5 ms·
I sympathize with the author, but his comparisons at the end (screenshots and pictures) show the problem: - The competitor's product is in stock, the author's
by RandomBacon 6y ago
I sympathize with the author, but his comparisons at the end (screenshots and pictures) show the problem:
- The competitor's product is in stock, the author's product is not.
- The competitor's price is cheaper.
- The competitor's packaging looks better and advertises more pieces (while still being cheaper).
Albeit packaging appearance is subjective, and so is this: I think the competitor has a better product name.
- jaimex2 6y agoThe original has paid for the r&d, advertising and taken all the risk involved with launching a new product. Copy doesn't have to factor any of that in and can shop around for the cheapest labour to get the copy done. As stated in the article even the supplier has started a copy. Consumers still lose out if a product never gets created in the first place because its too much hassle to deal with copying.
- jessriedel 6y ago> The original has paid for the r&d, As discussed in other comments, the "original" product from the author is in fact itself a copycat. Furthermore, for this product the author has mostly been using copyright and trademarks, not patents, suggesting that R&D was not their key input.
- andi999 6y agoPatents is the R, copyright the D in R&D.
- jessriedel 6y agoThe common use of the term "R&D" does not back you up on that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_development
- mordae 6y agoYesss, battle about who gets to mold little pieces of plastic for kids to play with.