best way to keep a competitor from stealing your sales is to provide a better product then them. this will help keep customers coming back for more. i myself would much rather spend more for a better product then save a few bucks for a cheaper one, as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

i just bought a airhog havoc heli, and from what i am seeing that it is the samething only a different name. i am pleased with it, although i feel it lacks alot of the control that is is shown in advertisments of having.
but it still fun to play around with.

silverlit may be mad at hobbytron and many others which i will aggree with their point to a degree. however it was bad management on their part to prep for a market release in time for christmas and then end up being sold out of stock when christmas arrived. this in my opinion is what led to their loss of sales.

you give someone a choice, order a product that is on back order, or buy a product that is right there in their hands, most of the time the customer will buy what is in stock, rather then be forced to wait a undetermined time for a product to come back on stock.

i myself looked around on the net in a few places. ofcourse as stated i was looking for the piccoZ, but every site i found was either down, or out of stock of the heli. then i decided to go and have a look see at the local walmart, and sure enough i found a stock pile of the airhog's havoc heli. but reguardless of what i happen to find at walmart. i would have bught what ever they had in stock.

so instead of blaming the competition for loss of sales, maybe they should be looking at their production line and get them to keep the shelfs stocked. a empty shelf leads to loss of sales.

their will be copy cats, always have been always will be. and tech has to be, or they have what you call a monopoly. which is pretty much the same thing european countries is trying to sue microsoft for. stating that there isn't anyone who can copy the microsoft softwares. but that another story.

the mini heli seems to be a hot item, and i do enjoy mine, although i plan on getting a bigger one in time. for the price and what it is the havoc heli is alot of fun, want to keep people from going to your compition? then keep ya shelfs full and provide a better product. if someone buys a clone of your product and it breaks in first week, rest assured they will not buy from them again, instead they will come to you for the product.

jbladefx

It sounds to me like there was a shortage on the market for these things so there really didn't seem to be a need for the confusing naming convention that the cloners pulled. They had some market share by default. It's bad enough that that they copied the thing outright, but stealing the name too? That's dirty, underhanded and unnecessary in my book.

Did you hear about the old guy that invented the Jiggling musical Christmas tree a few years back? After much, much work, his idea finally went to manufacture in China for the up coming Christmas season. But before his product could get shipped to the American market, several shipping containers of Chinese clones from factories near where his item was produced, flooded the market and made their way to venders and into the hands of consumers before anyone could stop it. The old guy made next to nothing off his invention. That is a tragedy. All that work for nothing.
I know I would be very unhappy if Chinese cloners smashed my dream.

And it is a story that keeps repeating it's self with different products every year.

On the flip side, I bought a clone micro heli after Christmas on eBay. Didn't know it was a clone until I went looking for the manufacture name in the instruction sheet.....there was none, nothing, no tiny font that I was missing. No name. No address. I am lucky. Mine works ok and I paid a cheap price.

And then there was the Bit Char-G/Microsizer clones. I bought my first micro R/C car not realizing it was a clone. Then the market got so saturated with clones that it looks like Tomy just gave up making the Bit Char-G. And as it turns out some of those clones are pretty good.
I have some Bit Char-Gs, some Microsizers, and my favorite clones, the Shen Qi Wei and Panther.

It is an econonomic war out there, China is gonna do whatever it can do to sell stuff to us and to the world, and we are going to buy from them because who has time to scrutinize every letter & font & color of every product we buy for authenticity? And the world is going to buy from them because it is cheaper to do so.
Third world markets absolutly do not care if products produced in China are the result of stolen ideas,
and they are not ever going to care, they don't have to.

Google "Chinese clones" and you will find articles about the excact copies of American car designs that China plans to market at half the price of the genuine item.

2oonhed

It sounds to me like there was a shortage on the market for these things so there really didn't seem to be a need for the confusing naming convention that the cloners pulled. They had some market share by default. It's bad enough that that they copied the thing outright, but stealing the name too? That's dirty, underhanded and unnecessary in my book.

Did you hear about the old guy that invented the Jiggling musical Christmas tree a few years back? After much, much work, his idea finally went to manufacture in China for the up coming Christmas season. But before his product could get shipped to the American market, several shipping containers of Chinese clones from factories near where his item was produced, flooded the market and made their way to venders and into the hands of consumers before anyone could stop it. The old guy made next to nothing off his invention. That is a tragedy. All that work for nothing.
I know I would be very unhappy if Chinese cloners smashed my dream.

And it is a story that keeps repeating it's self with different products every year.

On the flip side, I bought a clone micro heli after Christmas on eBay. Didn't know it was a clone until I went looking for the manufacture name in the instruction sheet.....there was none, nothing, no tiny font that I was missing. No name. No address. I am lucky. Mine works ok and I paid a cheap price.

And then there was the Bit Char-G/Microsizer clones. I bought my first micro R/C car not realizing it was a clone. Then the market got so saturated with clones that it looks like Tomy just gave up making the Bit Char-G. And as it turns out some of those clones are pretty good.
I have some Bit Char-Gs, some Microsizers, and my favorite clones, the Shen Qi Wei and Panther.

It is an econonomic war out there, China is gonna do whatever it can do to sell stuff to us and to the world, and we are going to buy from them because who has time to scrutinize every letter & font & color of every product we buy for authenticity? And the world is going to buy from them because it is cheaper to do so.
Third world markets absolutly do not care if products produced in China are the result of stolen ideas,
and they are not ever going to care, they don't have to.

Google "Chinese clones" and you will find articles about the excact copies of American car designs that China plans to market at half the price of the genuine item.

2oonhed

And I agree with those who point to the moral aspect of supporting the company which has had to bear the R&D costs - which, in this particular case, are probably greater than some seem to think! Three years ago - maybe less - a model helicopter pilot would have laughed in the face of anyone who suggested that he could produce a 'copter that could be easily flown by an eight year old and could be bought for $30!!

I'm a little surprised - not very, really - at the point raised in the OP suggesting a ten dollar difference between the price of a fake and that of the real thing. Certainly in the UK there doesn't seem to be much difference between the price of the knock-offs and that of the Silverlit item. Sure, on eBay you can find them at Buy it Now prices ranging down to 99p, but of course, the postage will always shove it back up to near the 30 quid mark.

And yes - thats thirty Pounds! Stirling! GBP! The RRP for the Picoo Z over here. (And try finding the genuine article for less than RRP. The few that I've seen advertised for less seem suspect.)

$59.16!!

This is rip-off Britain. You guys Stateside who think that fifteen quid for this item is excessive make me laugh!

ranavalona

djdare

jellobrains

jellobrains

HelEman2

Chef

Elvisisdead

Drug companies are just like every other business - they exist to make money. I'm contracting at one right now (hehe- posting from their computer, actually) and as touchy-feeley as their ads and internal communications are, they're still working hard to make money.

Don't get me wrong - they do a lot of good things, and give away a lot of drugs for humanitarian need. But they do kill further research on molecules that don't appear to be effective or profitable.

Go ahead and tell me that even cut-rate Wal-Mart doesn't modify their prices to fit the neighborhood the store's in. Different pricing in different markets is not wrong, illegal, nor even immoral.

FЯeeMan

Elvisisdead

Let me put it on a more personal level. If the company you work for only makes $0.0001 per item it sells, would you have a job tomorrow?

That's why companies price their products the way they do. If they don't make profit, they go out of business. If they go out of business, you get unemployed. For real world examples of this, go check out The 'Death Watch' series.

FЯeeMan

For the system as a whole, rip offs and patent infringement are a huge negative. I'm surprised that you even differentiated Samsung and large companies from small ones. Samsung does the same thing as any small company, but does it on a much greater scale and with many business units (mini-companies within Samsung). If everyone bought only rip offs of cell phones, dvd players, etc., innovation would come to a stand still - there would be no return on R&D investment, and it would be unprofitable to develop new products. CES would not exist.

A similar (and more complicated) dilemma is found in pharmaceuticals. People say that certain drugs should be produced for free because they are lifesaving and drug companies should have a moral obligation to give them out for free. Unfortunately, this is absurd and would destroy future drug innovations, because current drug sales must make up for innovation in future drugs, and the thousands of drugs that fail.

So, in other words - regardless whether it's Samsung or Silverlit, buying copies of products produces negative effects on innovation and technology. A perfect example is Russia : great educational institutions but terrible property/patent rights, leading to very little innovation.

But is it a moral problem for you as an individual? I would argue "yes," because it prohibits future technological advancements, and therefore damages the wellbeing of all people.

The Hoff

urge

Elvisisdead

Or, maybe you're a Socialist and think that the CEO gets paid too much and they should lower costs for you and he should earn less?

Elvisisdead

Cardinal Fang

If cost plus $.01 equates to fat cat CEOs still getting 100's of millions of dollars just for showing up, then I'd say cost plus $.0001 would be better.

You think the makers of these crappy little R/C planers are multi-millionaires? Seriously jellobrains, you and capitalism need to take a trip together and work out your differences.

moosetoga

jellobrains

My introduction to tiny RC stuff was with those little clones of the Tomy Microsizer/BitCharG cars a few years ago.
I knew they were straight up clones but they were so cheap to buy and usually worked just as well for modders like me to use as a base for a custom project that I rolled with 'em.

(also got a few clunkers on the way and learned what to look for.)

Now the technology is getting to where it's a similar situation but with flying stuff.

If I had the modding bug for these little flyers I would likely find the cheapest source and use it, clone or no.

I know it's a grey area at the very least, but I have to be honest.

strider_mt2k

BWGunner

And hey, those of us from the 70's did have the vertibird and johnny astro for our flying/house smashing/finger trashing enjoyment.

ltcmurray

jeremy662

It may "cost" both companyies $2.00 per unit parts & labor to make/box/ship etc.

However, the first company put the time into R&D whereas the second company just took it apart. So, after R&D it may "cost" the first company $12.00 per unit for the first year.

Therefore both companies profit the same #, but the second will sell more despite all the work the first company did.

Why would anyone put hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into R&D if its they are not going to get HUGE rewards at the end.

Inigo Montoya

testkahuna

However if the original company itself is a shitty company that craps on its customers... well then that sort of changes things. It's kind of like asking, what would you do if a second pirate company pirates off the first pirate company, after the original company has gone bust?

some_dude

jellobrains

soldierboyadam

chueychihuahua

callanish

But really, how is it "morally" right for a company to charge me $30 for something that can be had for $20?

So all companies should just charge cost plus $.01 for their products?

moosetoga

jtyson

jellobrains

JasonCo

chueychihuahua

CPSC recall notice

hexagon

Justapspfan

RadioShack sells the PiccoZ thing for $30 and I thought that was the original. I thought PicooZ was just a misprint.

timerider42