Comment by atombender | Hacker News Reader

Comment by atombender | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Mind you, a lot of their designs are cheap knock-offs of contemporary designs.

* The POÄNG chair is a copy of Alvar Aalto's 406.

* Nakamura's earlier POEM copied both the 406 and a chair by Bruno Mathsson.

* FROSTA (now discontinued) is a copy of Aalto's Stool 60.

* KROMVIK copied Bruno Mathsson's Ulla bed frame.

* BORE copied Mathsson's Karin chair.

And so on. Ironically, some of these also have become classics of their own, or at least sought-after vintage objects.

IKEA sometimes comes up with original, sometimes novel designs, but generally they copy better designs with worse manufacturing quality rather than coming up with original ones.

And they are genuinely worse in terms of construction. For example, if you compare the wood quality of a FROSTA with Aalta's stool it's night and day. FROSTA is just plywood cut to size. The Aalto stool is solid birch, with a plywood top and an elegant solid birch veneer for the edge band, and the legs use a unique plywood-like join that is a thing of beauty [1].

[1] https://www.alvaraalto.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/l-jalka...

Personally, I support any sort of cheap knock-offs as long as they more-or-less last for some time. "Alvar Aalto's 406"'s price is JP¥304,200 from what I quickly found. Most expensive POÄNG is ¥16,990. Almost 20x cheaper. Increasing QoL for average people who can't afford expensive things is actually good.

Yes, I understand the whole "copying isn't innovation" part of the argument, but it is for the greater good.

As a design enthusiast, they're not in the same league, regardless of construction quality. There's a beauty in the original designs (like Alvar Aalto's) that's completely missed by copycats.

Design objects are vastly, ridiculously overpriced, but to me that's unrelated to the issue of design. An Aalto chair might not be "worth" $2,000, but if you buy the $200 IKEA version you won't have the same chair, so it's not a direct comparison. That's like saying why go to Hawaii when there's Belgium?

Chances are, when I buy the $200 IKEA chair, I have no idea about the chairs that inspired it. I buy it because I like it and can afford it. It doesn't particularly bother me that there is a nicer version of it out there for more money. In fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't!

The beauty you see in the chair will not be noticed by people who are not design enthusiasts. It’s comfy, looks decent, and functional enough for people to make a purchase.

My point was, we should encourage copycats if it will reduce the price point even if it brings 80% of the joy to the buyer, compared to owning the designer chair, which is not attainable for them.

> they are genuinely worse in terms of construction

A 406 costs ×20 more (£1600 vs £80).

Does the 406 have cleaner lines? Yes.

Is it comfier? The 406 doesn't have a cushioned seat so, maybe or maybe not.

Will it last longer? Probably. But the IKEA one comes with a 10 year warranty and unless you treat it badly it'll probably last far longer than that.

Hard to argue that the IKEA POÄNG isn't great value for the people who have other priorities.

Well said. My Poäng has been abused (by students) for years. It's still almost as good as new. And so very, very comfortable.

Ironically it's the prevalence of this chair in student residences that makes me never want to see one again. It's practically standard issue student furniture in many parts of Europe, I promised myself once I had a job that paid a reasonable salary I would never have one again, having sat in hundreds of the things during my education.

When I look back through photos of my student years, Poängs are in so, so many of the pictures. The chair itself is arguably relatively unoffensive; I just find its prevalence deeply boring.

First off, stealing is not allowed. I don't know the finer details of intellectual property law, but if IKEA according to that would be stealing designs than that is not OK.

Second however, engineering products in such a way that you can bring down the price by 95% while quality/niceness/longevity only suffers (let's say) 25% is a thing to marvel at. Having 75% of a €265 design stool in your house for €25 is fantastic.

The IKEA innovation is fast fashion for furniture.

In a sense. But their designs are fairly timeless, and while their cheapest product lines don't hold up to much abuse they still last 10+ years under normal use. A fraction of what good furniture will last, but long enough that usually your needs change faster than the furniture breaks. Or longer, judging by the very healthy market for second-hand ikea furniture

> A fraction of what good furniture will last,

Good furniture lasts hundreds of years!

Does it really matter if people don't want to buy old furniture?

I tend to agree. Styles change, needs change as people move and/or change lifestyles. I have some pretty old furniture but I mostly own it because I can find a space for it--not because I'd buy it today.

Or until it gets scrapped because it went out of fashion. People usually don't renovate because their furnishings are falling apart but because they want something fresh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com