Well, one could argue that this is how competition works. If someone else can manufacture the same thing at lower cost, they deserve the market advantage.
Of course, this idea doesn't give credit to the inventors and benefits copycats. I just wanted to mention the idea.
While definitely true, the Amazon screenshots at the bottom of the article are eye opening. They've copied the same shots of the same models. I suppose it makes sense - if you're going to copy a successful product you might as well also copy their (presumably successful) marketing strategy too.
This is the paradox of capitalism. As things become cheaper, they become more like a commodity.
These clones of ideas are simply turning that idea into a commodity and aside from some minor surface changes, they're really the same. The competition created is fairly artificial.
Instead of thinking of it as a rip off, think of it as a way to improve your own commodity offering.
In this field, where 90% of one's choices for a product or service are bordering on clones of one another, and the companies involved therefore have nothing to differentiate them beyond how well you perceive them - yes, pretty much.
You seem to imply Amazon is doing something underhanded, like paying off the factory to steal the competitor's design. However, that article doesn't substantiate that at all: all it says is that Amazon cloned their product and are selling it at a lower price, which I don't see a problem with.
It pains me that I have to explain this to adults on HN, but: yes, this is bad. The foreign investor/customer paid dearly with time and money for the research and development. The factory runs an additional night shift and makes another batch of product. They then sell the night shift products at a reduced price undercutting the original vendor because they do not have to recoup the development costs. The vendor with the higher price cannot sell his stock of product because the demand is already satisfied from the cheaper night shift product.
OK. That wasn't what I am talking about. I am talking about 3d printer vendors entering the market, not being duplicitous about it. 3d printers are often open source, completely out in the open. So you would naturally expect clones.
I know you’re saying it’s a fake example, but it seems perfectly reasonable as an equivalence.
Especially when you discover that many super cars are actually using commodity components but then literally just charging 10x for them (I recall someone showing Lamborghini or Ferrari parts that literally had other brands stamped on them).
Umm, couldn't he just see which manufacturer made the best quality product, and work with them, and make a good profit margin? It may even be in that manufacturers interest to stop the other copycats.
Sure, but after running all that RnD just about anything they make is reverse engineered immediately and perfect clones start being sold at rock bottom prices everywhere else. Whoever invests into extensive development with the intent to recoup costs via sales is the real sucker in this industry. Even official institutions like schools and universities rather order from aliexpress instead.
There’s a difference between original designers and “cloners” in quality and attention to detail.
The Toyota clone wouldn’t be as good as the real thing and so there would still be a market for first party goods. But that market would be smaller as many people would be satisfied with a clone. And isn’t that more “efficient”? People satisfied with the cheaper good get the cheaper good and people who want the quality go for the original.
In today’s market, when someone who would be satisfied with a clone ends up buying an original, we see that extra money is spent only because Toyota is holding a monopoly on the design information. Except only creating the value should be rewarded, not monopolizing it.
We can see today how Joseph Prusa with Prusa research designed the worlds most popular 3D printer, yet many of the users are using clones. There is a market sufficiently interested in quality to support his 30 person (I believe) business despite his product being totally open source and actively cloned by huge companies.
It is possible to deliver value as an innovator and creator by selling the best stuff. Even at 3x the price of clones Prusa continues to grow.
So I don’t believe that there wouldn’t be car makers - though perhaps there’d be no “Toyota”.
Whats your plan on competing with China copycats, who are no doubt already working on a lower cost clone of your product?
Since its such a great idea, but uses mostly off the shelf parts and doesn't require much specialization, its a perfect target for them.
Look at the patterns: They quickly cannibalize and eventually completely commoditize the market for easy-to-copy products by flooding ebay, amazon, aliexpress, etc with comparable but cheaper items, some of which are probably going to be made by your own supplier/factory in China. Eventually the best of these these get on Engadget or Gizmodo and that's it.
Examples: Android tablets, Google Cardboard, Android Phones, Phone Batteries, etc.
Certainly many will have inferior packaging and engrish manuals. But some will be good enough or better than your product... I would be terrified to base a business around this type of item.
reply