4 ms·

If anything, this just reinforces the iPhone's popularity. Let's think about it. What are copycats and cheap knockoffs really doing to Apple's brand? They're pa

If anything, this just reinforces the iPhone's popularity. Let's think about it. What are copycats and cheap knockoffs really doing to Apple's brand? They're paying homage. That's all they're doing.

seldo 17y ago
Hardly. By creating inferior products with Apple logos, they are giving consumers a bad experience and poisoning Apple's brand. Paying homage to the design is what HTC, Nokia and co. are doing by copying the design innovations of the iPhone. Counterfeit makers are just crooks. If you think your device is good, make it under your own name.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  It's not that simple. Yes, counterfeiters are being crooked, but they can not simply compete on merit because they don't have a branding and advertising machine available to them. I'm not talking about the existing brand strength Apple has a result of their past efforts, but about the resources available with which to launch a product, which can eclipse the development costs. I would buy a phone from Obscuro Corp if the price was right and the physical quality felt good, I'm willing to take a risk on a new market entrant if it won't cost too much. But Obscuro Corp doesn't have the resources to tell me about their smartphone, get equal display space in retailers etc, so it's easier to surf on an existing brand instead. I have a friend that used to sell handbags, both knockoffs and original designs (usually from the same manufacturer). The quality of the knockoffs was very very good, as was the quality of the originals, and of course the price for the latter was much lower. But his customers almost exclusively wanted the knockoffs - and although it went unspoken, they knew perfectly well that they weren't real Louis Vuitton or Coach handbags. People are generally not that stupid as to think you can get a real Rolex or LV purse for $50 from some guy on the street. In cases like this, the desire to make a powerful social statement by carrying something which is superficially indistinguishable from the expensive brand is more important to the buyer than the actual value. Some buyers are victims of deception, to be sure. But a great many would rather pay $200 for a low-functioning fake iPhone than $150 for the exact same device minus the branding (even if it's good value at that price). So if you have the equipment, skills and capital to make a 'miPhone' but nobody is interested because you're a nonentity, what other options do you have? I'm not endorsing the practice, but I do think it's an inevitable response to the power of the branding industry. This kind of thing happens in nature all the time, look at the angler fish.
  - wooster 17y ago
    "so it's easier to surf on an existing brand instead" -- sure, but it's still unethical. Just because you can make a quick buck by impersonating someone else, doesn't mean you get carte blanche to do so.
  - seldo 17y ago
    So your justification for illegally appropriating somebody else's brand is that "we're broke and can't afford to build our own brand"? And the further justification includes that deception is used in nature? I'm not saying I don't understand why it happens, I'm saying it's not right to do it, because it does damage to Apple's brand, contrary to the OP's point that it was merely an "homage" with no harm done. Sure, some people buy an iPhone lookalike knowing that it's a fake so they can make some kind of stupid fashion statement. But I hope, dear god I hope, that most people buying iPhones are doing so because they want a device that can make phone calls, browse the web, sync with iTunes, and do all the other fun stuff an iPhone can do. These devices don't do those things, not properly.
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      I explicitly said that such copying is crooked and I don't endorse it. I wrote to analyze, not advocate. I would rethink your remark about 'a stupid fashion statement'. I am not into fashion, but it has considerable utility. People make displays of wealth to attract a desirable mate and also to increase their social status. In many environments, dressing well and carrying the 'right' accessory conveys an impression of success which may be key to getting a promotion or closing a deal. Superficial it may be, but it works. In this context, the features of the iPhone are no more than distracting toys. All that matters is the display, which can be effected by having a secretary or colleague call you in the middle of a meeting so you can pull out your expensive looking phone and say you're too important to talk right now. And yes, people do things like that. It's the exact same reason there are so many ads for teeth whiteners. They don't help you chew better, they help you look better and therefore better off.
      - seldo 17y ago

If anything, this just reinforces the iPhone's popularity. Let's think about it. What are copycats and cheap knockoffs really doing to Apple's brand? They're paying homage. That's all they're doing.

seldo 17y ago

Hardly. By creating inferior products with Apple logos, they are giving consumers a bad experience and poisoning Apple's brand. Paying homage to the design is what HTC, Nokia and co. are doing by copying the design innovations of the iPhone. Counterfeit makers are just crooks. If you think your device is good, make it under your own name.

anigbrowl 17y ago
It's not that simple. Yes, counterfeiters are being crooked, but they can not simply compete on merit because they don't have a branding and advertising machine available to them. I'm not talking about the existing brand strength Apple has a result of their past efforts, but about the resources available with which to launch a product, which can eclipse the development costs. I would buy a phone from Obscuro Corp if the price was right and the physical quality felt good, I'm willing to take a risk on a new market entrant if it won't cost too much. But Obscuro Corp doesn't have the resources to tell me about their smartphone, get equal display space in retailers etc, so it's easier to surf on an existing brand instead. I have a friend that used to sell handbags, both knockoffs and original designs (usually from the same manufacturer). The quality of the knockoffs was very very good, as was the quality of the originals, and of course the price for the latter was much lower. But his customers almost exclusively wanted the knockoffs - and although it went unspoken, they knew perfectly well that they weren't real Louis Vuitton or Coach handbags. People are generally not that stupid as to think you can get a real Rolex or LV purse for $50 from some guy on the street. In cases like this, the desire to make a powerful social statement by carrying something which is superficially indistinguishable from the expensive brand is more important to the buyer than the actual value. Some buyers are victims of deception, to be sure. But a great many would rather pay $200 for a low-functioning fake iPhone than $150 for the exact same device minus the branding (even if it's good value at that price). So if you have the equipment, skills and capital to make a 'miPhone' but nobody is interested because you're a nonentity, what other options do you have? I'm not endorsing the practice, but I do think it's an inevitable response to the power of the branding industry. This kind of thing happens in nature all the time, look at the angler fish.
- wooster 17y ago
  "so it's easier to surf on an existing brand instead" -- sure, but it's still unethical. Just because you can make a quick buck by impersonating someone else, doesn't mean you get carte blanche to do so.
- seldo 17y ago
  So your justification for illegally appropriating somebody else's brand is that "we're broke and can't afford to build our own brand"? And the further justification includes that deception is used in nature? I'm not saying I don't understand why it happens, I'm saying it's not right to do it, because it does damage to Apple's brand, contrary to the OP's point that it was merely an "homage" with no harm done. Sure, some people buy an iPhone lookalike knowing that it's a fake so they can make some kind of stupid fashion statement. But I hope, dear god I hope, that most people buying iPhones are doing so because they want a device that can make phone calls, browse the web, sync with iTunes, and do all the other fun stuff an iPhone can do. These devices don't do those things, not properly.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    I explicitly said that such copying is crooked and I don't endorse it. I wrote to analyze, not advocate. I would rethink your remark about 'a stupid fashion statement'. I am not into fashion, but it has considerable utility. People make displays of wealth to attract a desirable mate and also to increase their social status. In many environments, dressing well and carrying the 'right' accessory conveys an impression of success which may be key to getting a promotion or closing a deal. Superficial it may be, but it works. In this context, the features of the iPhone are no more than distracting toys. All that matters is the display, which can be effected by having a secretary or colleague call you in the middle of a meeting so you can pull out your expensive looking phone and say you're too important to talk right now. And yes, people do things like that. It's the exact same reason there are so many ads for teeth whiteners. They don't help you chew better, they help you look better and therefore better off.
    - seldo 17y ago