Ask HN: Is making clones bad? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is making clones bad?

37 pointsSingAlong49 comments

Just a few hours ago, a friend sent me a message that he was planning to make spanish or french clone of a famous site. He said there was a market for this since this kinda site didn't exist in French or Spanish.

I suggested to him that he shouldn't make a clone of some idea UNLESS he's going to OFFER something BETTER (if it does something better I wouldn't call it a 'clone').

Am I right in saying so? Or is there anything I'm missing?

View on HN

Err, localizing the site is already offering something better. I'd say go for it. Are you suggesting non-english people simply shouldn't have access to such a site because it already exists in english and the company chose not to build a localized version?

There's a huge market there ripe for the picking and many American companies aren't taking notice.

Echo that. Besides, unless the creator deliberately sets out to copy every last detail of the original, their knowledge of local customs will inevitably result in subtle design differences that will make the "clone" a much more cohesive and pleasant experience for people in the target market, even those who can speak English.

While you're offering something better, you're not offering a new actual feature or function, just a swap of the text. It's like adding an 'S' to someone else's big word in Scrabble. Yes, you get the points, but it's not nearly as satisfying as laying down your own word. It's a move of last resort: "I have nothing better I can do".

I'm not saying he shouldn't do it, but if I'm at a gathering and person A says "I built this new web-app that does cool new thing X" and person B says "I copied site B, only I changed the text to Spanish", it's pretty clear who I'm going to want to chat with.

I think it depends what you're after. Building something brand new is more interesting and challenging, but taking a proven design and introducing it to an untapped market has a higher probability of resulting in "something people use", for substantially less effort. So I disagree with the "I have nothing better I can do" sentiment.

Fair enough. It sounds like a smart business move, but a weak "hacker" move.

Someone once said this:

> That's the essence of a startup: having brilliant people do work that's beneath them.... Think Einstein designing refrigerators.

The idea being that once you've made your pile, you can go on to do more interesting things, like novel startup generator startups, or writing your own toenail clippings and oatmeal language, or whatever else you fancy:-)

yet 5 years later the guy who built "this new web-app" is still floundering trying to compete with the behemoths for attention, while the guy who did a +1 in a foreign market is #1 or #2 in his country, rolling around in millions and waiting to be acquired for a ton of money.

Nothing is stopping the guy who did +1 from doing the innovative thing after he makes his millions.

That's a certainly a very polarized guess at the future. It could very easily go the other way, and has for many folks.

Could, yeah, lots of things could happen. My guess is the "first mover localization play" is, more often than not, a lower risk, lower payoff sort of thing. You're never going to be the next Google, but then again, you can see that the original service is working pretty well - you're not creating something that's never been done before, so you have an example to follow, and if you execute well and play your cards right, you have a decent (or at least better) shot at making money than the 'blue sky' sorts of projects.

I think it puts you at a disadvantage. It's generally far easier for the established, high-traffic, high PR, etc... player to add a new resource bundle with language de jour, than for you to rebuild their application and get the traction they already have.

Plus, if they came up with something new to begin with, they probably have smart folks coming up with ideas on what to add/enhance next.

I'm not saying it's a bad business move, or that doing something in order to make money is wrong, but copying someone else's effort just feels a lot closer to domain squatting than creating value (although yes, having a localized version of the web-app has some value) to me.

While I wasn't first to the market space with 10MinuteMail (actually I hadn't even looked if anyone else was doing it, as I was just doing it to teach myself Seam), 10MinuteMail definitely had a twist on the temporary e-mail thing (a good twist for some users/uses, bad for others). 20MinuteMail sprang up shortly after 10MintuteMail, and there a number of people who have or are trying to sell "10 Minute Mail Clone" scripts on various sites. So I've been on the receiving end of the pure cloning play. It feels kinda slimy to me. Plus 20mintutemail has less users since Aug '07 than I had before lunch today, so I'm really not sure it's a smart move for the cloners.

I think that cloning a website by localizing it for another country only really makes sense when the community around the website is a big part of its value. In this case the new community surronding the localized version is going to provide a significant advantage to the cloner.

For 10MinuteMail, there is not as much value added by localizing it so it's certainly not a good idea to clone it...

I too had the same thought. If he(friend) wants to go for money over an interesting hacker life and his clone idea works out, he has his share of cake.

If he chooses an interesting hacker life over money, he sure shouldn't clone it if he cannot add innovative ideas to it.

I'm glad that a lot of guys here share my hacker zeal.

Definitely. This is like Bollywood/Hindi movies making rip-offs of English movies. It still adds value because it brings the idea (the story) to a number of people who wouldn't have been able to use it otherwise (language barrier).

America's Hollywood also does this to foreign films, though it's rarely anything close to what you'd call an improvement.

"Bad artists copy. Great artists steal." -- Pablo Picasso.

I think as long as your friend is conscious what Picasso said in the quote above, it will be ok. Because the clone is just the starting point. There is market there but no product is available. So by cloning this product, he gets his foot out of the door and the rest of journey is up to him.

There's getting ideas and inspiration from existing works is one thing.

Selling your The Frugal Repast forgeries is another.

It depends.

In early 1980, all Apple IIe in Taiwan were made by clone manufacturers. There was a market, but Apple's price was too high by living standard then. Most of the clone manufacturers just copied the Apple IIe. But some of the clone manufacturers started to experiment with new features and improvements, and learned the experience of making computers. They later cloned IBM PC, Compaq and continued the process for each generation. Some failed but some survived and became stronger.

Many years later, they are so much better in cost and design of the system and take over the business from large manufacturers in U.S. and lower the price of PC to today's level. Ain't that a good thing to enable us to own cheap computers? While Apple, HP all outsource their manufacture to them.

Meanwhile, some of them start to improve the design and create their own product line, and finally they reach the level with confidence to introduce their own new designs and innovations.

Acer was one of this cloner. ASUS's founder was part of Acer team. And you can see how far they have progressed.

But they all started because they want to make something that people want, even just clone it.

I've always heard that quote as "Good artists copy; great artists steal."

Any idea which is correct?

I've heard the "Good" version too. On Google it wins 35,000 against 2,660, which is closer than I'd expect. The Wikipedia page has it as "Good", but Unsourced.

MercadoLibre.com started out as a latin american 'ebay clone'. They seem to be doing okay (== monopoly in their region); in fact, ebay now own a stake in them.

he IS offering something better. Does the original site exist in French/Spanish? No. So he is doing something the original site isn't.

Frankly I don't mind clones at all. Its all about execution...if someone can clone you and take any marketshare...then you might want to look for another job

I have mixed feelings here. On the one hand, from a market perspective I think, "Sure, why not. Just exploit the race condition that exists between The Next Big Thing in the US and those startups recognizing the European market."

On the other hand, as someone that cares about the health of the European startup scene, it doesn't set a good precedent that successful European startups tend to far too often just be knock-offs of American companies, and in fact the cycle feeds itself -- it's such now that European investors often want to see a "proven model", meaning a knock-off, which makes it harder for European startups to find funding when doing something riskier.

It's not all "America to Europe" you know ... there are startups in Europe that are innovating in ways the Americans haven't tried yet. Maybe not many of them, but my new business is based on one of them and it wasn't that hard to find.

The European company mine is modeled after is not doing well because they've made a fatal flaw in their implementation that's preventing their growth, and it seems their management doesn't recognize this, but other than this simple issue their business concept is sound, and when they eventually recognize this issue I'm sure they will do well.

But I'm American and I want to bring the same service to the USA so I'm proceeding with a slightly modified version -- one that will actually work well in the USA. I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever, it's a simple task of bringing a good service to places where the originator cannot or will not.

It's not that there aren't ideas coming from Europe to the US; it's rather that there's not a statistically significant number of American startups that are knock-offs of European ones. The converse isn't true. That there exist European copies of American companies doesn't bother me in the least; that they're probably half of the European startups does.

I like to call the strategy "fast following" rather than "cloning." It made Bill Gates a billionaire.

I think its fine. Look at even the current social networks in English itself.

Dating Sites ---> Friendster --> hi5 --> Facebook --> Orkut

                                               --> Bebo

                                               --> WAYN

                                            --> LinkedIn

They all started with the same base, a database of people that interact.

Again, the App development platform was started by facebook and now everyone else copied it. So, once you clone it you can always give it your own unique flavor with time.

Amazon expanded into Europe by buying up it's 'clones' in other languages, so this might work out well.

Facebook chose to translate and expand by itself instead of purchasing local clones.

I guess the difference is amazon was buying shipping and warehousing.

Amazon had physical assets it needed to acquire, at best Facebook needs a data center, however a 'clone' is unlikely to have one worth the money.

Exactly. Buying a facebook clone would be for the user base.

StudiVZ had an exit - just not to Facebook. There are many exits as long as you have users.

I didn't know StudiVZ had made an exit, thanks for pointing that out. To a publishing company too, very forward thinking.

I actually hacked up a clone of HN because I thought it would be nice with a hn-like site for "normal" news in Danish and there aren't any. I don't feel bad about it in any way because it doesn't infringe or subtract from HN since it's a totally different crowd.

If you want you can check it out here: http://www.deloghersk.dk (still has a few bugs...)

Well, HN is just a clone of Reddit. And Reddit is just an improved Digg. When someone makes a clone of yours, then you'll know you've hit it big!

I think that making clones is a great idea. My current project is making a reddit clone on top of Django. I'm planning on setting up social news sites focused on niche markets.

I know that there's already sub-reddits, Digg, etc.. but I'm pretty convinced that your average person in Peoria/Des Moines/Kansas City isn't going to get past the first page of reddit or Digg without running away screaming because of the trolls.

Think about it this way. How many web forums are out there that are devoted to niche markets? How many magazines are there? How many local newspapers are there? How many sitcoms are there? How many movies are there? The web is media.

There's nothing wrong with taking a format or platform, and targeting it at a niche market. You don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you make a consumer facing web application.

The problem of "What do people want" has already been solved repeatedly. As long as you're not infringing on IP, if you can take an idea and focus it on a specific market, you're one step closer to making money.

Not a bad idea! But reddit is pretty bad in dealing with trollers in non programming subreddit.

But I like the newmogul when nickb released it. The feeling is very natural but each focuses on its own subject.

I can guarantee that the site he will clone is an actual clone of another site.

Everything you see today is a clone of something else and they simply change the theme, the message, this or that.

True innovation looks too dumb to be copied.

I often find myself wishing for variations of popular sites and services since often I can find one that does what I want, but fits me better.

For example, when I was recently looking for some good bug-tracking software I used FogBugz as a trial and really liked it, but they're pricing was really ridiculous for my use case. They would charge $20 per user per month for whoever uses the site. That will work great for other folks who have a static team, but I work with a revolving pool of outsourcers. So for me, it would cost an extra $20 for a outsourcer of mine to perform a $10 task that month and use the bug tracking system. Great software, but their pricing model was a bad fit for me.

So, I started looking at other bug tracking software sites and found some that I'd never heard of, but that looked promising. I eventually settled on Unfuddle since it allowed me to have a revolving pool of users and not be penalized for it in the pricing. I tried Lighthouse and a few others, but there were slight variations in their functionality that didn't make them an ideal fit. Of course, those aren't exactly 'clones', but they duplicate significant portions of functionality and vary in small ways that can be significant for a user like me (i.e. pricing structure).

So, I'm all for clones - bring 'em on. It keeps the established guys on their toes and innovating and gives users slight variations to choose from.

It's basically slight genetic variation and natural selection in business.

P.S. The only time it really seems wrong to clone is when the site's text is copied too closely - or if the visual design is too similar.

P.S.S Also, if the site being cloned is super unique and pushing the realm of some new functionality, it seems bad form if clones don't at least acknowledge and give credit to the original site for their inspiration.

I think part of the problem with cloning a website is the motivation. Feeling that you're just cloning a succesful website without adding your own touch is just not as motivating (at least for me).

I'm a bit in this situation currently since I had an idea for a product that I really wanted to do, but by the time I quit my job to work on it, someone else had the same idea and implemented it for the american market... So, I let the idea by the wayside for a while but recently I decided to implement it for another market... So in a way I'm cloning someone's website (same base idea) without cloning since I originally wanted to do exactly such a website...

It depends on what he means by cloning. Speaking from an Indian perspective, there is a horde of vanilla Indian social networking sites which are just floundering. On the other hand, there is bazee.com, an ebay equivalent which was bought by ebay and is now known as ebay.in. There are other startups similar to US ones in travel, mobile payments and so on, which are doing pretty well.

I guess it's not just about localization in terms of language but also about making related offline services available, which is sometimes not feasible for the original site(s) to do all over the world, at least fast enough.

Bad? No. Cloning idea is actually good thing. We need multiple choices. Doing better is also not a necessary thing. I say doing different.

But only cloning doesn't bring multiple choices. You have to bring innovation to create a difference.

For an exact clone, it's pretty lame. And even worse, because the cloning process doesn't teach you any of the reasons the product is like that, when you DO need to diverge, you won't have learned anything.

It used to really upset me as the creator, as well. But then I realized they don't really have what it takes to be successful, anyway.

I think there is a good market for cloning site.

But I agree with you though, that if it's literally cloning, it's not great... and some people will notice anyway and that would give you a bad image.

Overall though, I don't think there is anything bad about it. That means you start with a proven idea. We all know execution will make the difference anyway.

"Imitation is the sincerest of flattery." --Charles Caleb Colton

Awe. I thought this would be a philosophical discussion about the merits of human cloning.

It's so easy to make people naturally that it would be pointless to make more than a few clones, just to prove it can be done. The same applies to apps. If you are looking for a programming or design exercise and can't think of anything original, rewrite an app you like.

Mm, consider what it would be like to not be forced to wait for a heart transplant. At that point, you could grow your own.

Of course, that would be quite controversial.

Well, I think it would be less controversial to grow organs in pigs or just on their own. If you grow an actual human, he will probably want a say in the matter.

it's a good idea as practice. Otherwise, if you or your friend are planning to make it a major business, don't, because of legal repercussions when it will be popular

Reply on news.ycombinator.com