3 ms·
I'm interested in how Zynga blatantly copying competitors is positioned as evil, but when Google promotes a software and hardware ecosphere that at heart requir
by ellyagg 16y ago
I'm interested in how Zynga blatantly copying competitors is positioned as evil, but when Google promotes a software and hardware ecosphere that at heart requires the blatant copying of the iPhone, it's considered necessary and smart business. It can't be evil sometimes and not evil others. If copying is just smart business, then Zynga is proving that every shred of copying allowed by law is even smarter business.
- chc 16y agoThere's a huge, mind-boggling difference between doing your own take on the general idea of a touchscreen phone with a user-friendly interface and "I don't want innovation." It's like the difference between a Cubist painting and a Picasso forgery — fundamentally they're both copying Picasso, but they're not the same thing at all.
- hyperbovine 16y agoAnd Picasso copied Cezanne, who copied Pissarro, who copied Corot, who copied Turner, who copied Poussin, who copied Titian, who copied Bellini ... everybody copies, so why are we talking about it? Oh right, because somebody made $500 million a year doing it. Copying is an accepted fact of life until somebody gets rich. Ditto Facebook.
- jarek 16y agoAnd the iPhone "copied" ecospheres of Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, etc, adding a twist with an insane focus on shininess and touchscreen primacy. Google, when "copying" the iPhone, put their focus on choice (both of software and hardware) and the attendant openness. Microsoft is about to try to "copy" the iPhone, but with a distinct aesthetic. The difference between those copies and the Zynga business model? The former actually have differences.