> Aside from where you've only duplicated something that already exists (in which case why bother?)

If we had stopped reiterating on the wheel our cars would drive on wooden logs.

Of course, a wheel doesn't duplicate a wooden log. The wheel most certainly 'wow'-ed people when it was first introduced.

But if you release a wheel today, same as any other wheel you can already buy, don't expect much fanfare.

▲

Yokohiii 2 days ago | parent [-]

My point (and that of the previous poster) is that "wow" isn't required as an initial property to do anything. Pretty sure the dude who made the first wheel just did something that was useful for him in that situation. He didn't think how he could do something to impress his peers. He maybe wasn't even aware he made the first wheel or something innovative.

Also if I'd dive into how F1 wheels are made, I'd expect I learn stuff that is fascinating and far from boring.

▲

9rx 2 days ago | parent [-]

The question asked — paraphrasing to include the context you have added — is how you could create something like a wheel, or a novel adaptation on the wheel like an F1 wheel, without sparking 'wow'? It just doesn't seem impossible. You may not come with the intent to create 'wow', but it is going to happen anyway.

▲

Yokohiii 2 days ago | parent [-]

I am confused on your use of "duplicating".

I think straight duplication is quite unlikely. You even say it's inevitable. Which is also confusing. Most code written is probably quite unremarkable, yet useful. Usefulness is a dominating factor, wow has a lot of depends.

▲

9rx 2 days ago | parent [-]

> I think straight duplication is quite unlikely.

Is it? There are many different people selling wheels that are all pretty much indistinguishable from one another. The first one no doubt brought the 'wow'. But when the second person showed up with the same thing, what 'wow' would there be?

Our entire system of trade assumes that duplication occurs as an intrinsic piece, with the only defining difference in that duplication is the effort to make the same thing for cheaper. Otherwise known as competition. Are you suggesting that doesn't happen?

▲

Yokohiii 2 days ago | parent [-]

I am stuck with your phrasing. Duplication is for me something like cloning or a perfect copy. Which I think is unusual. You will find a chinese phone that looks like an iPhone but is totally different and magnitudes cheaper. What you talk about is probably more like mimicking. Offering something that people are used to to get into the market. But every competitor will eventually look for things to make a brand or product different. What is inevitable, is to diverge from mimicry. So duplicating is an evolutionary process itself.

	▲	9rx 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Duplication is for me something like cloning or a perfect copy. That's fair. But if you aren't offering a perfect clone, then you're offering something novel that will 'wow' your customers, no? The market will never take interest in what you are selling if there is no 'wow' factor. > Which I think is unusual. You make a fair point that unreasonable terms on intellectual property laws has made it much more unusual than it should be, but isn't unusual historically, and shouldn't be unusual given our system of trade that assumes that clones will be produced. It's the only way most people can participate in the economy (and why they currently feel left out; but that's another topic for another day).