PD can poke fun at this because their customers probably wouldn’t even check Amazon for the products they’re looking for in the first place. At least, I suspect they tend to sell to people who specifically don’t want the kind of garbage you tend to find on Amazon these days. As a result it’s more or less a great opportunity to show off what makes them stand out. The contrast between the two products is crazy.
Thousands will buy the Basics version and never hear of PD in their lives though and that’s fine. They were never going to be PD customers.
For many people that might be alright, too. They might not care to have a better sling. It might mean nothing at all to them. Like... People who can’t tell the difference between Miracle Whip and fresh mayonnaise.
I have their 30L everyday backpack and some pouches (tech and wash) and they really are spectacular. If I lost any of them I’d be ordering replacements the same day. The attention to details and overall quality make their gear literally “buy it for life” category products. I hope I’m right and that this kind of shit Amazon Basics pulls doesn’t hurt PD’s bottom line.
> Thousands will buy the Basics version and never hear of PD in their lives though and that’s fine. They were never going to be PD customers.
Even if it were true that no overlap could have occurred between the cohorts and the pricing/existence of the AB product has no externalities upon the PD product, it's not "fine." It’s a total ripoff by a company that's supposed to be their partner.
> It’s a total ripoff by a company that's supposed to be their partner.
But Amazon is not their partner.
They are a reseller and like resellers have done since the beginning of time they will take the opportunity to cut you out if your product is successful and it's profitable for them to do so.
You’ve never walked down the cereal aisle of the grocery store, have you? For nearly every variety of cereal, you can buy the name brand sucker version, or the generic cheapskate version for $1.50 less.
Amazonbasics is just the generic version of much of the overpriced junk they sell. The only people being ripped off are the ones buying the name brand versions.
That would be the case if PD were the ones manufacturing the bags for Amazon. They do not.
Amazon is certainly allowed to make their own bags that fulfill the same function as PD's bags. What they're not allowed to do is to copy a design without permission.
I mean, in the case of cereal you’re buying garbage so any price you pay you’re still getting garbage. I don’t believe cereal and durable goods are equivalent here.
It's not just a difference in branding though if the quality varies between both products. In case of cereal you may get the exact same product coming from the exact same production line under a generic label. In case of the camera bag there are clearly differences in quality.
I own that very sling and the attention to detail is exceptional. It's hard to put down. Their clip system is rather convenient as well, including its interoperability with the Manfrotto tripods. They're expensive products, but you'll keep them for a long time.
That's not true. I own many Peak Products and also (used to, won't be doing it anymore) buy Amazon Basics products simply because they're usually better value for price than most.
You're not wrong that there are some segments of customers who would never buy Peak Design because of the price, and catering to them isn't a bad thing, but Amazon should have commissioned Peak Design for the design instead of just stealing it.
I’m certainly not saying it’s okay for Amazon to do this. I’m only saying it’s okay for PD to make fun of it because I suspect their typical customer would still prefer to buy from them. Bringing attention to it like this isn’t really a risk to them.
This is a direct attempt by Amazon Basics to steal the market from PD with a design stolen from PD. I’m not sure that’s any kind of version of okay in any industry.
I have their everyday messenger (kickstarter version) and camera strap. Both have resin parts that degraded into sticky mess after a couple of years. They were decent otherwise, but not really "for life" kind of deals.
The lack of strategic thinking here is staggering. These sort of shenanigans violate antitrust laws https://twitter.com/stacyfmitchell/status/125340839841607270... and these days more and more AGs at different levels look at FAANG (minus Netflix) with antitrust in their mind. It's just not worth fueling the fire.
This is not the first time Amazon is caught doing this. I don't believe they suffered any substantial consequences so far. They just continue ripping off products of businesses that are their partners, but Amazon as a sales channel is so vital to companies that I'm not sure even companies getting so blatantly copied are taking their products off the Amazon marketplace. This goes to show the stranglehold Amazon has on online distribution, and why it is appropriate to label it a monopoly in the light of such typically monopolistic practices and abuses. From what I could see Amazon is currently estimated as having a market share of about 50% of all ecommerce in the US.
Thanks for sharing this! Just the executive summary and core findings, readable in a few minutes, pack quite a punch. And they don't shy from criticizing other parts of government for failing to conduct proper pre-merger checks, for example. The recommendations do seem to stop short of asking for a breakup of the existing monopolies, instead seeming content to make their further growth more difficult, which may be far from sufficient to address the issue at hand.
To be fair, it is very hard for the government to successfully prosecute an anti-trust case, because of jurisprudence by Robert Bork (yes, that Bork of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre infamy and failed Supreme Court nomination) that essentially gutted antitrust law in a shameless example of judicial activism in opposition to the plain letter of the statutes:
Trouble is - I don't know what sort of consequences Amazon would find 'substantial' at this point. All the FAANGs have enough cash to shrug off billions of dollars in fines if they have to.
Your dismissive comment shows you know nothing about these matters and while my comment was a quick one as I presumed everyone is aware of these facts, let me show you a few more qualified bodies/persons who believe Amazon might have violated antitrust laws.
2. Predatory pricing has long been a concern with Amazon. This is prohibited under the Robinson‑Patman and Sherman Acts. Since Matsushita v. Zenith such cases have been few and far between but https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnz006 provides a roadmap on how this could be proven for Amazon.
3. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee antitrust subcommittee issued a report last year. https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/competition_in_dig... has this "The companies
investigated by the Subcommittee—Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google—have captured control
over key channels of distribution and have come to function as gatekeepers. Just a decade into the
future, 30% of the world’s gross economic output may lie with these firms, and just a handful of
others.
In interviews with Subcommittee staff, numerous businesses described how dominant
platforms exploit their gatekeeper power to dictate terms and extract concessions that no one would
reasonably consent to in a competitive market."
If they have an online seller monopoly position which they might have AND they are using the marketplace data to copy what sells well that's exactly the abuse of a monopoly position which antitrust protects against.
> c) Patents and copyrights are the defences that companies like Peak Design need to use.
In this case a design patent[1] (which is NOT the same as a normal patent) is the only hope. But that's pretty unlikely to succeed here given how similar the PD version is to older designs.
I totally support PD in this crusade. I’ve supported a lot of their crowdfunded campaigns and own a lot of their stuff. All very well thought out products.
I’m also very upset at people who are buying knockoff products. They are the reason why innovation companies are dying and copycat companies are thriving.
Remember Digital for example? They were super innovative. Just one example: They introduced a 64bit CPU called Alpha in 1992! And also pioneered many portable technologies, like the first laptop with 1024x768 resolution and WindowsNT support in 1996 with hardware suspend/resume support. Close lid, computer sleeps, open, wakes up in less than 1 second. (This is years before XP introduced it’s shitty hibernate/sleep support.)
HP and Compaq mainly just revere engineered Digital’s notebook line, and put it on the market for 20-30% cheaper with shitty drivers. And people choose them.
It’s easy to put something on market cheap when somebody else paid for the innovation...
Compaq ended up buying Digital in 1998. And then HP bought Compaq later.
And we ended up with shitty notebooks. HP can no longer copy somebody. Well, it tries to copy Apple now, as everybody else.
In this story a source of innovation has died because of cheap people, who were willing to buy cheap knockoff products.
There are many more stories like this unfortunately.
Only buy from source of innovation, to keep it coming.
There is a fine line though, comoditization can be a hugely benefitial thing for consumers, too. If nobody had ever ripped off the iphone, would the mobile web and app world still be a niche thing for premium users only?
I agree that Amazon's blatant copying of PD is upsetting, but I also resent the notion that consumers are to blame for this outcome.
The solution is to change the rules so that we are optimizing towards the outcomes we want to achieve. Instead, we're banking on the unlikely outcome that lots of people with limited resources will all make the altruistic decision to support these nebulous ideas we care about.
Seeing as the title has the word "copying" not "stealing" and at the time of this writing, the top comment is basically saying that Peak Design loses nothing from this[1], at least HN is consistent.
That's brilliant marketing from Peak Design and Amazon obviously copied their product features but contrary to what most commenters seem to think that is not in anyway a counterfeit.
A counterfeit has to be made in exact imitation of something valuable with the intention to deceive. It's going to be hard to confuse the Amazon bag and the Peak Design one when they don't use the same zips and straps, they don't have the same color and the Amazon brand is obvious on the Amazon one.
Both products have the same shape but that is not in anyway illegal.
The branding is not just the literal logo. The typical visual elements peculiar to Peak Design are present in the Amazon Basics version. Compare the two products in their black version, I know if I had seen the Amazon version in the wild I would've instantly thought it was a Peak Design bag.
> The branding is not just the literal logo. The typical visual elements peculiar to Peak Design are present in the Amazon Basics version.
And? The Amazon Basics definitely is a knockoff of the Peak Design one but that's perfectly legal.
Unless a product is so similar to another, a customer would be mislead, it isn't counterfeiting. The Amazon one doesn't use the same zip, doesn't use the same flap, doesn't use the same strap, isn't the same color and prominently display the Amazon Basics branding. You can't confuse it for a Peak Design bag when buying. Therefore it isn't a counterfeit.
How is peak design a competitor though here, and in which way is amazon a monopolist? Peak design sells their merchandise through several other channels, so amazon is probably not a monopolist for "selling camera bags online", and on the marketplace, peak design is more like a paying customer, not a competitor. Amazon would probably be within their rights removing Peak design completely.
It looks like Amazon reacted by at least renaming their product, I can't find Amazon Basics Everyday Sling anymore, but instead encounter the Amazon Basics Camera Bag when searching for "Everyday Sling"
I had one Peak Design strap replacement for my handheld camera which plastic anti-slip parts melted away with time making quite a mess and rendering it unusable. I wonder if it was a knock-off but I think they were official sellers in amazon back then...
Funny to see them trash on clones when their products seem pretty much the same china factory quality plastic made shit that fades away with time,just with nice marketing/branding on top just MHO
And I have 0 simpaties for amazon too... Not defending them
Trademark registrations are a formality in the US, but saves everyone a lot of time and money. In the US, it goes to whoever uses it first in commercial capacity. They will have to dispute it in court because they were using "Everyday Sling" in practice way before Amazon was.
The better argument for Amazon is that "Everyday Sling" is too generic of language similar to "Daypacks," and even Peak Design may have thought so because they did not bother to register it for years [0], [1].
> The better argument for Amazon is that "Everyday Sling" is too generic of language similar to "Daypacks,"
I don't really agree with that, because the "everyday sling" is not a sling, it's a container. It would appear to be a fanny pack supported by your shoulder instead of your waist.
A sling is a piece of cloth which supports something against gravity; the major applications are holding an injured arm and holding a baby. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sling ; the ordinary sense is noun 2(a), and there is no sense that includes a container.
It's a bag that you can wear on one shoulder. The design is going to be similar because of human anatomy. And if this company spent "years of research and development" on this simple bag, I'm sorry to say you wasted your time and money. It is a bag. With some pockets and zippers. It's not rocket science.
That said I think it is pathetic that Amazon is resorting to such blatantly unethical practices against the very sellers who make the platform work. It's a stupid move on Amazon's part long-term.
Do an image search for something like "shoulder camera bag" (to put them at least in the same ballpark) and see how many look like the Everyday Sling. I scrolled down the first few pages and there was nothing even close.
Now look at the Amazon Basics version. They even copied the leather brand tag on the side and just replaced the name.
A youtube link? Why?
I was surprised of the sound and volume. Didn't even look at the website before clicking. Quickly hit the back button, I like reading text, not being talked to by a voice post
As someone who also enjoys reading text, I tend to read the domain name before following a link, if only because some web site, like the NYT, aren't worth clicking on due to my lack of a subscription.
I feel similarly, and the text links in a sister reply were helpful. This kind of story only really needs the two images of the bags side by side to make its point.
Youtube still works fine with this setting flipped, with one difference: on the first pageload, I must explicitly click play before a video starts. This is my strong preference anyway, so I don't mind one bit.
Thousands will buy the Basics version and never hear of PD in their lives though and that’s fine. They were never going to be PD customers.
For many people that might be alright, too. They might not care to have a better sling. It might mean nothing at all to them. Like... People who can’t tell the difference between Miracle Whip and fresh mayonnaise.
I have their 30L everyday backpack and some pouches (tech and wash) and they really are spectacular. If I lost any of them I’d be ordering replacements the same day. The attention to details and overall quality make their gear literally “buy it for life” category products. I hope I’m right and that this kind of shit Amazon Basics pulls doesn’t hurt PD’s bottom line.