allay the wider social problems in Berlin. The last big wave to hit Berlin was the move of parliament from Bonn, with countless media companies settling in Berlin in its wake. However, these companies also attract people from outside, these are the now (in)famous "Schwaben" coming in. Berlin is hip, and young, educated people come from all over the place (and world) to be part of it. That, however, does very little for Hellersdorf, the Märkisches Viertel, Siemensstadt etc. etc. What all of this brings is a further social divide in the city and further gentrification á la Prenzlauer Berg and Mitte.
So far, I fail to see how technology companies are going to be any different.
My assumption is that the author doesn't believe much in trickle-down economics. His last statement is particularly telling:
Let me finish with a question: what do you think who
employs more people? A company like Facebook with a world-
renown brand that is worth about $100 Billion on the stock
market or a hundred companies that most people have never
heard of which are each worth a billion people?
The reality is that Germany's Mittelstand is full of SME's doing well for the themselves and employing lots of people. They have built themselves up using a very traditional model:
1. Idea
2. Borrow money from the bank
3. Employ people
4. Build products/services
5. Sell products/services
6. Profit
7. Re-invest and repeat from [3].
8. After 20 years of repeating - sell company, take-over, child inherits
Failure in this instance is often catastrophic to the founder.
I also think that there are a number of SaaS startups that are simply SME's and use the label "start-up" in order to try and get target investment from the VC daisy chain. Their model is often aimed at short cutting and gambling without risk to themselves:
1. Idea
2. Borrow money from investors
3. Build products/services
4. Sell products/services
5. Repeat from [2]
6. After 10 years of repeating - fail, acqui-hire, sell (and integrate) or IPO
Failure in this instance is often a learning experience to take into the next start-up venture.
One notable point that the author doesn't mention is the German adversity to risk. The average Germans doesn't take massive risks. The start-up model holds massive risks to investors, but or course the returns for success are equally huge. Germans would prefer a guaranteed 1.5% return per year to a risky 1000%. That isn't likely to change in the near future.
We have lessons to learn from European paradigms as you point out. However I think you are a little harsh on founders, the pursuit of fame may be an issue for a small minority but is hardly a universal issue.
Having now manged to read the article the author does seem to have a chip on his shoulder and is writing this from a distinct political stance making glib remarks like “our spying American friends” doesn’t really help in this context does it.
In addition “rich white men” comrade who do you think owns all those Mittelstand companies - Germanys far less diverse than the US or the UK in that regard.
Mittelstand is all very well but there are a number of problems with then in that they are very tightly controlled secretive family businesses - there appears to be no worker participation in the ownership of these companies what so ever.
Mittelstand companies have also recently benefited immensely from the Euro selling all those Porsche Cayennes to Greece
I think possibly German concentration on traditional engineering means there is less hinterland to build tech start-ups from – and I suspect that IT training has been starved as mech and electrical engineering probably played the political game better.
Just out of interest, how much worker participation does big tech companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple or Facebook really have? From what I can tell it is all perceived participation and the CEO and more importantly the investors have the final say. There is a massive difference between worker participation and investor control, workers are rarely investors or share holders in big companies.
This is a really big problem, and I can feel it myself. Now that I've got customers and seed money, should I try to create a sustainable business that grows organically? Or should I move to London - I'm in Rome now - and try to enter the VC game as soon as possible, as a mentor insists?
The sustainable business way appeals a lot to me, but what about the risk that competitors with lots of money crush us just by out-spending us? And what about the ecosystem? But the places with the best ecosystems are very expensive, how can you enter them without VC money?
The problem is that there is no proof that the mittelstand model can work for tech startups, while there is proof that the SV model can.
>The problem is that there is no proof that the Mittelstand model can work for tech startups, while there is proof that the SV model can.
To me it seems pretty obviously that one is the antithesis of the other. Mittelstand seem to work well in established markets with a sensible good quality product or in niche markets where they could often be the only manufacturers worldwide. It does not strike me as the kind of enterprise that aims to grow fast and disrupt markets.
Besides, there is already Middelstand tech businesses. They are the software houses that write niche B2B software like time table schedulers for schools and such.
It really depends on the structure of the business and market you're trying to crack.
Also, remember VC is the most expensive and controlling capital you will ever raise, and you should try to avoid it unless there is a compelling reason to use it (like network effects, fast growth and no profits for 10 years). Instead, the best money you can raise is from customers, which has the added benefit of not needing to be repaid, and providing perfect kinds of feedback data for your product.
This was advice from Nolan Bushnell, and worth considering.
A serious question speacially to the German crowd of this post:
Im very interested in alternative cultural models for tech products in the digital age, specially because technology has such a impact in peoples live, and can improve the quality of life of everybody in so meaningful ways..
So, where can i find more about the Mittelstand?
is there some discussions about it somewhere? is there any group trying to think new models that contrary to the status quo can create a virtuous cicle in the whole community and not only for a particular group of privilege?
I am very interested at this, and as a Brazilian i keep an eye in what Europe are doing, and how they are thinking , since they are not taking the SV model for granted, and just repeating.. but trying to get a new meaning out of it, without forget its own cultural values.. (at least it was what i feel and are confirming by reading the posts from the german fellows)
Im asking this, because is that what im trying to do too.. I dont want to just launch what i have in hands in the current model.. i think we can do better.. so im interested in all movements over this topic.
Note: im specially interested in social groups, and less in literature about it.. as i think this is still in formation.. and new cultural models(if any) are in its infancy
Can't open the article right now, but here is one question I have that might fit: hasn't Sillicon Valley actually started in the middle of nowhere? These days the saying is to go there because that is where the investors with the money are. But the money is there now because some people succeeded with their factories built in the countryside?
Here in Germany there are also quite a few towns that are built around one big company, for example Wolfsburg for VW.
No doubt Berlin is attractive at the moment, but the things that make it attractive are quickly disappearing - cheap cost of living, lots of empty buildings, lots of diverse culture.
I for one don't look forward to the living conditions of the valley, where people have to share rooms at extremely high costs just to be able to be there. It seems very ironic that while it is presumably one of the richest places on earth, the valley sounds like a horrible place to live in.
The author is correct. After attending a recent JS conference I didn't notice any of the hartz IV people there but just a bunch of exiles from other tech cities who had moved to berlin for something exotic. Unfortunately this will mean a direct copy of silicon valley as all the people moving here to create the tech boom know nothing else to copy. Would be good if the tech here was a focused on solving real world problems instead of creating the next latest and greatest advertising model...
Excuse me, but have you been to the Valley? I have not. But I have been in Berlin, and I can assure you that I have seen my fair share of hipster copycats. Not that there are not rock solid tech companies operating in the region. It is just my impression the startup scene in the german capital is a bit one sided: mostly marketing, media and marketplace platforms. Is that the future of mankind?
I have found a few people that have a tech/scientific background and take up the fight in the startup scene, but so far all but one them have moved to the US.
I would be greatly interested to connect and meet with people from technology/science that would like undertake a venture in wet-/soft-/hard-ware. But alas, there are few of them into the startup scene in Germany, for most a heading to the industry sector after their dissertation/master.
[+] [-] dasil003|12 years ago|reply
In order to take the right lessons from tech's failings you need to separate the tech from its social consequences. The fundamental problem with tech is that it kills jobs. It is about seeking greater efficiency in all things. This is why politicians are wrong to try to solve unemployment with tech. It would be great if everyone could move up the food chain in terms of creative and technical work and that tech could create more jobs, but the problem is that by its very nature, the 1% in the tech world will be more efficient than the bottom 90% no matter how much training they receive. 100 great developers will produce better returns than 10000 bad developers. There's no way around this fact. Hell, if you have a powerful enough intelligence that was orders of magnitude smarter than the smartest human then it could obsolete developers entirely by being more productive on its own than all the worlds smartest developers.
Increased efficiency is theoretically good, but we're reaching the point where we don't have the social capabilities to cope. We are wired to work, and to need to feel needed, and to feel that we have an upward trajectory in life. These things make it very difficult to cope with the impending unemployment crisis and the environmental consequences of a ballooning disposable culture. Tech is at the very heart of these issues, but Silicon Valley is not the cause of these problems, it's just one microcosm of them.
[+] [-] tomp|12 years ago|reply
> This is why politicians are wrong to try to solve unemployment with tech.
The second does not follow from the first. Technology will always be killing jobs, and local politicians can do nothing to prevent that. The only difference they can make is where the profits from the old jobs go to; if they just stand by and watch, they will all go to companies in a few global tech centres, most in the US. However, if they encourage the development of a local tech scene, the efficiency problem might be solved by local entrepreneurs, meaning that they can still tax the profits, etc., making the local population better off.
Also, I strongly disagree with your claim that "We are wired to work". We are raised to work. And by "we", I mean particularly the people far away from the equator, who always needed to work to survive. Personally, I would not work if I didn't need it for survival (or more free time in the future), and I'm certain there's many more people like me in the world. Why do you think kids play in their free time, and teenagers party?
[+] [-] nailer|12 years ago|reply
Yes, but those efficiencies open new possibilities. Transistors killed abaci and slide rules, and made skills in their use suddenly redundant.
Fast forward, and I'm reading about people employed to make realtime peer to peer video between any two people in the world.
Yes, truly self improving AI would change everything, and probably spell the end of the traditional economy, but I think we're a long while off yet.
[+] [-] ibuildthings|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] room271|12 years ago|reply
Our industry leaders (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.) are all monopolies which pay little tax and employ anti-competitive practices to squeeze out competitors.
And few seem concerned with inequality.
Let's shape our companies towards something better.
[+] [-] Swizec|12 years ago|reply
That's the thing that pays most. For some reason our society rewards advertising platforms. Everything from popular films and music, to every successful medium ever, was founded as or taken over as an advertising platform.
Maybe we as a society simply value advertising above all?
Personally I try to only work with companies whose business model is providing values to users directly, but I can't argue with the fact that I am far more willing to give my money to advertisers (so I can make a profit), than I am to services that help me make the products I advertise.
Why is that? I don't know. But I think the feedback loop from "put money in, get money out" is much quicker with advertising platforms than it is with services I use during creation.
[+] [-] davidw|12 years ago|reply
http://it.bing.com/search?q=monopoly&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&filt...
http://www.powells.com/s?kw=Monopoly+economics&class=
Maybe not?
> And few seem concerned with inequality.
Companies are for making money. If the people they make money for are concerned about that, they can vote - or distribute their own money - accordingly.
[+] [-] ekurutepe|12 years ago|reply
However as the author states, the sustainability of the tech sector is very critical, but this not specific for Berlin. Even in the silicon valley there is a trend towards more sustainable growth models as the hundreds of SaaS startups here on HN would testify.
Being a really open and relaxed city with a high quality of life, Berlin stands a good chance of attracting talent, allowing them to try out their ideas and hopefully create an IPO or two in the next ten years. I can't see why the author categorically dismisses that option.
[+] [-] hef19898|12 years ago|reply
Germany, despite being technologically strong, is not very inovative. At least not in the sense of new, scaling products. One of the most famous examples is MP3. Also, Germans in general are quite risk averse. And if new companies are founded and are successfull, they tend to end up in the mittelstand model. While that indeed is one of the cornerstones of the german economy, these companies are most of the time too small for an interessting tech IPO.
Yet another reason is the way the german industry is structured. We are very manufacturing driven, which extends all the way back to education. And manufacturing companies is what the german economy wants. So, if a start-up devlops a new way to manufacture, say, ball bearings there are basically two outcomes. They either find enough investors to built an own construction site and / or the necessary structures to outsource production and sell to the various industrial customers. That's expensive, especially compared to the archtypical SV start-up, that's risky which drives of most banks and goes against the common risk aversion and takes time and people. People, again, are hard to come by since most tech people (read: engineers of all colors, mathematicians, physisits,...) all want to work for one of the big names instead of a small, newly founded company. More on that and education later. The second outcome is that they either get bought by some existing company or the patent is liscensed or bought. In this case it doesn't really matter wether the product in question actually the light os day or not, the company simply doesn't IPO.
Finally, what in my opinion makes it very unlikely that a company has a sucessfull tech IPO in germany anytime soon is people. There's education, focusing on producing people for the existing technologies and, even worse, companies. Some universities have programs for entrepreneurship, but these programs are small, young and mostly producing start-ups that end-up aquired. But it's at least a start. Another problem start-ups are facing on the people side is that most students in technical domains want to wrk for, say, BMW or Audi. Meaning these companies can pick the, at least in theory since there's always the chance of missed talent, the brightest people leaving the rest for the smaller players. And for a start-up to succseed you need the brightest (try to beat BMW here). Finally, failure and unemplyment carries a certain stigma in germany. So once you tried a start-up and failed in terms of future emplyment you are facing two major problems:
- You failed, by definition that's your fault and we don't hire losers (slightly exagerated)
- You have been your own boss for a while, which means you are unable to work under a boss. We can't need people like that.
And finally, German engineering and technology tends to be over engineered. And the shows in all aspects, be it tech, processes, products, you name it. That's great for existing products since it usually produces quality (if this quality is actaully needed or not is completely different question). But that also makes things like a MVP very hard to built and almost impossible to sell in Germany. And why building something in a market you can't sell to.
That's my take on why the author and I see a (major) tech IPO out of Berlin unlikely.
[+] [-] rmk2|12 years ago|reply
So far, I fail to see how technology companies are going to be any different.
[+] [-] junto|12 years ago|reply
1. Idea
2. Borrow money from the bank
3. Employ people
4. Build products/services
5. Sell products/services
6. Profit
7. Re-invest and repeat from [3].
8. After 20 years of repeating - sell company, take-over, child inherits
Failure in this instance is often catastrophic to the founder.
I also think that there are a number of SaaS startups that are simply SME's and use the label "start-up" in order to try and get target investment from the VC daisy chain. Their model is often aimed at short cutting and gambling without risk to themselves:
1. Idea
2. Borrow money from investors
3. Build products/services
4. Sell products/services
5. Repeat from [2]
6. After 10 years of repeating - fail, acqui-hire, sell (and integrate) or IPO
Failure in this instance is often a learning experience to take into the next start-up venture.
One notable point that the author doesn't mention is the German adversity to risk. The average Germans doesn't take massive risks. The start-up model holds massive risks to investors, but or course the returns for success are equally huge. Germans would prefer a guaranteed 1.5% return per year to a risky 1000%. That isn't likely to change in the near future.
[+] [-] sumoward|12 years ago|reply
I had heard about but did not know very much about Mittelstand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand
We have lessons to learn from European paradigms as you point out. However I think you are a little harsh on founders, the pursuit of fame may be an issue for a small minority but is hardly a universal issue.
[+] [-] phreeza|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeigor|12 years ago|reply
Sorry, I wasn't prepared for ending up on hacker news. Thanks for the feedback so far, will try to answer to some of the comments soon.
[+] [-] walshemj|12 years ago|reply
In addition “rich white men” comrade who do you think owns all those Mittelstand companies - Germanys far less diverse than the US or the UK in that regard.
Mittelstand is all very well but there are a number of problems with then in that they are very tightly controlled secretive family businesses - there appears to be no worker participation in the ownership of these companies what so ever.
Mittelstand companies have also recently benefited immensely from the Euro selling all those Porsche Cayennes to Greece
I think possibly German concentration on traditional engineering means there is less hinterland to build tech start-ups from – and I suspect that IT training has been starved as mech and electrical engineering probably played the political game better.
[+] [-] Swinx43|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danmaz74|12 years ago|reply
The sustainable business way appeals a lot to me, but what about the risk that competitors with lots of money crush us just by out-spending us? And what about the ecosystem? But the places with the best ecosystems are very expensive, how can you enter them without VC money?
The problem is that there is no proof that the mittelstand model can work for tech startups, while there is proof that the SV model can.
[+] [-] lumberjack|12 years ago|reply
To me it seems pretty obviously that one is the antithesis of the other. Mittelstand seem to work well in established markets with a sensible good quality product or in niche markets where they could often be the only manufacturers worldwide. It does not strike me as the kind of enterprise that aims to grow fast and disrupt markets.
Besides, there is already Middelstand tech businesses. They are the software houses that write niche B2B software like time table schedulers for schools and such.
[+] [-] triplesec|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oscargrouch|12 years ago|reply
Im very interested in alternative cultural models for tech products in the digital age, specially because technology has such a impact in peoples live, and can improve the quality of life of everybody in so meaningful ways..
So, where can i find more about the Mittelstand? is there some discussions about it somewhere? is there any group trying to think new models that contrary to the status quo can create a virtuous cicle in the whole community and not only for a particular group of privilege?
I am very interested at this, and as a Brazilian i keep an eye in what Europe are doing, and how they are thinking , since they are not taking the SV model for granted, and just repeating.. but trying to get a new meaning out of it, without forget its own cultural values.. (at least it was what i feel and are confirming by reading the posts from the german fellows)
Im asking this, because is that what im trying to do too.. I dont want to just launch what i have in hands in the current model.. i think we can do better.. so im interested in all movements over this topic.
Note: im specially interested in social groups, and less in literature about it.. as i think this is still in formation.. and new cultural models(if any) are in its infancy
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Tichy|12 years ago|reply
Here in Germany there are also quite a few towns that are built around one big company, for example Wolfsburg for VW.
No doubt Berlin is attractive at the moment, but the things that make it attractive are quickly disappearing - cheap cost of living, lots of empty buildings, lots of diverse culture.
I for one don't look forward to the living conditions of the valley, where people have to share rooms at extremely high costs just to be able to be there. It seems very ironic that while it is presumably one of the richest places on earth, the valley sounds like a horrible place to live in.
[+] [-] walshemj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrflett|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wuschel|12 years ago|reply
I have found a few people that have a tech/scientific background and take up the fight in the startup scene, but so far all but one them have moved to the US.
I would be greatly interested to connect and meet with people from technology/science that would like undertake a venture in wet-/soft-/hard-ware. But alas, there are few of them into the startup scene in Germany, for most a heading to the industry sector after their dissertation/master.
So, if you are one of the above --> contact me.
[+] [-] triplesec|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oscargrouch|12 years ago|reply
$ nslookup thirdwaveberlin.com
> Non-authoritative answer: * Can't find thirdwaveberlin.com: No answer
[+] [-] jessaustin|12 years ago|reply
That would be a good thing, right?
[+] [-] qzr3|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oscargrouch|12 years ago|reply
There is no passion anymore