Other thoughts on Clones/Counterfeits

[forcedfuel50]

You make some good points DoubleEwe.

I will say, what triggered me to write this thread and still my main beef, are those who are justifying clones by making assertions that US Manufacturers are greedy, selfish and fleecing the community. Their rallying cry is nothing short of "death to US Manufacturers, the greedy lot! " I mentioned it before, but I do give them a pass as I think what is happening is they are bunching the actual manufacturers in with re-sellers(and that's not to say re-sellers are greedy either, but manufacturing has far more overhead then does buying and re-selling products).

 

[snork]

The thing is, when it comes to people who buy clones with the justification that it's because of price, you'll never convince them to spend money on the original because they have assuaged their conscience with a lie. Either they 1) can afford it but wont because they want something they don't want to pay for so they feel comfortable convincing themselves intellectual theft is ok or 2) can't afford it and simply refuse to buy a non-clone product. At roughly $150 a month to smoke a pack a day, very few smokers turned vapers can't afford an original mod and atty with a little budget shifting.

Your 1) and 2) nail it. There is absolutely no reason a clone *must* be purchased if a mod is nothing but a tube, a cap and a button.
If a person buys something solely because they admire the looks, performance or prestige of that object, those attributes didn't come out of thin air. They were thought up and implemented by a person or people. A Super-T, a Nemesis, a Stingray, the list goes on, are coveted for tangible reasons beyond tubes and caps. Why is it so unreasonable to respect the originators? After all, you bought a Stingray clone because Stingrays are good performers, look cool, whatever floats your boat. JD Tech in the Philippines didn't rip anybody off, he gave the world a Stingray! Sticking it to The Man by buying something cheap that replicates exactly what The Man gave you does nothing but put you in a vicious circle of shallow lame hypocrisy; if you really want to stick it to The Man you buy something different, better, and RESPECT your new Man by paying whatever price he's asking for it.

That's how you would like to be treated, right?

 

[DoubleEwe]

You make some good points DoubleEwe.

I will say, what triggered me to write this thread and still my main beef, are those who are justifying clones by making assertions that US Manufacturers are greedy, selfish and fleecing the community. Their rallying cry is nothing short of "death to US Manufacturers, the greedy lot! " I mentioned it before, but I do give them a pass as I think what is happening is they are bunching the actual manufacturers in with re-sellers(and that's not to say re-sellers are greedy either, but manufacturing has far more overhead then does buying and re-selling products).

I do agree with you, the label of 'greedy' is banded about a lot when it comes to mod manufacturers, I also agree that your company (along with a few others) should not be tarred with this brush. There are some honest companies that manufacture a great product that has broken moulds and actually produced something worthy of the price tag.

However, there are other companies that only partly manufacture their mods (or the resellers as you stated), the ones that spout off trying to justify their prices by citing R & D as a large cost when all they have actually done is copy another mod design and changed the logo/etching plus added a few lines on the top cap and locking ring. Other manufacturers do not show the same level of commitment to their product as you, nor do they put the time into creating from the ground up.

 

[HauntedMyst]

The 'you used to smoke X packs of cigarettes a day, which means you have Y amount to spend a month' argument is a joke, many people switched to vaping because they wanted to reduce the money they were spending on their nicotine addiction (and be 'healthier' in the process). When you factor in the cost of juices the Y value is reduced substantially. Personally I used to roll my own cigarettes which cost me $80 a month or so, juices cost me in the same region per month. Therefore my 'smoking budget' leaves me sweet FA for vaping supplies other than juice.

The intellectual theft issue is a bit strong, no matter how well machined something is it does still boil down to the same simple elements - a tube, a button and a top cap connector. Now if these widely varied from manufacturer to manufacturer then you would have a point, but considering they all use the 510 connection and all use a tube the only other part is the button. Even the button has only 3 different designs, side button, recessed bottom button or protruding bottom button, all of the bottom buttons work in the same way, either using a spring or a magnet (neither of which will be built in house).
So the only part that could be considered theft is the logo, yes, I do believe that it is wrong to replicate someone else's logo. I do however believe that the 'cloners' could (and should) use their own logo design, which is what is starting to happen now.

I do think that a lot of the original manufacturers do not make the most of the potential of their products in terms of selling.
Aside from this, I do not understand why the original mods made in the Philippines are sold for such high prices...

Actually, the pack a day argument makes perfect sense for those who actually purchased packs. For those with roll your own, the numbers just change but the argument is still valid. I spend about $100 a quarter on juice and I chain vape. DIY is super easy if you let it be so if you are budget conscious, it's the biggest way ti save money. With your $80 a month budget, you could easily DIY and buy an original mod/atty and save money over a short amount of time.

As for the intellectual theft issue. If it's just a tube, button or 510 connector then any deice will do. When someone goes out of their way to get a device that has specific qualities copied from an original design, they are no longer just looking for a tube, button and 510 connector. They are looking for the characteristics that make the original appealing to them. They just don't want to pay for it. Hence the need to assuage themselves that buying a clone is ethical and moral even if it is legal.

As for manufacturers not maximizing their sales potential, that's their business.

 

[DoubleEwe]

We all know that the original design was taken from that of a flashlight, so your argument is slightly moot on that front.

As for the aesthetics argument, yes, that is the case to some extent, I agree that I will buy something if I like the way it looks along with it's functionality, but I could not care less if it had
a) Been designed in America or
b) Been designed by someone in China.
If I like a design then I like it regardless of who designed it or how popular the 'original' mod was.

Why should I not have something that I like the look of? Is it my fault that from the choices available to me I choose a design which is a copy, simply because I like it?

Clones are made due to demand for the product being a known quantity, meaning that it is less of a gamble for them to produce it in large quantities (giving reduced unit cost) rather than taking a punt on a unique design of their own. It makes financial sense.

I would happily buy a Chinese original, or a logo-less mod that I can get etched/engraved to my own liking (and cost).

As for the DIY juices, yes, I could make my own juice and save money for an original mod, I have thought about doing that and will do at some point.
It does however mean that I would not be giving my money to UK or US juice makers...

And yes, it is their own business what they do, I was merely stating what I think could be done to tackle the clone issue head on, along with increasing company profits through utilization of possible alternative revenue steams.

 

[HauntedMyst]

We all know that the original design was taken from that of a flashlight, so your argument is slightly moot on that front.

As for the aesthetics argument, yes, that is the case to some extent, I agree that I will buy something if I like the way it looks along with it's functionality, but I could not care less if it had
a) Been designed in America or
b) Been designed by someone in China.
If I like a design then I like it regardless of who designed it or how popular the 'original' mod was.

Why should I not have something that I like the look of? Is it my fault that from the choices available to me I choose a design which is a copy, simply because I like it?

Clones are made due to demand for the product being a known quantity, meaning that it is less of a gamble for them to produce it in large quantities (giving reduced unit cost) rather than taking a punt on a unique design of their own. It makes financial sense.

There is nothing at all wrong about liking the way your mod looks! But yes, it is your fault for buying a clone when the original is available, even if the only thing you like about it is it's looks. That is the essence of the argument. Getting that look took effort, time, money, knowledge, education and creativity on the part of the designer. That's the key misunderstanding with clone buyers. That "look" has value. To them it's like saying "Why should I buy a copy of Windows when I can just copy my friends for the cost of the disk? Bill Gates is just ripping me off!" They have no idea of the hundreds of thousands of man hours and dollars spent to produce each new version before MS ever makes a dime from it. The same holds true on a smaller scale for mod makers. I would guess the vast majority of clone buyers have never created anything of value or brought any product to market, they go into buying with the narrow mindset of a consumer which is "Get as much as I can with as little money spent as possible" rather than considering the actual costs involved with doing so. And that makes great short term sense but in the long term does nothing for maintaining or advancing the market. Making a clone requires much less effort and is much more affordable and while it grows the industry in the short term, in the long term it hurts product advancements.

 

[DoubleEwe]

There is nothing at all wrong about liking the way your mod looks! But yes, it is your fault for buying a clone when the original is available, even if the only thing you like about it is it's looks. That is the essence of the argument. Getting that look took effort, time, money, knowledge, education and creativity on the part of the designer. That's the key misunderstanding with clone buyers. That "look" has value. To them it's like saying "Why should I buy a copy of Windows when I can just copy my friends for the cost of the disk? Bill Gates is just ripping me off!" They have no idea of the hundreds of thousands of man hours and dollars spent to produce each new version before MS ever makes a dime from it. The same holds true on a smaller scale for mod makers. I would guess the vast majority of clone buyers have never created anything of value or brought any product to market, they go into buying with the narrow mindset of a consumer which is "Get as much as I can with as little money spent as possible" rather than considering the actual costs involved with doing so. And that makes great short term sense but in the long term does nothing for maintaining or advancing the market. Making a clone requires much less effort and is much more affordable and while it grows the industry in the short term, in the long term it hurts product advancements.

For starters there are free alternatives to windows for those who feel that Bill Gates is ripping them off (or whatever reason), Linux for example, along with a lot of other 'open source' software. Open source software has been created by those who feel that software should be free (including products similar to photoshop etc) and not just available to those with money.

The factors you list as the input for the end result of creating a good-looking mod are a little far fetched. Admittedly some manufacturers (as I have stated before) create from the ground up, innovating to create solutions to the problem of 'how do I get power from a battery to an atomizer', but the vast majority of mod manufacturers simply use an existing mod design and slightly change the aesthetics. This requires no engineering ability whatsoever, the only part that requires some skill is turning their 'new' design into a CAD file (or whatever format). Then obviously the CNC programming (which is unlikely to be done by the designer).
I could list mods that follow this pattern, but it would be a waste of time, I will just let you check out the 'variety' of mods when you next look at an online vape shop.

The look is indeed what people want, the performance is a secondary concern for the hoi polloi.
We know that people will pay what they think the product is worth to them, so the problem lies with the manufacturers that charge the premium price despite their product being neither innovative nor premium quality, but they feel they can charge the price due to other more worthy (of the price tag) manufacturers charging it. It becomes the 'going rate' for original mods.

This is the problem and is why people (clone buyers) feel like they are being scammed, it is not ALL the manufacturers, it is the ones that hike up their prices undeservedly, it is like Honda trying to sell their cars for the same prices as Ferrari.

As for the 'hurts product advancements', I feel that it does the opposite, it encourages designers/manufacturers to come up with NEW designs, innovations etc. Most of the Mod makers create their mods in small batches (as a reduced risk), these batches sell out, then they move on to their next mod, they don't plan on releasing more of the same product because it dilutes the exclusivity of their mods and therefore would lower the desirability (in collectors' eyes).
I realise that some manufacturers do continue to manufacture their mod/mods on a regular basis, and these are the ones that are actually worth the price, they are not cookie cutter mods.

 

[HauntedMyst]

For starters there are free alternatives to windows for those who feel that Bill Gates is ripping them off (or whatever reason), Linux for example, along with a lot of other 'open source' software. Open source software has been created by those who feel that software should be free (including products similar to photoshop etc) and not just available to those with money.

This is the problem and is why people (clone buyers) feel like they are being scammed, it is not ALL the manufacturers, it is the ones that hike up their prices undeservedly, it is like Honda trying to sell their cars for the same prices as Ferrari.

I realise that some manufacturers do continue to manufacture their mod/mods on a regular basis, and these are the ones that are actually worth the price, they are not cookie cutter mods.

I understand open source software and it's options but it doesn't stop a 60% piracy rate world wide of commercial software and $21B lost revenue to businesses (2011 figures). It ties back perfectly to the e-cig clone world. Some people don't want to pay for what they want, or in this case pay what the OEM is asking for it. In the e-cig world, they wait for someone in China to clone it and then buy that product. You said, "This is the problem and is why people (clone buyers) feel like they are being scammed" Who is scamming them? Who is forcing them to buy any product? I think that is the fundamental flaw in the clone buyers thinking. No one is forcing them to buy anything. There are plenty of other options available. Instead they think they are entitled to what they want for as little as they want to pay and China fulfills that need largely because that's their culture. They have no qualms about copying the work of others. They have no problem ripping of others wholesale if they can get away with it. They can get away with it in ecigs because the market is so small. It also feeds the western consumer mindset - a problem we created ourselves by demanding more and more for less and less.

FYI, if you think my ideas for creating a mod are far fetched, you've clearly never created anything of value and brought it to market.

As I said at the beginning of this, no one is ever going to convince clone buyers to buy originals because they will find a justification not too. Things like the cookie cutter argument is a perfect example.

 

[DoubleEwe]

The scamming part comes from the makers charging the premium rate for a non-premium product, having jumped on the price point set by actual premium product makers. Yes, I can see that this is a way to increase profits and yes, I do know that people neither have to buy it nor agree with the pricing. This is not all mod makers, as I have said before, some do warrant the price, but many (mainly the newer ones) do not.

If I market a common or garden stick as the 'latest must have 100% organic lignified support staff' and charge $1000 for it then yes, some people will pay that, but the rest of the population will not value it as highly and will seek alternatives despite wanting a stick. Just look at Cristal champagne, Five Pawns, or Harrods (department store), these all set a high price point despite their products being of the same quality as lower priced alternatives, but people still choose to buy from them because of the subliminal connection between price and quality in their minds. Others see through this.

If making a mod was the way you describe then there would be far less people doing it. Every week there seems to be a new company offering their 'fantastic new mod', new e-juice or new online store.
The marketing these days is far cheaper than in the antiquated system you envisage, social media plays a massive part along with youtube and the like. It is far easier these days to reach a wide audience without having to spend a fortune on adverts and other conventional marketing methods, it still takes man power, but is far less of a financial drain than it used to be.

No, I have not brought a product to market, but that does not stop me from being able to form an opinion on the subject based on my knowledge and experiences. I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I have worked in procurement (within the engineering sector) for a number of years.

I do agree that the clone vs authentic debate will never yield any results in terms of changing peoples' opinions.

I also agree with the statement in your signature (2nd part of it)

 

[kazimir]

You all should really drop the pirating analogy as it doesn't work. If Windows wasn't as pirated, not EVERYONE would know it. Thus, businesses would be less inclined to largely use it exclusively. This would result in a huge financial loss to MS if businesses change OSs as the support contracts are where MS makes the vast majority of its money. The residential sales barely compare.

This is very similar to the HBO CEO saying he was fine with people pirating HBO shows as this leads to securing future sales. Hardware and software follow very different rules to cloning/pirating.

 

[HauntedMyst]

You all should really drop the pirating analogy as it doesn't work. If Windows wasn't as pirated, not EVERYONE would know it. Thus, businesses would be less inclined to largely use it exclusively. This results in a huge financial loss to MS if businesses change OSs as the support contracts are where MS makes the vast majority of its money. The residential sales barely compare.

That makes absolutely no sense. lol It's like saying that if some people didn't rob banks, banks wouldn't be as popular. FYI, I worked for MS most of the 90's. People pirating it did nothing for increasing sales. MS makes most of their money from annual licensing sales.

 

[kazimir]

That makes absolutely no sense. lol It's like saying that if some people didn't rob banks, banks wouldn't be as popular. FYI, I worked for MS most of the 90's. People pirating it did nothing for increasing sales. MS makes most of their money from annual licensing sales.

It has to do with cost to train and the cost of business licenses and support contracts. When people use software that they are not familiar with they need trained. Training programs need developed, people need to teach users, and a support system needs to be active. Windows is often the OS of choice because people know it and it eliminates the need to train. If Windows was not the primary OS in use by a MASSIVE margin, businesses may be more incline to use other products. If you have seen a PO for volume licenses and support contracts, you would understand just how expensive they are. Its no where near the same as going to Microcenter and buying a $100 oem or $300 retail edition of Windows.

When you buy your home licenses, you have 4 PCs so you spend $400-$1200 on an upgrade cycle of once every 4 years or so meaning you spent $100-$300 a year for you household. When a business buys volume licenses, they spend $30-$100k+ for the initial license. Then they spend about that amount annually for the support contracts.

 

[HauntedMyst]

It has to do with cost to train and the cost of business licenses and support contracts. When people use software that they are not familiar with they need trained. Training programs need developed, people need to teach users, and a support system needs to be active. Windows is often the OS of choice because people know it and it eliminates the need to train. If Windows was not the primary OS in use by a MASSIVE margin, businesses may be more incline to use other products. If you have seen a PO for volume licenses and support contracts, you would understand just how expensive they are. Its no where near the same as going to Microcenter and buying a $100 oem or $300 retail edition of Windows.

When you buy your home licenses, you have 4 PCs so you spend $400-$1200 on an upgrade cycle of once every 4 years or so meaning you spent $100-$300 a year for you household. When a business buys volume licenses, they spend $30-$100k+ for the initial license. Then they spend about that amount annually for the support contracts.

Your point is still wildly invalid. You are saying that because people stole Windows, they didn't need to be trained on it and therefore saved Microsoft money? Utter nonsense. Corporations standardized on Windows because it was the most stable and successful commercial platform for the PC of the 90's (It didn't exactly have a lot of competition). Having a standardized platform saves corporations time and money by not having to manage multiple desktop OS's. Now it's keep in place because it's a legacy product that people are familiar with and there still isn't a large commercial alternative (Though the Apple/IBM agreement may change that in the future).

 

[poconojo]

I recently purchased a Terminator from Stormys. I tried to get the Odysseus but was unable to find one at a good price. I feel guilty for my purchase, but I really wanted to try the R/NR set-up. I will eventually buy an Odysseus when the time comes. This is the first cloned device I have ever bought. If the Odysseus was still available I would have purchased one from the original mod maker.

 

[sdcopp]

I wholeheartedly agree with you Forcedfuel, it is getting ridiculous with the shaming of vendors for their prices. It's a sign of the times though in the mod market. I was just telling people the other day how around 2ish years ago, the mod market we have today didn't even exist. The serial numbers and limited editions have unfortunately led to the price hike and in some cases it is the mod maker gouging the consumer because that's how the market is. Thankfully Super-T and a few of the other "old school" mod makers have just stayed the course and for that I forever suggest those companies for a good, reliable well priced mod