5 ms·

So what? When I go to a clothing store, all the jeans and dress shirts and folded the same way and look nearly identical, same goes for the milk and eggs at th

So what? When I go to a clothing store, all the jeans and dress shirts and folded the same way and look nearly identical, same goes for the milk and eggs at the grocery store. In spite of all this I always manage to come home with the brand I set out to buy in the first place.

astrodust 14y ago
So if someone's making knock-off Levi's jeans you're cool with that?
- radley 14y ago
  You say you only buy Levi's? All other jeans are knockoffs?
- pkulak 14y ago
  Where's the Samsung phone that says "iPhone" on it? Wranglers aren't knock off Levi's by anyone's imagination.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    Hong Kong is famous for having products that look almost exactly the same but have names like "Levvis" or "Levy's" so that they can claim, no, they're not knock-offs and pretend to be surprised anyone could be confused. Samsung was dangerously close to the line.
    - azylman 14y ago
      Yep, because "Samsung" and "Apple" is dangerously close to "Levy's" and "Levi's".
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
Terretta 14y ago
> In spite of all this I always manage to come home with the brand I set out to buy in the first place. Jeans are somewhat less complex. There are fewer ways to differentiate, so those differentiators become more signficant. And the makers try to differentiate across as many of them as they can. Meanwhile, Samsung's own market feedback shows customers were coming home with the wrong box: http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-buy-ipad/ http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-bu... EDIT (ADDED): If you think this is "customer stupidity", you haven't been paying much attention to normals' interactions with technology, or to Samsung's deliberate packaging and presentation. See the "What did you do with my Facebook?" incident: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_google_failed_internet_meme.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_google_failed_inter... Recapped here, "These are your users, read and be horrified": http://uxmag.com/articles/these-are-your-users-read-and-be-horrified http://uxmag.com/articles/these-are-your-users-read-and-be-h...
- phaus 14y ago
  The suggestion that someone who isn't extraordinarily stupid could actually end up purchasing a non-iPad tablet because they couldn't tell the difference is also disingenuous. In both images, the boxes clearly state in large lettering "Samsung Galaxy Tab."
  - jeza 14y ago
    Maybe some people are illiterate. ;-) Though more likely, they probably noticed the difference but the packaging and the images looked so much like the iPad that they thought it'd be the same. Only to realise when they opened it, that it wasn't the same.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  That's like when I go shopping for toy guns, and accidentally buy a real bazooka. Whoops!
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
pyoung 14y ago
Yeah, but more importantly, I would imagine that jeans and dress shirts are not under any sort of patent protection, at least not anymore.
- alwaysinshade 14y ago
  It extends to all clothing, and I think it should extend to the outer appearance of devices like phones as well. Johanna Blakley [1] made the astute point that in the fashion world, because it's legal to copy each other, the way the industry adapted was to make garments harder to mass-produce through intricate design and by using high grade materials. Apple has already done this with the iPhone 4/4s - namely the antenna array composed of segments of high tensile stainless steel that can only be machined with very expensive, very limited availability hardware. Apple already understands how to beat the copycats, they simply want to spite Samsung/Google. Another point is that copying is good for Apple. Johanna Blakley again makes an excellent point: "One of the magical side effects of having a culture of copying is the establishment of trends." Apple needs the copycats in order to drive smartphone adoption, with Apple remaining the top tier innovator akin to high-end fashion labels. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...

astrodust 14y ago

So if someone's making knock-off Levi's jeans you're cool with that?

radley 14y ago
You say you only buy Levi's? All other jeans are knockoffs?
pkulak 14y ago
Where's the Samsung phone that says "iPhone" on it? Wranglers aren't knock off Levi's by anyone's imagination.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Hong Kong is famous for having products that look almost exactly the same but have names like "Levvis" or "Levy's" so that they can claim, no, they're not knock-offs and pretend to be surprised anyone could be confused. Samsung was dangerously close to the line.
  - azylman 14y ago
    Yep, because "Samsung" and "Apple" is dangerously close to "Levy's" and "Levi's".
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

Terretta 14y ago

> In spite of all this I always manage to come home with the brand I set out to buy in the first place. Jeans are somewhat less complex. There are fewer ways to differentiate, so those differentiators become more signficant. And the makers try to differentiate across as many of them as they can. Meanwhile, Samsung's own market feedback shows customers were coming home with the wrong box: http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-buy-ipad/ http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-bu... EDIT (ADDED): If you think this is "customer stupidity", you haven't been paying much attention to normals' interactions with technology, or to Samsung's deliberate packaging and presentation. See the "What did you do with my Facebook?" incident: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_google_failed_internet_meme.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_google_failed_inter... Recapped here, "These are your users, read and be horrified": http://uxmag.com/articles/these-are-your-users-read-and-be-horrified http://uxmag.com/articles/these-are-your-users-read-and-be-h...

phaus 14y ago
The suggestion that someone who isn't extraordinarily stupid could actually end up purchasing a non-iPad tablet because they couldn't tell the difference is also disingenuous. In both images, the boxes clearly state in large lettering "Samsung Galaxy Tab."
- jeza 14y ago
  Maybe some people are illiterate. ;-) Though more likely, they probably noticed the difference but the packaging and the images looked so much like the iPad that they thought it'd be the same. Only to realise when they opened it, that it wasn't the same.
smokeyj 14y ago
That's like when I go shopping for toy guns, and accidentally buy a real bazooka. Whoops!
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

pyoung 14y ago

Yeah, but more importantly, I would imagine that jeans and dress shirts are not under any sort of patent protection, at least not anymore.

alwaysinshade 14y ago
It extends to all clothing, and I think it should extend to the outer appearance of devices like phones as well. Johanna Blakley [1] made the astute point that in the fashion world, because it's legal to copy each other, the way the industry adapted was to make garments harder to mass-produce through intricate design and by using high grade materials. Apple has already done this with the iPhone 4/4s - namely the antenna array composed of segments of high tensile stainless steel that can only be machined with very expensive, very limited availability hardware. Apple already understands how to beat the copycats, they simply want to spite Samsung/Google. Another point is that copying is good for Apple. Johanna Blakley again makes an excellent point: "One of the magical side effects of having a culture of copying is the establishment of trends." Apple needs the copycats in order to drive smartphone adoption, with Apple remaining the top tier innovator akin to high-end fashion labels. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashio...