There is nothing wrong with "stealing" ideas, it is outright "copying" that is bad

Look at it another way – the manufacturers are under a lot of pressure. They need to design something that sort of, kind of, maybe looks like a successful product that the general public favors and desires. Then, said manufacturer needs to put in the extra thought that will actually differentiate its creation, set it apart and place it in its own niche. It is in this process that true innovation can be found, and anyone who pulls it off should be considered creative.

That's how it goes – when someone's good idea goes out into the world, it gets copied, it gets tweaked, expanded upon, and meddled with. It gets its own “life” of sorts, and starts developing when jumping from one inventor's noggin to the other. Just take a look back at how Android and iOS have been borrowing from one another throughout the years. Whatever technology it is, eventually, it reaches a peak – a place from where it can't evolve much further, and it becomes a standard – something that we are so used to that we can't imagine anyone building it in any other way. Said standard is no longer called a stolen concept – it is the result of years of bouncing back and forth between different competitors who, in their constant rivalry, have managed to develop it, push it, and perfect it.

But why not go really crazy and, instead of bouncing the same tweak concepts back and forth, create something totally different that disrupts the market, you ask? Trying to “innovate” way too much may hurt a company much more than it would do it good. The first iPhone, back in 2007, was greeted by mixed reactions – it was often berated for not having a physical keyboard and lacking a stylus, and underestimated by competitors (their mistake). As previously mentioned – we humans can often fail to recognize a good idea, just because it looks alien and outlandish at first sight. Apple, however, had a devout fan following, a strong marketing campaign, and a decisive push that actually got the thing in front of people's eyes and on the back of their minds. If not for these factors – the iPhone could've easily crashed and burned. But how many times in a decade (or two) can humanity actually re-invent a type of tech in a way that it disrupts a certain industry? And, even if a visionary company manages to conceive and build the “next disruptor” – it will definitely need to invest a considerable amount of resources in backing it up and keeping the project floating until people “get it”.

Now, looking at the cut-throat market of today, who would be willing to take such a risk? That's right – nobody. The bottom line is that until the market gets over-saturated, tech advancements slow down, and sales chill out, there will be no need for anybody to make such a “make it or break it” attempt. In fact, everyone is so infatuated with the current type of smartphone, which is still in its evolution state, that I am not even certain if anyone has the imagination to actually come up with something vastly different. For that reason, we are stuck with companies re-making and re-imagining the same successful formula over and over. And, it just so happens that a “successful formula” for a smartphone is determined by a popularity contest... and we all know who's been winning that for a while now.

This absolutely does not mean that carbon copies are OK

Let me just make it clear that companies that try to turn a quick buck by building a carbon-copy product with junkyard parts irk me as much as the next guy. Also, I am no fan of naming scheme copying – the fact that so many phablets that come from Chinese manufacturers are dubbed "Note" just rubs me the wrong way (not even going to mention the MiPad... oh, wait – I did).



Not everybody reads up on tech news, not everybody follows the smartphone market closely, and there are relatively few people out there in the world, who understand the rule that "If it looks too good to be true – it probably isn't" (in the context of seeing a super cheap price-tag on a top-tier smartphone). Users who get duped into buying a counterfeit Galaxy S6 may eventually find out that they have been sold a potato, but the fact remains that, from now on, their brain will be hardwired to doubt Samsung products – because the only “real” experience they've had with one would actually be this pretty “fake” one. Users who buy the “Super-awesome iCommunicator Note” may learn to associate the word “Note” with “paperweight-that-looks-like-a-phone”, which puts Samsung's Note line in danger of losing potential buyers.

My point is that carbon copies, or attempts to ride the fame wave of a phone's name, may actually hurt the originator companies – the one that put the money and effort into developing and perfecting the tech that we all love and use on a day-to-day basis. So, to make it absolutely clear, I may like to play devil's advocate when a certain company “draws inspiration” from another, but outright copying is never OK, and I often suggest against the purchasing of such products – to protect the customer, and to deprive the manufacturer of at least a bit of profit.