It is comedic. It's also stupid. Why do people have to say anything about these clones? Just vape what you have and be happy.
Last edited:
Clone Versus Authentic Discussion
- Thread starter Bronze
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It is comedic. It's also stupid. Why do people have to say anything about these clones? Just vape what you have and be happy.
That's an interesting scenario
Authentic Stingray was made with "Phantom Brass" which might be a marketing scheme only, might be Naval Brass, or who knows what it was an alloy supposedly special.
Clone Stingray was marketed as "Phantom Brass," most likely for marketing purposes to claim the closest 1:1 clone to the authentic, but for all purposes it is most likely a different alloy, wether just brass or who knows what.
Different metals, different alloys, different source of the material, can change the output of the device, and in this case on the favor of the cloner (in regard of voltage drop.)
Having said that, the electricity carrier (the mod) is not in contact with the juice and doesn't pose that much of a treat to the health as a mystery metal might be.
Also, OVERALL quality of that device is not the same as the original, but it's known that "infinite" or SXK has some acceptable level of quality and is well known, but that doesn't take anything away from their clones being just that clones and theft and not respectful to the creators with their clones.
Last edited:
Please go away, although you might be the all time clone owner, since the word authentic is foreign to you [emoji4]
I want to take a step back from the vaping industry. Cloning is a very common thing across industries. Let`s try the example of music/movies.
Probably at least 12-13 years ago, Napster was introduced a way to illegally download music/movies by using a P2P connection.Since then we have seen different versions of this including illegal streaming, torrent (another P2P), uploading sites (rapidshare, megaupload etc.), downloading from Youtube etc. Actually now that I think of it, before there was Napster, I was recording the songs I like from the radio shows to a cassette.
The concept of downloading music is a bit different than buying clones. When you download music, you don`t necessarily give someone money (excluding rapidshare where you would pay monthly fee, or advertisement revenues of the torrent websites) but you technically directly steal from the artist as it is now a lost sale. I believe the greatest victory was Metallica vs. Napster which eventually led Napster closing its doors. In some cases internet service providers try to predict if you are downloading something illegal and send you mail to warn you (This is actually a US thing, it doesn`t happen in other parts of the world). But in the end it didn`t stop other means of downloading music illegally.
As a result of illegal downloading, first, the artist got marketing, second it created new technologies to counteract illegal downloading. For example we know have Spotify or Pandora to stream music with a low monthly fee and feel good about ourselves. Or watch movies on Netflix, Hulu etc.
However I want to talk about the marketing part. For most of the famous artists, revenue comes from not actual album sales, but from sponsorship and most importantly concerts. Therefore even if someone downloaded their album illegally, this at least increased the chance of the downloader to go to one of the concerts. This is just an example.
Unfortunately with e-cigarettes, the only way you can make money is to sell the device/tank. There is no other source of revenue. And when this revenue stream is altered by cloners, it can potentially stop or hinder R&D from reputable companies. Because technically buying a clone is same as downloading an album and therefore same as stealing. Plus, when you buy a clone, not only you are stealing money from the original producer but also giving money to the cloner.
On the other hand, clones increase accessibility and therefore popularity of e-cigarettes. As a result, market size increases hence gives more potential customers to original producers as well. It also creates a challenge, and push original manufacturers to innovate more quickly or drastically. I am 99% sure that if there wasn`t illegal downloading of music, we wouldn`t have Spotify today.
And then there is the money issue. Technically, if you were smoking before, you can save money to buy the original. But as ricks mentioned couple of times, he believes it is not about having not enough money but it is about not getting"ripped of". I am personally against this BUT then again for most of my life I downloaded illegal music/movie/software etc. so who am I to judge? I am pretty sure everyone here who is completely against clones, actually did something illegal as in their life time as well.
So although I am pro authentic and against clones, I tried to explain the fundamentals of cloning and the effect of it on the industry. I can`t judge anyone who use clones, but I can try to encourage them to buy more authentics, at least after trying the clone. My 2 cents.
Probably at least 12-13 years ago, Napster was introduced a way to illegally download music/movies by using a P2P connection.Since then we have seen different versions of this including illegal streaming, torrent (another P2P), uploading sites (rapidshare, megaupload etc.), downloading from Youtube etc. Actually now that I think of it, before there was Napster, I was recording the songs I like from the radio shows to a cassette.
The concept of downloading music is a bit different than buying clones. When you download music, you don`t necessarily give someone money (excluding rapidshare where you would pay monthly fee, or advertisement revenues of the torrent websites) but you technically directly steal from the artist as it is now a lost sale. I believe the greatest victory was Metallica vs. Napster which eventually led Napster closing its doors. In some cases internet service providers try to predict if you are downloading something illegal and send you mail to warn you (This is actually a US thing, it doesn`t happen in other parts of the world). But in the end it didn`t stop other means of downloading music illegally.
As a result of illegal downloading, first, the artist got marketing, second it created new technologies to counteract illegal downloading. For example we know have Spotify or Pandora to stream music with a low monthly fee and feel good about ourselves. Or watch movies on Netflix, Hulu etc.
However I want to talk about the marketing part. For most of the famous artists, revenue comes from not actual album sales, but from sponsorship and most importantly concerts. Therefore even if someone downloaded their album illegally, this at least increased the chance of the downloader to go to one of the concerts. This is just an example.
Unfortunately with e-cigarettes, the only way you can make money is to sell the device/tank. There is no other source of revenue. And when this revenue stream is altered by cloners, it can potentially stop or hinder R&D from reputable companies. Because technically buying a clone is same as downloading an album and therefore same as stealing. Plus, when you buy a clone, not only you are stealing money from the original producer but also giving money to the cloner.
On the other hand, clones increase accessibility and therefore popularity of e-cigarettes. As a result, market size increases hence gives more potential customers to original producers as well. It also creates a challenge, and push original manufacturers to innovate more quickly or drastically. I am 99% sure that if there wasn`t illegal downloading of music, we wouldn`t have Spotify today.
And then there is the money issue. Technically, if you were smoking before, you can save money to buy the original. But as ricks mentioned couple of times, he believes it is not about having not enough money but it is about not getting"ripped of". I am personally against this BUT then again for most of my life I downloaded illegal music/movie/software etc. so who am I to judge? I am pretty sure everyone here who is completely against clones, actually did something illegal as in their life time as well.
So although I am pro authentic and against clones, I tried to explain the fundamentals of cloning and the effect of it on the industry. I can`t judge anyone who use clones, but I can try to encourage them to buy more authentics, at least after trying the clone. My 2 cents.
You go away... I thought you said you were gone from this thread awhile ago.
Slow clap!
Well said! I agree almost completely.
This is an argument that will never end, but the facts are there.
Authentic manufacturers CAN do more to lower costs, but it won't be in the blink of an eye and there's just no way for it to be a drastic change, it takes time and effort, and sometimes compromises.
Lately I find myself buying more and more liquids and it's costing me as much money as what my cigarettes used to cost me from overseas. I need to find a cheaper liquid supplier.
True, they can lower the costs but to what degree. For example if Kayfun v4 was $80, ricks would you buy the authentic or the clone?
In an ideal market, supply has to match demand, similarly, the price of something has to match the amount of money consumers are willing to spend, like Adam Smith`s invisible hand theory.
But, when you introduce clones to the mix, the market is not ideal anymore. Because original manufacturers can`t sell it for $20 no matter what, while there are cloners out there who most certainly will.
Now you have created two different sets of consumers.One set who is willing to pay for authentic for whatever reason (principle, quality etc), and another set who is mostly buying clones. Under this market structure, we now have two "invisible hands", one for each set of consumers. i.e. if cloners increase the price from $20 to $80, they might lose their customers to authentic producers etc.
So technically, original producers must be happy, otherwise they would decrease the price. But, they decide to differentiate themselves from the clones. If one day, they decide to sell 100,000 units instead of 1000, they will decrease the price. If not, they won`t decrease it. Plus, if they aim to sell 100,000 units, because of the economies of scale, their costs will go down as well.
What I believe is that since this industry is new, there is not enough segregation between brands (i.e. ford vs. bmw vs. ferrari), and there isn`t enough market information to make strategic decisions i.e. at what price I should sell this atty so I can maximize my profit?
One of the reasons why companies grow is that they know how to calculate strategic risks and in this case to answer the question of how to maximize profitability. Since clone market is a given, then you have to adjust your own strategy. Over time, the companies that can navigate through this will prevail, while others will not survive.
Sorry, I am also an analyst in my daily job, I couldn`t help myself
In an ideal market, supply has to match demand, similarly, the price of something has to match the amount of money consumers are willing to spend, like Adam Smith`s invisible hand theory.
But, when you introduce clones to the mix, the market is not ideal anymore. Because original manufacturers can`t sell it for $20 no matter what, while there are cloners out there who most certainly will.
Now you have created two different sets of consumers.One set who is willing to pay for authentic for whatever reason (principle, quality etc), and another set who is mostly buying clones. Under this market structure, we now have two "invisible hands", one for each set of consumers. i.e. if cloners increase the price from $20 to $80, they might lose their customers to authentic producers etc.
So technically, original producers must be happy, otherwise they would decrease the price. But, they decide to differentiate themselves from the clones. If one day, they decide to sell 100,000 units instead of 1000, they will decrease the price. If not, they won`t decrease it. Plus, if they aim to sell 100,000 units, because of the economies of scale, their costs will go down as well.
What I believe is that since this industry is new, there is not enough segregation between brands (i.e. ford vs. bmw vs. ferrari), and there isn`t enough market information to make strategic decisions i.e. at what price I should sell this atty so I can maximize my profit?
One of the reasons why companies grow is that they know how to calculate strategic risks and in this case to answer the question of how to maximize profitability. Since clone market is a given, then you have to adjust your own strategy. Over time, the companies that can navigate through this will prevail, while others will not survive.
Sorry, I am also an analyst in my daily job, I couldn`t help myself
True, they can lower the costs but to what degree. For example if Kayfun v4 was $80, ricks would you buy the authentic or the clone?
In an ideal market, supply has to match demand, similarly, the price of something has to match the amount of money consumers are willing to spend, like Adam Smith`s invisible hand theory.
But, when you introduce clones to the mix, the market is not ideal anymore. Because original manufacturers can`t sell it for $20 no matter what, while there are cloners out there who most certainly will.
Now you have created two different sets of consumers.One set who is willing to pay for authentic for whatever reason (principle, quality etc), and another set who is mostly buying clones. Under this market structure, we now have two "invisible hands", one for each set of consumers. i.e. if cloners increase the price from $20 to $80, they might lose their customers to authentic producers etc.
So technically, original producers must be happy, otherwise they would decrease the price. But, they decide to differentiate themselves from the clones. If one day, they decide to sell 100,000 units instead of 1000, they will decrease the price. If not, they won`t decrease it. Plus, if they aim to sell 100,000 units, because of the economies of scale, their costs will go down as well.
What I believe is that since this industry is new, there is not enough segregation between brands (i.e. ford vs. bmw vs. ferrari), and there isn`t enough market information to make strategic decisions i.e. at what price I should sell this atty so I can maximize my profit?
One of the reasons why companies grow is that they know how to calculate strategic risks and in this case to answer the question of how to maximize profitability. Since clone market is a given, then you have to adjust your own strategy. Over time, the companies that can navigate through this will prevail, while others will not survive.
Sorry, I am also an analyst in my daily job, I couldn`t help myself
Exactly!
(I'm an analyst myself not only in my job, but on my daily life)
Thanks for my hard laugh of the day. One of the technical videos I ever watched. PB would be on the floor laughing.
If you only knew what you were talking about. You must vape like a xxxx...
I know where this is going. I say "Not the ones I have" and you go "But mine does" and we're at square one. No harm in that
All I can say is that all the gear I either own or have handled clones and originals of, there are nits to pick with all the clones. Possibly with the exception of my Magma clone. That one's pretty decent. And the OEM Aqua v2 'clone', but that's another story. I have yet to see a gennie clone get it perfectly right, tho. Even little things like loose fasteners makes all the difference in level of annoyance - like an unreliable setup. Get the wick/coil/screw 'geometry' slightly wrong, and you're looking at a yet another level of annoyance - like hot legs. Use the wrong materials in insulators - like melty plastic instead of PEEK in a Dome, and you got a pretty useless atty.
Not really joining the discussion here lol. It's neither in my interest nor ability - to change anyones views. Just stating my experience with clones.
WattWick is psychic!!!
After a year of vaping and being on this forum, I'm left with thinking some people need to get over it and think of it thus way... clone or authentic, does it matter? Will the earth stop spinning?
If someone buys an authentic and they have am elitist attitude, are you going to lose sleep over it? Its an internet forum, be glad you're not around that person in real life.
For the record this is coming from a person with both clone and authentic .
I'm glad this thread is here though, maybe focus can be put on helping people rather than arguing with them.
Last edited:
"Shin's pistol was a fifty-year-old Vietnamese imitation of a South American copy of a Walther PPK"
~ Neuromancer by William Gibson
~ Neuromancer by William Gibson
Found a great deal on a KF4 Clone. Not for me but for someone to try??? http://www.gearbest.com/electronic-cigarettes/pp_127081.html
Read=I can't refute what you say, so I'm going to say some more snotty quips.
Fyi I have some authentic gear, so not only was your post snotty and paramount to admitting defeat per standard debate guidelines, it was also off base.
Exactly how technical do you need it to be? Not enough production value for you?
Same battery, same atty, same meter....same pretest voltage, different levels if drop, clone the more favorable.
This thread was set up as a joke. No one here is going to change anyone's mind. If you don't care about stealing buy a clone, and if someone steals from you one day just smile.
I think FT sells eLiquid ... I hear the quality is on par with their knockoff clones.
might be the excess machine oil
- Status
Similar threads
