Chinese kickstarter copycats
- Thread starter Wrath Of Khan
- Start date
ClockworkCoder
Chaotic Neutral
Hmm, even if I'm not convinced about the idea (Stickbox), that kind of sucks. Some cases also might just be a case of "post hoc ergo procter hoc" if it's a fairly obvious/logical idea.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
He wasn't so much a victim of theft as subject to his own greed.
Producing garbage and expecting reward.
If you can't ask someone to take a picture for you, maybe you aren't in the type of place you want to show to your online friends.
Edit: So I see no evidence that this wasn't meant to be produced in China.
This is actually how Chinese copyright works. They just cut out the middleman, who was in this case not so much a facilitator or designer, and more of parasite.
So you swap one greater evil for a smaller one.
Which is, you guessed it, how kickstarter works.
And as far as selfie sticks go, it is a fair invitation to get beaten on. Stop ruining places for other people.
Edit: So the project slipped its deadline, and is not honouring calls for refunds. Those happened before anything else.
Kickstarter says they think
Producing garbage and expecting reward.
If you can't ask someone to take a picture for you, maybe you aren't in the type of place you want to show to your online friends.
Edit: So I see no evidence that this wasn't meant to be produced in China.
This is actually how Chinese copyright works. They just cut out the middleman, who was in this case not so much a facilitator or designer, and more of parasite.
So you swap one greater evil for a smaller one.
Which is, you guessed it, how kickstarter works.
And as far as selfie sticks go, it is a fair invitation to get beaten on. Stop ruining places for other people.
Edit: So the project slipped its deadline, and is not honouring calls for refunds. Those happened before anything else.
Kickstarter says they think
- the producer is selling the product to other markets himself, which makes sense.
- Or it could be that there was a disagreement in production. Which is an alternative theory of mine.
Last edited:
erico
Advanced Member
Seems like a viral marketing move to me.
S
sulu
Guest
Sounds like the typical argument of people who don't actually know how the design process of a niche product works.
Where have I seen that before? ... ah right! Tell me again, why does the Pyra, that comes with heavily outdated hardware, cost as much as a current top-end smartphone?
So unless you tell me that you have deeper insight into this project I'm just going to assume you're making things up.
I've been to places where it was the very point to have nobody around who could take a photo of me.
I felt no urge to share the photos I made there online, but I don't see why that should be true for everyone else.
I don't think this is how the Chinese copyright works. I know a bunch of Chinese people (most of them are engineers) and I think I would have picked it up if that was how the Chinese copyright works. I know however, that this is how their culture works, at least in parts. ‘Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.' has quite a tradition there.
While I share your dislike for selfie sticks, I find it hard to justify beating other people for having a different opinion.
bottom line:
I don't have any use for such a product, therefore I don't really care that the project (likely) failed. But I still think you're being unfair to the project's founder.
Exophase
Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
This article is pretty misleading.
They say that they were able to meet their KS funding goal despite the controversy. Yet the two comments that they sourced were from August and September 2016, many months after the campaign finished (January) and after the pledged deliver date (May).
They posted in February that they were working with a Chinese manufacturer. Only around March did people start asking why they could buy the device for much cheaper, and they weren't angry; they just wanted answers. Then in April they posted another comment that was identical to the one they posted in February, which looks pretty bad.
People really started getting angry and threatening for the same reason they tend to with KS: because the project isn't delivering and isn't responding. In this case it didn't help that other people were making them look bad by delivering their product before them. If they put their effort into providing meaningful updates and fulfilling their backer obligations instead of fighting the copycats and promoting their product at trade shows maybe their backers wouldn't be so angry with them.
Maybe they got more pressure than usual because the ripoffs showed them up by demonstrating the product could be manufactured in a small fraction of the time they were taking.. but it's hard to really feel sorry for them. Especially when there's a good chance that the design was leaked (or distributed under misunderstood terms) by the manufacturer they were partnering with.
At any rate, the title of the article is hardly justified with a single example, especially when we don't know all of the circumstances.
They say that they were able to meet their KS funding goal despite the controversy. Yet the two comments that they sourced were from August and September 2016, many months after the campaign finished (January) and after the pledged deliver date (May).
They posted in February that they were working with a Chinese manufacturer. Only around March did people start asking why they could buy the device for much cheaper, and they weren't angry; they just wanted answers. Then in April they posted another comment that was identical to the one they posted in February, which looks pretty bad.
People really started getting angry and threatening for the same reason they tend to with KS: because the project isn't delivering and isn't responding. In this case it didn't help that other people were making them look bad by delivering their product before them. If they put their effort into providing meaningful updates and fulfilling their backer obligations instead of fighting the copycats and promoting their product at trade shows maybe their backers wouldn't be so angry with them.
Maybe they got more pressure than usual because the ripoffs showed them up by demonstrating the product could be manufactured in a small fraction of the time they were taking.. but it's hard to really feel sorry for them. Especially when there's a good chance that the design was leaked (or distributed under misunderstood terms) by the manufacturer they were partnering with.
At any rate, the title of the article is hardly justified with a single example, especially when we don't know all of the circumstances.
Hey, now THAT'S an idea!
You have a good idea, make a successful Kickstarter but instead of producing the thing, you wait until a chinese company clones it for a cheaper price.
Then you buy enough to deliver to your pledges and BAM! You make profit AND a new product has seen the light of the day without you having to do much.
That's a win-win situation
You have a good idea, make a successful Kickstarter but instead of producing the thing, you wait until a chinese company clones it for a cheaper price.
Then you buy enough to deliver to your pledges and BAM! You make profit AND a new product has seen the light of the day without you having to do much.
That's a win-win situation
comradekingu
Glowing ember
The pyra is the best in class of what it is trying to do, state of the art. A selfie-stick is as far removed from a niche product as you can get. It is easily made low-tech.Sounds like the typical argument of people who don't actually know how the design process of a niche product works.
Where have I seen that before? ... ah right! Tell me again, why does the Pyra, that comes with heavily outdated hardware, cost as much as a current top-end smartphone?
So unless you tell me that you have deeper insight into this project I'm just going to assume you're making things up.
When you can add a layer of retailers, atop not crowdsourcing money to do so, and still be much cheaper, there is a reason why copying happens.
China is brilliant at that, and this was never a niche product to begin with, because it wasn't made to be anything other than a simple commodity, but at prices that only exploit cheap labour.
Niche products in the current marketplace are ethical, well made products. Of which the pyra could be said to be one.
Case in point, the GPD win. Do you think they haven't cut every single corner there is to cut to arrive at that platform? The whole thing is a reconstructed idea inductive of no knowledge and crudely shovelling what is available together. It exists, and it is the exact same Chinese version of a product.
The difference, the Pyra is a community product, and ED is a part of it. If it was in even just some ways equal and it would have no place in the market, and I wouldn't support it.
So do i think everyone should have carte blanche at copying, no. That does not matter though, it is what a part of the world with the capability to produce mass goods has. And not being able to figure that out, is indicative of not knowing how the process of product design works. If you are making something on paper, fine. If you want it to be a real product, it stops being a paper/electronic idea.
When you take real money for your ideas, it is on you the creator to fulfill your promises. There is no scenario where you can side with the creator here.
It is a variation over the theme less or more unfortunately obvious.
Fight that urge. Think about someones need to see cliche, bad quality photos, at bad angles. If you do, and still come out at the wrong side, are you then living? Or are you trying to document something, and does it then matter how polished the bad result looks?
Don't kid yourself, it is a foreign policy. You never get control. It is instrumented brilliance.
I do not dislike selfie sticks. I dislike people whom use them wrongly. I deviced a use i condone, and I only care for the opinion of people seeing the results on social media.
The product succeeded, despite its creators inability to deliver it. Nothing of value was lost. This is the functional equivalent. A person who is invested in making selfie-sticks will have to find something else to do. Deliver, make a better product, in a more ethical way. Floor is open and the lights are still on.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
It will be called the hydra-foil, and more copious cats will surf in its wake.
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
Exactly what I was thinking. He's got $40 per unit and with that he can afford to buy a couple of these chinese units and test them and decide on the best to buy in bulk and send out to all of his backers. Shame it wouldn't really work for something like the Pyra though, where multiple tolerances and specs need to be met to make it all work. There's a reason Lego is still Danish - it's because Chinese stuff doesn't quite fit the standard.Hey, now THAT'S an idea!
You have a good idea, make a successful Kickstarter but instead of producing the thing, you wait until a chinese company clones it for a cheaper price.
Then you buy enough to deliver to your pledges and BAM! You make profit AND a new product has seen the light of the day without you having to do much.
That's a win-win situation
ible
professional vim user
That's a WIN-WIN situation
FTFY
S
sulu
Guest
It's just a matter of perspective. It could be argued that the Pyra just another handheld device while a phone case that can be turned into a selfie stick is a pretty unique thing and definitely niche.
While there might be some correlation between niche and "ethical" products, there is certainly no causality.
Which urge should I fight if there is none to begin with?
I was clearly talking about the original project, not about the final product.
fusion_power
Advanced Member
Not the worst idea!Hey, now THAT'S an idea!
You have a good idea, make a successful Kickstarter but instead of producing the thing, you wait until a chinese company clones it for a cheaper price.
Then you buy enough to deliver to your pledges and BAM! You make profit AND a new product has seen the light of the day without you having to do much.
That's a win-win situation
Fascinating how fast and efficient chinese companies can be if they do not work with western companies together.
Even if they have needed longer in reality, it shows that they treat western companies much worse than they treat their own industry. Stuff like lead times etc. seems to not exist then. OK, the Selfie Stick may not contain any electronical parts but I'm sure they could copy an complex electronic device also much faster than a western company can produce it.
Unfair.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Kickstarter is not a store, it is about showing the initiative to bring products into the world.
Mission accomplished.
[doublepost=1477092160,1477084315][/doublepost]Here is a kickstarter idea. You pledge to join a journey where you will have to come up with an idea not to lose your money.
Mission accomplished.
[doublepost=1477092160,1477084315][/doublepost]Here is a kickstarter idea. You pledge to join a journey where you will have to come up with an idea not to lose your money.
erico
Advanced Member
That is very romantic.
ElPoco
Hardcore Member
First of all, there's the delay for the prototypes. If the western company needs to receive the prototype, test it, send their feedback, get a new prototype, etc. it will be much longer than if they can do everything on site and have multiple prototypes in a day.
Second, many western companies don't treat Chinese company any better. The western culture of putting pressure and squeezing the supplier as much as possible is completely opposite to the Chinese approach.
Third, there are often problems with intercultural communication. A very common example is the Western company asking for something that cannot be done. The Chinese company cannot say they can't do it, because it will make them lose face, so unless they're given a way out they'll say yes. And it can take many weeks for the Western company to realize that there's something wrong.
Don't get me wrong: there's still some national preference, but I think that western companies are also to blame for the lack of efficiency of their partnerships with Chinese companies.
