21–27 of 27 posts
That said, I love Balsamiq and appreciate most everything he has shared with the public. And I think what this Chinese guy is proposing is scummy, at least in how he treats it.
Making an exact (more or less) clone of a successful product isn't especially unethical to my way of thinking, but it is stupid . The original product has a "head start" in the marketplace and you're almost certainly going to be playing catch-up in terms of market share and (here's the less part of "more or less") features. What does make sense is a near-clone with a killer feature added. Google was like Altavista, b…
I mostly agree with you but one small caveat - most companies do a relatively poor job of extracting economic value from their products on a global basis. So in this case if the OP is willing to work the Chinese local market much harder than Balsamiq can then the whole endeavour might actually be worthwhile. In short you dont have to beat the global maxima of product providers, just the local maxima.
[0] In terms of core-product, in the ways that matter to most users
On a side note: The guy is outsourcing his core activity - the actual development of the product. That can't end well.
From the looks of it, he wants to clone Balsamiq not because he thinks he can do the concept better, or because he has a different take on it, or because he's inspired by that sort of functionality, but because they say they make a lot of money. That's all. He basically wants to ride on their coattails, and presumably sell a cheaper knockoff. Which is, I think, rather sleazy.
Why, exactly?
Was google a clone of altavista? Was facebook a clone of friendster? Was the ipod a clone of all other mp3 players? Is Mockingbird a clone of Balsamiq? Just copying an idea is fine. And if you do any kind of market research, your essentially figuring out which idea is the most profitable to copy. Its finally all about execution.
You're right, it's all in the way you execute. But starting off with the word "clone" doesn't sound good. I'd say Google was "a take" on search engines like Altavista, Facebook "a take" on social networks like Friendster. They didn't start as "clones". Maybe it's just a matter of phrasing but I was surprised by the number of replies like "go ahead, clone it!". Being inspired by, revisiting... are words that sound bet…
Maybe I'm wrong, though, and I'm probably naive. Are there any software clones that aren't just inferior knock-offs, implemented by cheap labor hired by someone who never intended to match the quality of the original? I wouldn't count any product that beats the original in any meaningful way, such as better support for a certain language.
From the looks of it, he wants to clone Balsamiq not because he thinks he can do the concept better, or because he has a different take on it, or because he's inspired by that sort of functionality, but because they say they make a lot of money. That's all. He basically wants to ride on their coattails, and presumably sell a cheaper knockoff. Which is, I think, rather sleazy.
"Which is, I think, rather sleazy." Why, exactly?
The idea that plain copying for the sake of making a cheaper knockoff is somehow wrong or sleazy is prevalent in many places, but never well articulated. It seems entirely a cultural thing, something that bothers some people because that's all they've known.
If there's a deeper reason, I'd like to know what it is.