5 ms·

Don't hate the player, hate the game. That's business. The fact that your designers worked hard is irrelevant. Capitalism is by its very nature competitive, and

Don't hate the player, hate the game. That's business. The fact that your designers worked hard is irrelevant. Capitalism is by its very nature competitive, and it's on you as a business owner to figure out a working model in a world with fast followers. It's a bit like complaining that someone blocked your shot in basketball. It's allowed, those are the rules, do better next time.

KirinDave 7y ago
Its funny because folks are arguing in this very same thread that we're also not allowed to hate the game, as they raise the hypothesis that capitalism makes "better goods cheaper". As in Basketball, there are things which are technically legal but will get your ass kicked if you keep doing them in a street game. Folks should be mad about design theft and they should do their best to buy goods that are quality and meet their requirements. The idea raised here and in other parts of a thread that shoveling cheap goods that superficially resemble high quality and well-designed goods is in fact good is very hard for me to process. We're supposed to have power as consumers. But then we're also subjected to constant misinformation by vendors, making that choice difficult. We should not be applauding those abusive vendors. They are abusing the players of the game.
- csallen 7y ago
  You're shifting the goalposts. Presenting misinformation to consumers is generally illegal, and is also a completely separate concern from copying and building off of others' innovations. I haven't seen any comments here that support outright tricking unsuspecting customers into accidentally buying a cheap knockoff when they were looking for a higher-quality original. A common misconception creatives tend to have about business is that it's 100% about crafting a unique and/or valuable product or service. It's not. There are innovations and competitive advantages one can have in distribution, sales, branding, pricing, and many other areas. These can also drive business success, and it is not scummy or dodgy to put them to use. Some products are naturally defensible (e.g. the network effects of a social network) and some are protected by copyright and other laws (e.g. writing, photos, and logos, but not clothing or, in this case, shoe design), but the vast majority are wide open to competition, and it's your job as a business owner to either figure it out or avoid those industries. You aren't automatically entitled to overall business success just because you were the first to do X or you worked the hardest on it. Doesn't matter if it's wool shoes, v-neck shirts, autotune in your music, customer support chat widgets, a mobile operating system, or like buttons in your social app. Just because you're a designer who likes designing and works hard at it doesn't make design a defensible business strategy in your industry.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > I haven't seen any comments here that support outright tricking unsuspecting customers into accidentally buying a cheap knockoff when they were looking for a higher-quality original. Except copying someone else's design and presenting it as your own is literally that infraction? Asymmetrical capitalization and the cost of the legal system means that capitalized companies are much more capable of design theft. And of course, this ignores whole industries that exist by getting others to lie for them and then simply speak misleadingly (e.g., chiropractors). > A common misconception creatives tend to have about business is that it's 100% about crafting a unique and/or valuable product or service. It's not. There are innovations and competitive advantages one can have in distribution, sales, branding, pricing, and many other areas. A common misconception that business people have is that there is anything to optimize without a product or service around which to optimize. There isn't. When said business types lose the forest for the trees and see money as more valuable than the goods and services it is supposed to proxy for, we end up with the current situation and people in this thread arguing that somehow design theft is okay because it was executed efficiently. > Some products are naturally defensible (e.g. the network effects of a social network) and some are protected by copyright and other laws (e.g. writing, photos, and logos, but not clothing or, in this case, shoe design), but the vast majority are wide open to competition, and it's your job as a business owner to either figure it out or avoid those industries. What are you actually saying with this paragraph? Thar Allbirds should take Amazon to court over copyright infringement? Or design patents? It's too bad you feel that we're not allowed as consumers to dislike or even consider the business practices of where our products come from. That would be a useful and informative thing to consider, especially in a world where some capitalist institutions are responsible for a significant fraction of the ongoing process of very literally threatening the survival of the human race. But no. Efficient theft is moral because it costs the consumer less. > You aren't automatically entitled to overall business success just because you were the first to do X or you worked the hardest on it. Doesn't matter if it's wool shoes, v-neck shirts, autotune in your music, customer support chat widgets, a mobile operating system, or like buttons in your social app. Hard work is meaningless, only capitalization matters. Got it. This system is great. > Just because you're a designer who likes designing and works hard at it doesn't make design a defensible business strategy in your industry. Is this addressed to me? I'm not "a designer."
jamespo 7y ago
It's nothing like that to be honest
ghaff 7y ago
If you don’t think this should be allowed (and it’s sort of pointless to argue dodginess if it’s perfectly legal) you have to logically argue for much more stringent IP protection. Added: Of course some protections do exist and I don’t doubt some knockoffs skirt or outright violate those protections.
- ioror93jf 7y ago
  That doesn’t follow. One could argue as well we should minimize the draw of purely romanticized notions that premium things should exist. Other than inflated pricing pushing more money around in one go than cheaper stuff pushing a lot of little money around, what does owning premium accessories get humanity? Stop manufacturing final products & retail can be just the materials that enable people to make their own accessories if we’re worried about style differentiation. Or we could keep drilling into ideas like yours which will result in more consolidation of economic activity in the hands of the haves. Like markets, brands are simply propped up by feels. IMO pretty sick of being told I need to give a crap about Coach as a business so a minority can actually design/create while the majority get to deal with their HR and accounting needs.

KirinDave 7y ago

Its funny because folks are arguing in this very same thread that we're also not allowed to hate the game, as they raise the hypothesis that capitalism makes "better goods cheaper". As in Basketball, there are things which are technically legal but will get your ass kicked if you keep doing them in a street game. Folks should be mad about design theft and they should do their best to buy goods that are quality and meet their requirements. The idea raised here and in other parts of a thread that shoveling cheap goods that superficially resemble high quality and well-designed goods is in fact good is very hard for me to process. We're supposed to have power as consumers. But then we're also subjected to constant misinformation by vendors, making that choice difficult. We should not be applauding those abusive vendors. They are abusing the players of the game.

csallen 7y ago
You're shifting the goalposts. Presenting misinformation to consumers is generally illegal, and is also a completely separate concern from copying and building off of others' innovations. I haven't seen any comments here that support outright tricking unsuspecting customers into accidentally buying a cheap knockoff when they were looking for a higher-quality original. A common misconception creatives tend to have about business is that it's 100% about crafting a unique and/or valuable product or service. It's not. There are innovations and competitive advantages one can have in distribution, sales, branding, pricing, and many other areas. These can also drive business success, and it is not scummy or dodgy to put them to use. Some products are naturally defensible (e.g. the network effects of a social network) and some are protected by copyright and other laws (e.g. writing, photos, and logos, but not clothing or, in this case, shoe design), but the vast majority are wide open to competition, and it's your job as a business owner to either figure it out or avoid those industries. You aren't automatically entitled to overall business success just because you were the first to do X or you worked the hardest on it. Doesn't matter if it's wool shoes, v-neck shirts, autotune in your music, customer support chat widgets, a mobile operating system, or like buttons in your social app. Just because you're a designer who likes designing and works hard at it doesn't make design a defensible business strategy in your industry.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > I haven't seen any comments here that support outright tricking unsuspecting customers into accidentally buying a cheap knockoff when they were looking for a higher-quality original. Except copying someone else's design and presenting it as your own is literally that infraction? Asymmetrical capitalization and the cost of the legal system means that capitalized companies are much more capable of design theft. And of course, this ignores whole industries that exist by getting others to lie for them and then simply speak misleadingly (e.g., chiropractors). > A common misconception creatives tend to have about business is that it's 100% about crafting a unique and/or valuable product or service. It's not. There are innovations and competitive advantages one can have in distribution, sales, branding, pricing, and many other areas. A common misconception that business people have is that there is anything to optimize without a product or service around which to optimize. There isn't. When said business types lose the forest for the trees and see money as more valuable than the goods and services it is supposed to proxy for, we end up with the current situation and people in this thread arguing that somehow design theft is okay because it was executed efficiently. > Some products are naturally defensible (e.g. the network effects of a social network) and some are protected by copyright and other laws (e.g. writing, photos, and logos, but not clothing or, in this case, shoe design), but the vast majority are wide open to competition, and it's your job as a business owner to either figure it out or avoid those industries. What are you actually saying with this paragraph? Thar Allbirds should take Amazon to court over copyright infringement? Or design patents? It's too bad you feel that we're not allowed as consumers to dislike or even consider the business practices of where our products come from. That would be a useful and informative thing to consider, especially in a world where some capitalist institutions are responsible for a significant fraction of the ongoing process of very literally threatening the survival of the human race. But no. Efficient theft is moral because it costs the consumer less. > You aren't automatically entitled to overall business success just because you were the first to do X or you worked the hardest on it. Doesn't matter if it's wool shoes, v-neck shirts, autotune in your music, customer support chat widgets, a mobile operating system, or like buttons in your social app. Hard work is meaningless, only capitalization matters. Got it. This system is great. > Just because you're a designer who likes designing and works hard at it doesn't make design a defensible business strategy in your industry. Is this addressed to me? I'm not "a designer."

jamespo 7y ago

It's nothing like that to be honest

ghaff 7y ago

If you don’t think this should be allowed (and it’s sort of pointless to argue dodginess if it’s perfectly legal) you have to logically argue for much more stringent IP protection. Added: Of course some protections do exist and I don’t doubt some knockoffs skirt or outright violate those protections.

ioror93jf 7y ago
That doesn’t follow. One could argue as well we should minimize the draw of purely romanticized notions that premium things should exist. Other than inflated pricing pushing more money around in one go than cheaper stuff pushing a lot of little money around, what does owning premium accessories get humanity? Stop manufacturing final products & retail can be just the materials that enable people to make their own accessories if we’re worried about style differentiation. Or we could keep drilling into ideas like yours which will result in more consolidation of economic activity in the hands of the haves. Like markets, brands are simply propped up by feels. IMO pretty sick of being told I need to give a crap about Coach as a business so a minority can actually design/create while the majority get to deal with their HR and accounting needs.