Hacker News Reader

Comment by batista | Hacker News Reader

>Can someone explain why copying is bad?

Because it limits choices. Instead of 2 different options for your all-in-one desktop you have 1 multiplied by 2.

Without copying, design and implementation and business practices become bundled, reducing my options in a different way. If I like the kind of industrial design Apple encouraged but not the prevalence of non-commodity components or the aggressive deprecation of ports and interconnects or their policies towards independent developers, I can't get the product I want. I'd rather have commodity hardware that's beige and commodity hardware that's shiny and boutique hardware on the market, rather than have to choose one or two. It'd be one thing if Apple were willing to produce a wide variety of price/perf/design selections, but they're deliberately not.

The only similarity between these options are aesthetics. To argue they're the same product is to say all red coups are the same. No, they just happen to be red.

This is why copying is sad not why copying is bad. One of the coolest things is to look at personal computers built before the IBM PC and then look at computers built after the IBM PC. You can do this if you go a Vintage Computer Festival [1] at some point.

Prior to the PC there were lots of different kinds and styles, and post PC there were 'beige boxes' everywhere. Now true there were still outliers like the Epson QX10 and some others but they were quashed by the larger market.

[1] www.vintage.org

2 * 1 = 1 * 2

Mathematics aside, you would've hoped that they could come up with an improvement over the iMac, instead of a copy. Perhaps the port access on the side of the base counts?

"2 * 1 = 1 * 2"

You forgot the "2 choices" part, ie that the numbers are pointers to qualitative differences, thus 1A + 1B != 2 * 1A.

You're right... instead of copying they should steal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

Damn right. Plus: way to get the quote wrong. It's about stealing some concept and making something of YOUR OWN with the inspiration, vs copying somebody else's work verbatim. That is, it applies exactly to this situation.

When you thought it was damning of Apple or ironic that people accuse HP, didn't it trouble you that the quote presents copying in a worse light that stealing? I.e didn't it occurred that stealing, as defined in the quote, must describe something much more creative than mere copying?

Sorry if I didn't explain my point with the quote. It wasn't obvious to me when I wrote it that it could have several interpretations.

Artists commonly quote Picasso to refer that when practicing you should copy another artist that you admire. In the process you would develop you own style and in a sense you stole that from the original artist.

My point in this case (and I am not an Apple fan), is that HP didn't differentiate enough in this product. I was being literal on the quote, they should steal the iMac, no just copying it.

Oh, I see. I thought you were using it ironically against Jobs, which would be missing the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com