Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy • Hacker News Board

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#91

Post by mipmap04 » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

gist wrote: post #61

ghaff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question. Why is it dodgy?

Why is it necessary to precede a question with 'serious question'? (Meaning why do people reading comments assume a negative (snarky) unless otherwise pointed out the question is 'serious'. Likewise why when mentioning something which is generally viewed in a negative light (but defending it) is it needed to say 'I hate spam as much as anyone but'.

Well now I have no idea if you’re asking a serious question! To give a serious answer, it seems like most questions on forums like these are often not real questions, but rhetorical.

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#92

Post by zerocrates » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

kadoban wrote: post #82

hbosch wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you go to a grocery store, you'll find many versions of cheddar cheese specifically. Some of it is blocked, some slices, some shredded. You'll also find that in at least one of these forms, the store has it's own brand – called a "private label" – of cheddar cheese, probably shredded. Because Kroger, or Wal Mart, or Whole Foods has said "hey, selling cheddar cheese is a good idea and we can compete in our own stor…

There isn't a design there that's being copied or a brand being appropriated. I mean however many centuries back someone figured out cheddar cheese, but nobody alive has a proprietary claim to it.

Somewhat of a tangent, but in the EU there is "brand" type protection for many types of cheese (think Parmesan), they have to come from the specified geographic area and use proper production methods, or else use a different name.

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#93

Post by ghaff » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

blotter_paper wrote: post #90

dkarl wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's dodgy for the same reason it's dodgy to print and sell a new novel without paying the author, for the same reason it's dodgy to clone a successful app and sell it without any attempt to improve on it. On one hand you have a system where companies support the creation of new designs so that they can profit from the reproduction of them, and on the other you have companies operating parasitically so they can get a…

I would be interested in seeing the results of an HN poll: "Do you agree with the existence of intellectual property laws?" It seems like a divisive topic here, and I suspect this is where the disagreement on dodginess comes from.

I also think there’s conflation here between knock-offs that do in fact violate IP laws which isn’t just dodgy but a violation of the law. And knockoffs that take the same general form or appearance of branded goods—with or without the same level of quality.

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#94

Post by dzhiurgis » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

helen___keller wrote: post #7

Allbirds is a luxury brand. Retailers offer cheap versions of luxury brands. There's little surprise here. Should Ray-Bans complain that Walmart offers sunglasses that look nearly identical at a tenth of the price? Amazon has plenty of dodgy business practices, but I don't think this is one of them.

Allbirds are actually quite cheap in here in NZ. $150 NZD for a pair of nice sneakers is cheap when New Balance will cost you $200-300 NZD.

They don't look luxurious either. They look stupid if anything. The only luxurious part is they wear out in less than a year.

Also nurses here really like it because how comfortable they are.

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#95

Post by Spivak » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

_iyig wrote: post #88

toasterlovin wrote: post #2

If you can't succeed because somebody made a low effort, low quality copy of your product, then you don't deserve to make money. Especially in light of the fact that Coke has been around for 150 years and is essentially just sugar water.

What if the person who copies you also controls the marketplace, and prioritizes their copy above your original? That seems much closer to what Amazon is doing.

No different than Walmart prioritizing their store brand which explicitly copy the branding of other products ("woah, there's no way that isn't butter"). If you cant get your customers to seek you out directly then you don't have a brand.

As a consumer I like when store brands do this. It tells me what they're trying to impersonate more than the "compare to XXX" in teeny tiny print. But they're just a brand like anything else on the shelf -- Kroger pretzels are better than Rolled Gold, but their sandwich cookies are much worse than Oreo.

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#96

Post by benologist » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #85

benologist wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon has copied 50,000+ items, some open source, some proprietary SaaS, they surely weren't all garbage undeserving of success. Predatory platforms might be the actual problem.

FWIW, it seems like you're referring to software. I'm commenting solely on their retail business (and that's what the linked article is about).

The 50,000+ items are physical things across their many brands, they're facing an antitrust action in the EU for the possibility sales data is the deciding factor for what to copy.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-4291_en.htm

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#97

Post by dzhiurgis » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

peruvian wrote: post #78

magashna wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they should aim for a different market segment then. Common Projects, a plain but very well made luxury sneaker seems to be doing well. I'd imagine fighting for scraps against Amazon/Walmart isn't going to go well.

Their market is well off techies/tech adjacent people that don't care about fashion and just want to be comfy (Allbirds are the butt of jokes in any men's style community). They can't price their shoes too high because their market would scoff at paying more than $~150 for shoes. This market also won't care about where the material is sourced from or who makes it. Allbirds made a cheap product people can easily copy,…

My biggest problem with them is they wear out in less than a year. Extremely unreliable...

That said, if you love merino - check out Icebreaker...

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#98

Post by dzhiurgis » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 9:09 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #34

I own a pair of all birds. I think I paid around $100 for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual cost of the shoe was around $8. Amazon is a margin-eating business("your margin is my opportunity"). You can't expect margins like that to just go on unmolested from anyone. I'm honestly surprised Amazon hasn't done more of this - e.g. in the makeup industry which has notoriously high margins.

Fine merino wool is quite expensive.

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#99

Post by dkarl » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #93

blotter_paper wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be interested in seeing the results of an HN poll: "Do you agree with the existence of intellectual property laws?" It seems like a divisive topic here, and I suspect this is where the disagreement on dodginess comes from.

I also think there’s conflation here between knock-offs that do in fact violate IP laws which isn’t just dodgy but a violation of the law. And knockoffs that take the same general form or appearance of branded goods—with or without the same level of quality.

The law doesn't grant clothing designs the same IP protections that other creative works enjoy, which makes it much easier to knock off fashion without facing legal challenges.

Re: Allbirds CEO on Amazon's copycat strategy

#100

Post by kadoban » Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

mipmap04 wrote: post #89

kadoban wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a design there that's being copied or a brand being appropriated. I mean however many centuries back someone figured out cheddar cheese, but nobody alive has a proprietary claim to it.

What about sodas like Dr. Pepper vs. Dr. Thunder? Do you think producing Dr. Thunder is ethically questionable from a business standpoint?

I don't think so personally. It is a pretty blatant ripoff of course, but Dr Pepper has also been around for a long time now (at least a century?)

I don't think copyrights/patents/whatever apply, but if you think of the principles behind them as a bit of a guide, designing a novel product should ideally let you profit off it exclusively for a while (to incentivize invention), but probably not forever (to allow competition and lower prices).