Why I hate clones (and so should you)

[computernut]

Good post Carrot! One of my other hobbies is R/C and there are totally blatant rip-off copies of some cars (ie. HPI Baja 5B) where even the parts are interchangeable. People go out and buy these cars which are 1/3 to 1/2 the price and wonder why the engine fails and the parts break easier. I tend to prefer to buy items from manufacturers that put pride and thought into their work rather than rush something to market that's just a copy.

 

[lightfooted]

While I agree that counterfeits can definitely hurt the industry I cannot say the same in regards to "clones". Assuming here that a clone is simply a flashlight that is made to resemble a particular "high-end" flashlight but made of cheaper materials with less quality control. You get what you pay for....sometimes it can be quite the gem, while other times it's just a piece of glass. I feel it spurs the bigger names to work harder at producing a better product.

When I bought my original 6P, it was the brightest light, not just for it's size but often outshining lights much larger that were supposed to be bright. They were the only ones making such lights. Are they still the brightest?

Compaq failed because of their hardware...because they thought you should pay 2-3 times retail price for a minimal performance upgrade. (proprietary hardware)

 

[Lumenz]

Most of these posts are not actually touching on the problem of clones. I am reading posts about competition and monopolies but these have nothing to do with cloning. Cloning is making a product that looks very closely to the exact same light as the original manufacturer.

"That's a nice Rol... Wait... Rolek watch?" Surefire putting a strike bezel on their lights and then some Chinese manufacturer putting a strike bezel on their flashlights is not cloning, it is copying. That same manufacturer coming out with a flashlight that looks exactly like a 6P for half the price is cloning.

Let's try to stay on topic.

 

[kingofwylietx]

I mostly agree with the OP's position.

However, the clones can also be beneficial. One example is a product my company sells. When the manufacturer was protected, their prices were very high compared to their cost (I'm not against profit, but it was insane). They failed to innovate, they rested on their own coat tails. However, when their protections expired, in came the clones. The clones actually were of a slightly lower quality, but that is fairly irrelevant. Our manufacturer began losing market share and started innovating and putting money into R&D. Now, they have some very good new products and the older copied designs are much less critical to their future.

Without the competition from the clones, they would have become an outdated/antiquainted product line (the direction they were headed). Their focus on new products has not waned and they are still introducing new products. Now, they even ask their customers if there is something they would like them to produce or if there is a feature they would like to add to a product. They are much more customer-oriented now.

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Most of these posts are not actually touching on the problem of clones. Cloning is making a product that looks very closely to the exact same light as the original manufacturer.

I think we all pretty much understand that aspect but there's a whole lot of different facets to the issue than just one product being made by someone to look similar to another product.

Most posts I see in this thread are on topic in one way or another, it's just a much broader issue that your particular reading of it suggests.

 

[baterija]

By your logic, it is also okay to shoplift, because you are saving a few dollars. It is also okay to pirate movies, software, games and music, because you are saving a few dollars. By extension, it is okay to lie, cheat and steal to gain a few dollars, right? Because all you're losing is integrity.

Except in the absence of protected intellectual property, or real property, (like in shoplifting) it is entirely different. Our stores are full of items that we don't consider clones that use technology and innovations for which IP rights have expired or never existed. Nylon, for example, was patented by Dupont. That patent protection has long since expired. I don't see people wailing and gnashing their teeth over holsters/sheaths composed of nylon that are produced by companies not paying royalties to Dupont.

 

[Black Rose]

But look at where IBM is now -- they've left the hardware market in commodity PC's completely! And Compaq, a once strong company, got bought by HP.

And HP in turn is now gunning for IBMs current business cash cow....services.

Anyway, as soon as I read your post I knew what it was referring to.

Kramer5150 already touched on the points I was going to make (battery size support and use of modern emitters) so I won't rehash that.

Overall I can see your point and agree with it to some extent, but on the flipside, if it weren't for the clones I bet there are a lot of folks here that would not have Brand A products in their collections or EDC arsenal.

I know if it wasn't for purchasing a clone I would not have any Brand A products sitting in front of me now.

If we look at the clone argument with a different product, is it still an issue?

Take the AA alkaline battery that's been around for a decades.
Who created the first one? (Eveready)
Are they still in business? (Sort of)
Are the other manufacturers that basically produce the exact same thing considered clones?

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Let's just say that SureLite invented posphorous compound on a stick, called it the SureLite F1 Match, then put it on the market for three hundred bucks a box as is their right.

Another company later came along and started making phosphorous compound on a stick, called it the FireLite L1 Match, and started selling it for fifty bucks a box.

Nowhere is it laid down in law that FireLite's product will be a lesser quality or lack any "attention to detail". It may or it may not. That will be a manufacturing/marketing/accounting decision. FireLite may make the same or bigger profit through bigger volumes, they may make less but it's quite possible for such a cloning company to make well and truly enough to allow for even higher quality or reliability in their version of the product.

Does FireLite's cloning of the F1 Match mean a lack of innovation in further match development? Would such a lack of innovation matter? No, the Match is a match and there's little to improve. We could make it in a different colour, we could make it bigger or smaller, we could make it waterproof, we could package it differently but in the long run unless we can make it re-lightable and last forever there's no real innovation to be had, there's just room for tinkering around the edges.

Does paying three hundred bucks a box for the original SureLite product give me a greater "sense of worth" in the product or in having it? That will depend on the type of personality I have I reckon.

Does the fact that SureLite's F1 Match is the "original" version give me a greater sense of worth? Not unless it turns out to be a better value product than the clone, but that's just me.

Will I feel a greater "sense of worth" in the product knowing that SureLite will replace any F1 Match that fails to fire for the life of the box? For me that will depend greatly on the likelihood of that unfortunate "failure to fire" occurring and also on whether I feel that having that aftercare feature is worth the extra two hundred and fifty's worth of price gouging overlaid against any possible extra likelihood of the failure rate of the cheaper product.

To me the FireLite clone is not a "problem" nor a bad thing for society in general despite it having the potential to adversely affect the original SureLite company's bottom line. As a consumer I don't really care about companies and their success or failure, there's always another company around the corner.

In the F1 Match case, a mindset (or set of laws) that discouraged the cloning of products could well have left me as a consumer worse off and allowed a company to gouge whatever it liked from me. I just don't fall for the company line.

 

[bestcounsel]

plus 1...

Also, if one is using the light for any type of safety/leo/fire/emt/security work, you are putting oneself in danger too (bad clickies)

If you buy a clone, you are rewarding a thief who has stolen a design.

Excellent post, carrot :thumbsup:

 

[pwr]

Clone is not all bad (generic drugs, Kimber 1911s), fake is bad.

 

[cheapbastard]

Despite my name I do agree that clones are undesirable. If a company is capable of replicating another company's product they may as well design their own unique version instead of violating copyrights.

On the other hand I don't think that compatible products can be put in the same class as clones. By using the IBM-compatible PC analogy I think the OP was criticizing the P60 host/drop-in market, but the way I see it a clone is a flashlight that is a blatant ripoff of the original Surefire design (including the appearance). If a company wants to make a P60 compatible flashlight they can do so but they should not imitate the appearance of another company's product. It should be clear at first glance that it is not the same product.

Carrot, actually I thought Brigadier was being sarcastic and was in agreement with you

That's what I thought too

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Clone is not all bad (generic drugs, Kimber 1911s), fake is bad.

yes, an attempt to deceive the consumer by falsely placing the original company's name on your clone product is a whole different thing in my eyes. The consumer has a right to be made aware of all that a product is.

 

[carrot]

Despite my name I do agree that clones are undesirable. If a company is capable of replicating another company's product they may as well design their own unique version instead of violating copyrights.
...
, but the way I see it a clone is a flashlight that is a blatant ripoff of the original Surefire design (including the appearance). If a company wants to make a P60 compatible flashlight they can do so but they should not imitate the appearance of another company's product. It should be clear at first glance that it is not the same product.

Yep.

 

[M@elstrom]

the demise of IBM and Compaq machines largely due to mis-management and miss-opportunity.

Compaq failed because of their hardware...because they thought you should pay 2-3 times retail price for a minimal performance upgrade. (proprietary hardware)

Good points, where IBM created an "industry standard" Compaq attempted to "extort" consumers limiting their repair/replacement part options with (propriety components), IBM diversified from it's PC producing status (selling of the PC business to Lenovo) but still offers IBM data storage devices alongside it's Business integration/support services business model :thumbsup:

Another point worth making is clone production fills the niche left by ceased product lines like the Surefire 3P OR Raidfire Spear, this doesn't devalue the original product only making it more "desirable" to diehard collectors and thus resale value of original lights is way above that of their clones...

FWIW counterfeit flashlights are 100% unacceptable :green:

 

[hoongern]

I think one thing to consider is that in many countries, the originals are not easily available, or if they are, may cost way above their original cost - and made even worse by the fact that wages in the country aren't as high. Furthermore, the warranties of the original product may not apply in other countries.

I'm not saying that this makes it right. I just think that this is what may drive the demand for clones in some areas of the world.

--

For me, assuming we're talking about surefires, I have bought some p60/d26 compatible lights which don't look like the originals. Mainly because they come with things like UCL lenses, 18mm-cell compatibility from factory, etc.

 

[nanomu]

Great post!

I will not name names but those with a keen eye and sense of engineering who have both Brand A, high end product, and Brand B, high performance low cost product, where Brand B chooses to copy significant parts of Brand A's styling in order to piggyback on Brand A's popularity and brand image, will notice that Brand B has all sorts of interesting engineering shortcomings and a distinct lack of attention to detail.

I'm not going to name names, but I can think of one obvious example in the flashlight industry. If Brand A were to concentrate more on an inexpensive subbrand (let's call it Brand A^2), "knockoff" Brand B might develop less credibility. In this case, however, Brand B has actually made some innovations (*ahem* 18650) widely overlooked by Brand A. I don't really think Brand B is taking away anything significant from Brand A, but offering an inexpensive alternative where Brand A has largely overlooked it.

Brand B ought to come up with some of their own designs someday. :poke:

The price and quality difference between Brand A and Brand B is so wide, there's a huge void for Brand C, D and E to fill.

 

[shark_za]

But the case in point (Surefire 6P) is pretty hard to design a light any different.

Take a 1 inch pipe long enough to hold 1xCR123 with a bigger diameter head to hold a D26 globe on and it looks like another pipe with head on.

Cloning the real innovation in Surefire rarely happens. Who else has a tailcap switch like that? LOTC with momentary so simple and reliable.

Patenting the 1 inch pipe qoes a little far in my books.

 

[hurricane]

OP: Couldn't agree more.

 

[HKJ]

I think that cloning is very beneficial. Look at the P60 module, the original manufacturer has not followed up with development. With cloning we gets both cheap product, but also high quality and better product than the original manufacturer ever has done.
With PC's it is exactly the same.

As long as the original manufacturer keeps innovating and stays in the front with good products, clones is seldom a big problem. The people buying the cheap clones would not buy the original anyway and people that want a top product will buy that.

Copies are another story!

 

[ace0001a]

Well, hate is a strong word when used in any context. Are you sure you don't mean dislike? Afterall, you do seem to feel that clones have their place. Sorry fellow forum member, I can't agree with you there and to be honest I don't like the idea of anyone telling me what I "should" think. With that said, I personally have no problems with clones in any industry. By me saying that, does not mean that I agree with stealing and no I am not a thief...though I am also one who believes that things in life are never just black and white, but also has lots of gray areas (morally, philosophically). To me, I believe clones while lacking innovation actually motivate originators to do better (as you've already said or implied)...and from a consumer standpoint allow those who are frugal or financially challenged to enjoy a product they might otherwise not ever consider buying. That's my opinion of course and ultimately the choice or beliefs should be left to the individual. To each their own I say...