The case for copying business ideas • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#41

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

corporateslaver wrote: post #34

Hasknewbie wrote: post #24

It should be noted that the concept of originality and its associated "mighty pioneer Vs lowly copiers" mindset is mainly a Western cultural artifact. For example in China during most of its history if you wanted to become, say, a renowned painter, you were expected to spend your formative years copying the masters, because in that culture mastering your craft is (much) more important than being original. I don't hol…

How many ground breaking innovations has China had? How many has the west had? Case in point, copying is not productive in the long run.

That’s the point: what makes “innovation” so good and noble, and duplication so bad? Why is originality the measuring stick?

I happen to think an inexpensive copy of a useful product is far better than a newly invented product that’s expensive or less useful.

Example: Cheap generic drugs vs expensive patented name brands.

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#42

Post by SiempreViernes » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #6

The Samwer brothers have turned this into a huge business. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-the-clone-factory (Fun tidbit: that photograph is also a clone, of a sleeve for a Kraftwerk record: https://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/maxresdefault... )

I think that qualifies as a homage rather than a simple "clone".

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#43

Post by 32qwef » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 2:48 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #2

This sums all that is wrong with business. A few original pioneers at the beginning and the rest are at best slightly improved copies as they require lowest energy to spend, yet boasting their awesomeness everywhere in order to sell.

This sums up everything right with business. Market forces drive technology to constantly improve as new products build on the ideas of the past.

- Business is not art.

- Even art isn't totally original.

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#44

Post by epicide » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

corporateslaver wrote: post #34

Hasknewbie wrote: post #24

It should be noted that the concept of originality and its associated "mighty pioneer Vs lowly copiers" mindset is mainly a Western cultural artifact. For example in China during most of its history if you wanted to become, say, a renowned painter, you were expected to spend your formative years copying the masters, because in that culture mastering your craft is (much) more important than being original. I don't hol…

How many ground breaking innovations has China had? How many has the west had? Case in point, copying is not productive in the long run.

The point isn't that the west hasn't copied things. The point is that the west puts emphasis on originality and "innovation" and downplays the value of copying.

Learn to do it right (copy), then figure out how to do it better (innovate).

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#45

Post by epicide » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 3:02 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #41

corporateslaver wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many ground breaking innovations has China had? How many has the west had? Case in point, copying is not productive in the long run.

That’s the point: what makes “innovation” so good and noble, and duplication so bad? Why is originality the measuring stick? I happen to think an inexpensive copy of a useful product is far better than a newly invented product that’s expensive or less useful. Example: Cheap generic drugs vs expensive patented name brands.

Exactly. The obsession with "innovation" is how you get feature creep. You can improve something by copying it and figuring out how to do it easier/cheaper/quicker.

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#46

Post by nicbou » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 3:42 PM UTC

0898 wrote: post #13

Smart people have always stolen ideas from completely unrelated industries. I mean, Gutenberg invented the printing press after seeing a wine press crush grapes. Velcro was invented when some guy found burrs stuck to his trousers. Genius isn’t conceiving some magic new technology. It's taking a mature technology and transplanting it elsewhere. For Christmas, I bought myself a pass to Masterclass.com. They have classe…

That's what Toyota did for a while. They recycled existing technology to make their little engines better and faster, instead of developing new engines at a much higher cost.

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#47

Post by nicbou » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 3:46 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #28

shubhamjain wrote: post #18

There are probably very few original ideas anyway. Google wasn't new, search engines already existed. Yahoo! wasn't new, web directories already existed. If you trace it hard enough, you could get to filling cabinets and folders. Over the years, I have realized that the idea of 'idea' is itself problematic. It implies that you can describe something very complex with a simple phrase (in hindsight, of course). What wa…

This whole concept of idea ownership is pretty damaging to progress - most progress in 20th century was seeing several companies compete in same space and take ideas from competitors, iterating on them and integrating them in new, improved products. Imagine if one car company could "own" the idea of blind spot monitoring. Or navigation. Or rear view camera.

On the other hand, there is little incentive to spend a billion dollars developing a one dollar product if it gets copied by everyone else. It can incentivize stagnation.

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#48

Post by nicbou » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 3:48 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #11

bitL wrote: post #2

This sums all that is wrong with business. A few original pioneers at the beginning and the rest are at best slightly improved copies as they require lowest energy to spend, yet boasting their awesomeness everywhere in order to sell.

As a European and an android user, without the "copiers" most of those "original pioneers" would deliver no value to me, so I'm very glad the "copiers" exist. Don't want your business copied? Make it available to everyone yourself in the first place.

What if the discovery process is risky and expensive? Protecting the idea is what pays the investors back.

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#49

Post by nicbou » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 3:49 PM UTC

lovemenot wrote: post #26

chiefalchemist wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. Customers want low friction and solutions. Fact: NO ONE wakes up and thinks "I gotta buy me some iteration today." Iteration, evolution and low-risk change are means. They are not ends.

This reads like so much marketing blurb. Opinion dressed as fact. I would argue, but would not presume to state as fact, that the large majority of Japanese actually prefer iteration over radical innovation, almost all of the time.

This also reads like opinion dressed as fact

Re: The case for copying business ideas

#50

Post by AndrewKemendo » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 3:57 PM UTC

2. It's likely not up to you anyway

This is the conclusion I'm coming to with pretty much all things that are popular. It's also why "timing" is the most important thing in determining success of - well - anything. I think the only way it really works to be successful, as in wildly successful with a paradigm shifting concept or idea, is to work with small wins on the same thing for decades and hope that the zeitgeist shifts enough to be open to adopting your vision which you can then accelerate.

One trap here though is getting cynical and jealous when a new market entrant gets all the popularity, while the long tooth person gets very little. Ted Nelson is a perfect example of this and it's a little sad to see - though I understand where it's coming from.