People saying copy aren't wrong...but if you can offer a copy at 1/5th of the price then you've got a winning product not a copy

All bikes look the same, all cars look the same, all cameras look the same, all bridges, all dams, hell all smartphones look exactly the same! The whole goddamn point of UX is that you make something that is usable, and hence familiar to your users.

People who say "I was making GPUs before them, and they built their own GPUs that behave like GPUs so they copied me" don't understand how stuff is built. The hard part in engineering is not "imagining the high-level concept", it's actually making it work. Even if you can open electronics and study it to design and build your own, it requires a lot of expertise. And if you manage to do it, then you are an expert, period.

I'm sure many people find comfort in saying stuff like "You know what? I was a bit of a visionary because when I saw the first personal computer, I imagined that it would be cool if it could be orders of magnitudes faster and smaller such that it fits in a pocket". As if that was the hard part.

Typically, too many people spend a lot of time talking about UI and stuff like "unpacking" as if that was the most important part. But usually that's because they have no idea about how it works under the hood, so the only thing to discuss is whether the round edges are great or not.

Is Kimi 1/5th the price? Artificial analysis has it at the same price as GPT 5.6 Sol while performing worse.

Gmail won on price dumping and commoditising the complements, as did Facebook and Instagram and all of American Tech for two decades. They've just met an opponent able to beat their economics because their shareholders are less greedy. There's only one answer to this, same as for Facebook vs TikTok: Lobby for protection

Winning product that can’t answer a simple question regarding Uyghurs or Tiananmen Square… it is a vulnerable product…