4 ms·
I hope people don't take this as a rip but ... Says a lot when your product is cloned in a couple of days. Not that complexity means a better product, but you
by jawngee 17y ago
I hope people don't take this as a rip but ...
Says a lot when your product is cloned in a couple of days. Not that complexity means a better product, but you should at least expect this type of thing if you're app only took you a few days to implement yourself.
And not picking up the .com? Regardless of price, that'll be a decision that will come back and haunt you for quite some time.
It's the high seas out there.
- dschobel 17y agoVery reminiscent of the HuddleChat case: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_takes_down_huddlechat.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_takes_down_huddl...
- evdawg 17y agoHuddleChat wasn't a rip. It was a tech demo, demo'ing a very small set of general features. There's only so many ways you can build a simple chat app. A text box at the bottom and a list of users on the side? Must be a rip. /rolls eyes. And yes, it does say something if your product is 'ripped' as a demo for someone else's service ;)
- MisterMerkin 17y agoIt was following that episode that I lost all respect for 37signals.
- sounddust 17y agoSays a lot when your product is cloned in a couple of days. Well, there's some truth to this statement regarding the functionality of the site, but at the same time I'd say that the design is harder than you might think; the work of creating designs, slogans, site names and copy text is underappreciated; it takes time and creativity to get those things right, and absolutely no work for someone to steal them. Not to mention any PR and press work done by twitvid to promote the site which could now be misdirected.
- dschobel 17y agoStealing (or being influenced by or whatever you want to call it) the design wouldn't lead to misdirected traffic. Not owning the .com is what will do that job for them.
- dhouston 17y agoIf they can get the trademark, they can maybe win a domain dispute via ICANN: http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm if they can prove registration in bad faith and that the owner has no legitimate interest. If the twitvid.com guys really did buy the domain and design the site after twitvid.io got started, maybe they could somehow prove that stealing their thunder was the only "legitimate interest" and that the domain was acquired in bad faith. Sadly it sounds like an uphill battle -- and even in the best case it might be a Pyrrhic victory as trademarks take the better part of a year to issue (if not more) and the UDRP procedure probably isn't speedy either. And then they'll fight it, and you'll spend all your time in court instead of building your company.
- abl 17y agoI doubt it took them just a few days, considering they have an API, flash plugins, design elements, etc..
- pj 17y agoYeah, maybe they have had it built for months now and were just as mad at twidvid.io for copying their idea as the twidvid.io people are now that twitvid.com copied them... They both copied twitpic didn't they?
- mingyeow 17y agoYou said it the best. It is clear that the "clone" had been around for a long time already
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- trapper 17y agoI can't upmod this comment enough. Regardless of whether they got some inspiration from twitvid.io they both copied the idea from somewhere else. It's not like twitvid isn't super-obvious as a name considering twitpics success. Also, how many ways could a service like this be built? It's obvious what features you need, what look you are going for etc.
- pj 17y agothanks trapper, that's a nice thing to say.
- dbreunig 17y agoIt's a inevitable service built on top of another service. It's like saying CBS copied NBC. Use this as motivation to make yours better.