Lanier, Fake, and Bruns all recognize that this constant flux in any one product /result of contributions makes it difficult to sell. For example, Lanier explains that the people who created the iPhone were a limited number of individuals who collaborated and came up with an end product. This end product was then mass produced and sold as an iPhone. The nature of “the iPhone” as a concept or any one iPhone as a physical, tangible product may be different for any one person, and any one person has the ability to tailor/change/add to their iPhone so that it has a different nature. However, the marketers of iPhone are not selling a constantly changing product. If someone orders an iPhone at 3AM they will receive the same iPhone as someone who ordered it at 3:01 AM. The latter user will not receive an iPhone with new comments attached to the bottom (e.g. a comment saying “JohnDoe2004 likes this product!” or a goofy mustache drawn on it by someone with a Flickr account). However, you could not sell a song that was published through a collaborative effort. First, if there were not a tracking system similar to Wikipedia’s, you would be unable to determine who to pay. Second, if Bruns’ assertion is true in that most collaborative efforts result in a better product, there would be no reason to purchase the song because a better one would be sure to emerge soon. Lastly, if Lanier is correct, allowing too many people to collaborate on anything results in “mush”, or generic, invaluable products. Responding to Lanier’s criticisms that it is virtually impossible to accomplish anything of value via collaborative effort, Fake says, “That is the point. There is no final product…” (Fake). Bruns agrees, commenting that, “the [online collaborative] community does not operate under hierarchical, corporate frameworks aimed at generating a saleable product to consumers,” (Bruns).