> Getting the name of a new product right has to come before any innovations on UI, product, technology, and so forth. Apples and oranges. Also, there couldn't

> Getting the name of a new product right has to come before any innovations on UI, product, technology, and so forth. Apples and oranges. Also, there couldn't be worse advice than what the author is advocating. Google could've called it nothing, launched and still have a modicum of success, because they already had millions of users. Google+ is not a novelty platform launched in private beta. I wish people would get that through their heads. I think the author should do some homework and try to understand that comparing a software ecosystem brought together through acquisition is a lot harder than introducing a copy of a product into the beverage market in order to take away market share from a competitor, especially when you have power over the distribution channel: > In the 1980s, many years after Sprite's introduction, Coke pressured its large bottlers that distributed 7 Up to replace the soda with the Coca-Cola product. In a large part due to the strength of the Coca-Cola system of bottlers, Sprite finally became the leader position in the lemon soda category in 1978