Good marketing is honestly communicating about a great product. Cloudflare has good marketing because they have a great product and their communications are honest. Marketing is only slimy when the product can't back up the boasts (which, unfortunately, is way too often).
MMM, I think that honestly communicating about a great product can be great marketing. I don't think that all great marketing is honest, in fact some of the best marketing makes people doubt their own intelligence, see the DeBeers campaign to make a diamond engagement ring an American necessity by equating it with a love that lasts forever (which is silly). Yet, I know for a fact I will buy an engagement ring when I propose.
Yeah, I would call that effective marketing. Incredibly effective, no doubt. Of course, if I'm making the definitions, I can make them say whatever I want. :)
But your point certainly holds: while there is a category of marketing that utilizes a great product and honest communication, it is not the only way to successfully market. In fact, it may not even be the most effective way to market (though I would argue it is the most effective way with a technical audience).
Why would you buy a diamond ring even knowing that? Personally I opted for a silver ring with an inlaid golden pattern, it was beautiful and unique and was very well received by my wife. My sister also received an non-traditional ring and loves it. Sure it can be a conversation starter but often that's a plus not a minus. All in all I find something beautiful and unique is a wonderful token of your love, if it comes from the heart I can't see any girl you'd want to marry rejecting it.
Exactly. Personally, I had to let my wife buy her own ring because I was skint. If it's the right person the ring thing is kind of just a tradition that can be observed as you wish.
In contrast, a friend of mine was ordered by his fiance that she would only accept a ring costing thousands of pounds. It didn't work out. Lucky escape in my opinion (especially as she stopped him drinking beer too).
Heh, certainly sounds like it. Ideally imho a wife should be a partner in all the trials and tribulations as well as happiness that life brings. Once she starts giving orders it seems more like she wants to be a boss, that was usually the point in the relationship I would try to gracefully bow out...
Is this their product [which they charge for and you are championing] the one that can mitigate DDoS attacks but failed to do so?
Cloudflare got caught out offering something they cannot guarantee and failed to deliver - they are now currently blaming the 'Internet' - very sad...sorry it is late but the 'Internet' did not slow down today or almost break [as the title of this post would suggest] because Cloudflare and Spamhaus had a bad day...
Did you read the story? It was more about how this wa a notable attack (because the traffic volume and how that we attained), not because it was particularly bad for CloudFare:
> This allowed us to mitigate the attack without it affecting Spamhaus or any of our other customers. The attackers ceased their attack against the Spamhaus website four hours after it started.
Did you read the story? It was more about how this wa a notable attack (because the traffic volume and how that we attained), not because it was particularly bad for CloudFare:
Yes I did - and still Cloudflare can claim to be able to defend against these 'attacks'?
If they were being 'honest' they would come out and say they cannot defend themselves against the 'Internet'
Edit: This allowed us to mitigate the attack without it affecting Spamhaus or any of our other customers
So did the Internet slow down or break? Is this news?
CloudFare customers are all multicasted and better to survive DDOS attacks. If you were the unlucky router to receive dozens of gigabits per second of fake traffic you probably would have been boned.
It's interesting that you're using the same exact talking points as Sven Olaf Kamphuis uses in his rt.com interview, mainly that CloudFlared failed to mitigate the DDOS, when in reality they successfully mitigated the biggest DDOS attack in known history.
"The attacks have already stopped because CloudFlare worked themselves into the middle of an attack and tried to turn it into a PR stunt for themselves which kind of like backfired because CloudFlare couldn’t handle the attack."
http://rt.com/news/spamhaus-threat-cyberbunker-ddos-attack-9...
Suck to be CyberBunker though, they got spamhaused and couldn't even retaliate by launching the biggest DDOS attack ever. And they're still getting spamhaused.
If this is really the biggest DDOS attack in known history, its kind of a low bar. The amount of data used to initiate it (given that its an amplification attack) could easy be as low as 50-500 machines with 30-3Mbit/s connections. As described in a earlier article about ratters, (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet...) 500 machine is easy achieved daily by an infected torrent, and torrent users tend to have good connections.
Or they could be bought from a botnet for a handful amount of cash. 500 machines, even if it would mean 500 new machines each hour, is still pocket cash. Either the Internet is very weak and will break because of 500 machines, or this attack is not worthy a title of "The DDoS that almost broke the Internet".
If others didn't take direct action [on their own back] this could well have been the 'biggest DDoS attack in known [and unknown] history'. Cloudflare would have melted. Yes 300GBs is a lot of traffic, especially if it is all aimed at you and you do not have the capacity.
To say 300GBs can slow the Internet down and almost break it is laughable, sensationalist FUD and spun by Cloudflare.
Cloudflare have zero control over what comes out of ISPs networks, in the end it was down to the ISPs to mitigate these attacks.
