23. It's like Flickr,
a lot like Flickr--and maybe better. Better at some things.
Stories. Upload limits.
The layout. Ordering prints. They are doing things from the beginning that Flickr worked a couple years to figure out in the
first place. Flickr of course is
way ahead of 23 in numbers (people and money). Does it make sense to challenge that lead? (And to do so with an
overt knock-off?) If 23 provides a better service, should they lose out for being second to the party? How can they pay their
debt of gratitude to Flickr for being the obvious inspiration and an open-book instruction manual, and should they? When does the flattery of imitation become legitimate--or illegitimate--competition? Notice in the
terms they claim ownership of the concept and the design. Can 23 apply for any of the street cred Flickr may have given up in favor of being Yahoo!ed? Is it reasonable to expect better work from a
scrappy upstart than a happy sell-out? Can two successful photo sharing sites
co-exist, or join forces? Is there enough community to support
more than one
good one?
posted by airguitar
on Nov 26, 2005 -
32 comments
Apple: Innovator & Oppressor of Independent Software: As they once did with Karelia's
Watson software and, to a certain extent, Panic's
Audion, Apple has "borrowed" a concept from an independent, third-party developer without credit or compensation. It would seem that Steve Jobs is not as far removed from Bill Gates as he would like the Mac faithful to believe . . .
posted by aladfar
on Oct 27, 2003 -
31 comments
