8 ms·

You're shifting the goalposts. Presenting misinformation to consumers is generally illegal, and is also a completely separate concern from copying and building

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."
- ghaff 7y ago
  >Hard work is meaningless, only capitalization matters. Got it. This system is great. Hard work by itself IS pretty much is meaningless. As a consumer I really don't care (for the most part) how many times you iterated on design or process or business model or whatever to come up with your product. It may well be a necessary ingredient in many/most cases. But I'm likely not buying your product over a cheaper/better/etc. competitor because you put in more blood/sweat/tears.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > Hard work by itself IS pretty much is meaningless. As a consumer I really don't care (for the most part) I'd argue the ongoing direction of consumer advertising suggests that you're not as craft-agnostic as you claim "as a consumer." Everyone's brands are trying to connect with human experience and human effort, and an appeal to human problems. Even computer motherboard advertisements have a funny tendency to omit the spec sheet and the price and focus on what they let you do and how they're different. And then there are companies like Apple. > But may well be a necessary ingredient in many/most cases. But I'm likely not buying your product over a cheaper/better/etc. competitor because you put in more blood/sweat/tears. Again, I'm not sure this is true. But the idea that "hard work is meaningless" fundamentally ignores that the basis of an economy is goods and services, not money. Without those goods and services, which are essentially the definition of hard work, every other aspect of the business would be meaningless. So at some level, hard work must matter. And if it didn't, why are companies copying the designs? Can't they just scribble something on a default shoe and call it a day?
    - csallen 7y ago
      > So at some level, hard work must matter. And if it didn't, why are companies copying the designs? Can't they just scribble something on a default shoe and call it a day? You're confusing inputs with outputs, processes with results. Hard work is a process that may lead to a quality final result. But consumers don't pay for the process. They pay for the result.

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."

ghaff 7y ago
>Hard work is meaningless, only capitalization matters. Got it. This system is great. Hard work by itself IS pretty much is meaningless. As a consumer I really don't care (for the most part) how many times you iterated on design or process or business model or whatever to come up with your product. It may well be a necessary ingredient in many/most cases. But I'm likely not buying your product over a cheaper/better/etc. competitor because you put in more blood/sweat/tears.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > Hard work by itself IS pretty much is meaningless. As a consumer I really don't care (for the most part) I'd argue the ongoing direction of consumer advertising suggests that you're not as craft-agnostic as you claim "as a consumer." Everyone's brands are trying to connect with human experience and human effort, and an appeal to human problems. Even computer motherboard advertisements have a funny tendency to omit the spec sheet and the price and focus on what they let you do and how they're different. And then there are companies like Apple. > But may well be a necessary ingredient in many/most cases. But I'm likely not buying your product over a cheaper/better/etc. competitor because you put in more blood/sweat/tears. Again, I'm not sure this is true. But the idea that "hard work is meaningless" fundamentally ignores that the basis of an economy is goods and services, not money. Without those goods and services, which are essentially the definition of hard work, every other aspect of the business would be meaningless. So at some level, hard work must matter. And if it didn't, why are companies copying the designs? Can't they just scribble something on a default shoe and call it a day?
  - csallen 7y ago
    > So at some level, hard work must matter. And if it didn't, why are companies copying the designs? Can't they just scribble something on a default shoe and call it a day? You're confusing inputs with outputs, processes with results. Hard work is a process that may lead to a quality final result. But consumers don't pay for the process. They pay for the result.