New Optimum DA

Anthony O. said:
Well that's an odd statement as just about everything is a copy or clone of something else. Who made the first car and how many car makers do we now have? Same with PC's, mobile devices, Pepsi or Coke? Snap-On or Matco? Colgate or Crest?

Many people will pay $8 for a cup of Starbucks just so they can say they spend that much on coffee, and of course be seen with that cool Starbucks logo! Others go to local doughnut shop and spend $1 for coffee......smart ones put it in a Starbucks to-go mug!! B)

Point is what if someone has done their "own R&D" and made a better mouse trap based on another mouse trap? That's capitalism...Apple brings about some cool high priced gadgets. Samsung says, "We can build something just as good for less money!" In the end we live, for now at least, in a free market where companies offer their goods and we, the public buyers, choose what we want based on our own personal choices. Yet to base a "no buy" on the principle of "it looks almost identical" is contradictory given just about all things "look identical". What's your keyboard look like that you're typing on? Probably looks almost identical to mine and thousands of others out there yet you have one and most likely based your buy on personal choice after seeing and trying one out at the store or read some reviews on it.

As I noted already we have 2 Rupes in our shop. I have recommended them to many people. We also have a few Flex machines. We are getting 2 Optimum polishers also and will try them and judge their performance against those others. Our polishers get a lot of use and abuse. So if they fail then we know not to purchase anymore. Then again if they perform well we will no longer buy Rupes or Flex because bottom line...we save money!

Anthony
Click to expand...

Just because product copying is rampant in the last 20 or 30 years doesn't make it right. Mild imitation is one thing, but making your product look nearly the same with near identical ergonomics and operation is wrong, no matter how you twist and turn it. How would you feel if you spent the enormous time, effort and money R&D'ing and building the Rupes polisher and then saw a product so similar? Not too good, I'd bet. You'd probably be on the phone with legal. If this polisher is built with Rupes (or a parent company's) cooperation, that's entirely different. I have no problem with that, of course. I don't know if it is or it isn't.

The food companies you mentioned do have similar products, but they change the formulas, taste, packaging, logo, colors as best they can, staying within current US and global patent and copyright laws. The tools...I doubt Snap-on and Matco's socket drivers (for example) look and work exactly the same. Yea, they're both socket drivers and they're both 3/8 drive, but effort was made by each company in differentiating their product. That's good and fair business competition.
 
RobD said:
Just because product copying is rampant in the last 20 or 30 years doesn't make it right. Mild imitation is one thing, but making your product look nearly the same with near identical ergonomics and operation is wrong, no matter how you twist and turn it. How would you feel if you spent the enormous time, effort and money R&D'ing and building the Rupes polisher and then saw a product so similar? Not too good, I'd bet. You'd probably be on the phone with legal. If this polisher is built with Rupes (or a parent company's) cooperation, that's entirely different. I have no problem with that, of course. I don't know if it is or it isn't.

The food companies you mentioned do have similar products, but they change the formulas, taste, packaging, logo, colors as best they can, staying within current US and global patent and copyright laws. The tools...I doubt Snap-on and Matco's socket drivers (for example) look and work exactly the same. Yea, they're both socket drivers and they're both 3/8 drive, but effort was made by each company in differentiating their product. That's good and fair business competition.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
I'm on board with Patent rip-offs, etc.

I just have to say it's a different world and unless one chooses to be a Luddite, I've learned to grin and bear it. For example, I use gmail and Google calendar. Booked a flight for my daughter to come home for Xmas. Low and behold Google somehow added the flight reservations to my calendar! Everybody knows everything about everybody.

I've heard it said that Chemical Guys is really Warner Chemical - Since 1959 re branded and that Warner reverse engineers other companies products.

And I doubt the new Megs and GG DA's were engineered by them. The originals were mfg. in China and the Chinese probably are one step ahead in predicting the market.

And there's no doubt in my mind that my second 21MM's gonna be from Kevin Brown. But trying to change all this to me is like trying to move the Sahara desert one teaspoon at a time.

There's not much more I can do than re-cycle and treat those I come in contact with kindness and respect.

Just my .02 cents
 
RobD said:
as best they can, staying within current US and global patent and copyright laws.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If it's a copyright/trademark infringement then said company has every right to be upset and seek legal action. If it's not....oh well. Said company then just needs to seek and top their first mouse trap. Which in the end is again capitalism at work in that it benefits us, the consumer. We want the best our hard earn money can buy.

From a weekend warrior perspective one may like the fact that they have a certain polisher that is so highly regarded. From the perspective of a business owner he or she is thinking, "Can I spend less and increase profit?" That's the nagging question every person in business is asking themselves daily. If not then they should not be in business. So again, if I can get the same performance from a product and/or tool and save $100 then for me it's a no-brainer. Lastly, all things look and feel pretty much the same, it's just the way it is. Or would you rather have only one toothpaste to buy, one cell phone, one flat panel TV, one car and one detailing product? That would not be a free market...and a pretty boring place to live in.

Anthony
 
^ Sounds like your saying it's OK to copy anything and rip off anyone else's intellectual property as long as you can get away with it and it's cheaper.

While that may be legally fine, IMHO it comprises the image of the company who sells the replica product. A lot of times perception is reality. If you come out with a machine that is almost the exact size, shape, color, and throw as the real thing - don't be surprised when a lot of people opinions are unfavorable - as this thread shows.

Clearly this isn't innovation, but Chinese reverse engineering. This isn't someone selling a stapler and some else selling another stapler. I mean, the thing looks almost identical.

cc9224996858e1ad34458072e03f698c.jpg


3b93d9c8e2132c6918d10698358adc78.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Swanicyouth said:
^ Sounds like your saying it's OK to copy anything and rip off anyone else's intellectual property as long as you can get away with it and it's cheaper.

While that may be legally fine, IMHO it comprises the image of the company who sells the replica product. A lot of times perception is reality. If you come out with a machine that is almost the exact size, shape, color, and throw as the real thing - don't be surprised when a lot of people opinions are unfavorable - as this thread shows.

Clearly this isn't innovation, but Chinese reverse engineering. This isn't someone selling a stapler and some else selling another stapler. I mean, the thing looks almost identical.

cc9224996858e1ad34458072e03f698c.jpg


3b93d9c8e2132c6918d10698358adc78.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Have you investigated to see if the item you claim is being copied is not actually made in China by the same company? What if one entity designs something, he or she then sells that idea to a company, say a Chinese company. That Chinese company basically owns the rights to it, they can then sell that idea to others as long as a certain percentage of it is different from the other. It would then be that Chinese company who's "ethics" might be in question. Yet they don't care cause it's theirs to do with as they please and they want to make money.

My whole point here is that, Yes ideas are always copied and not much can stay "the one and only" as others will always see it as something to innovate and hopefully make better. If it's not better then it won't sell. I mean look at the rotary polishers out there. Everyone is a "fanboy" (or girl) of something. I am an AMD fanboy and I am thankful for them because I don't feel like paying several hundred dollars for an Intel PC chip when I can get an AMD for much less but get the performance I need.

I shoot and carry only Sig or CZ. I don't care for a Taurus at all even though I have only owned one 12 years ago. The gun designs are all basic, some slight differences but in a semi-auto the bullets all load the same and fire out the barrel. I personally don't care for Taurus..BUT I would never say that of a gun I have never held, carried and fired. Make sense?

Anthony
 
Guys, everyone has a right to their opinion. Someone buy one and post a review. The rest of this is totally un-important because if its good it will gain traction. If its crap it won't.

I wish people would stop undercutting in my industry but they wont, this is a fact of life and it will get worse before it gets better. The internet and import market is changing the game.

We sell an American branded Vacuum and a foreign vacuum both made in the same factory in china. One cost 40% less.
 
Why does Optimum want to get into the polisher business? Is there that much profit in it and worth the hassle for buying a product that one likely has not much control over. I recall Adam (Adam's Polishes) noting that warranty returns despite small can really cost a fortune if you are paying shipping, etc.
 
Anthony O. said:
Exactly.

If it's a copyright/trademark infringement then said company has every right to be upset and seek legal action. If it's not....oh well. Said company then just needs to seek and top their first mouse trap. Which in the end is again capitalism at work in that it benefits us, the consumer. We want the best our hard earn money can buy.

From a weekend warrior perspective one may like the fact that they have a certain polisher that is so highly regarded. From the perspective of a business owner he or she is thinking, "Can I spend less and increase profit?" That's the nagging question every person in business is asking themselves daily. If not then they should not be in business. So again, if I can get the same performance from a product and/or tool and save $100 then for me it's a no-brainer. Lastly, all things look and feel pretty much the same, it's just the way it is. Or would you rather have only one toothpaste to buy, one cell phone, one flat panel TV, one car and one detailing product? That would not be a free market...and a pretty boring place to live in.

Anthony
Click to expand...

You seem to think I take issue with companies competing with each other and making unique and better products, I don't. There should not be blatant imitation, though. Products should not be reverse engineered, copied almost exactly and built using cheap labor, then sold by undercutting the original manufacturer's price. That hurts the entire industry. The money one saves by purchasing a copycat product takes from legitimate companies and their workforce. However, like I said before, I don't know if this product is produced fairly or not.

Let's say, for whatever reason, this polisher just squeaked by at the patent office. I stand by my original statement that I would not buy one on principle. IMO, it was copied too closely, saving R&D costs (and built who knows where) so it could be sold well below the original manufacturer's price. IMO, it's wrong.

Way back when Chevy designed the Camaro to compete with the already successful Mustang, they didn't copy the Mustang exactly and slap a bowtie on it. They made the Camaro their own. It competed it the same category, but had its own exterior and interior styling, engine and suspension design, sound, etc. That's good competition.

Let me ask you this...if you were working in the patent office and this machine was put on you desk, and the already patented Rupes machine was right there next to it, would you grant it its own patent and/or deny patent infringement? Would you say it's different enough in style and execution compared to the Rupes?

Bottom line, if you're happy buying this product and saving the money (which I understand is important these days), that's up to you.
 
Bunky said:
Why does Optimum want to get into the polisher business?
Click to expand...

I was wondering that also.

RobD said:
Products should not be reverse engineered, copied almost exactly and built using cheap labor, then sold by undercutting the original manufacturer's price. That hurts the entire industry. The money one saves by purchasing a copycat product takes from legitimate companies and their workforce. However, like I said before, I don't know if this product is produced fairly or not.

Let's say, for whatever reason, this polisher just squeaked by at the patent office. I stand by my original statement that I would not buy one on principle. IMO, it was copied too closely, saving R&D costs (and built who knows where) so it could be sold well below the original manufacturer's price. IMO, it's wrong.
Click to expand...

It seems to me there are a lot of presumptions there, one that the new polisher is simply reverse engineered from a Rupes, a copy produced by cheap labor. Based on a "similar" external appearance, how can you make the judgement that it is simply a reverse engineered copy? I look at the two and I don't see two "exactly the same" machines, I see two machines with front handles, triggers, etc. No part on the two is visually identical, only similar. I'm sure if you broke down some other DA polishers and removed color, they would have the switches in the same place, and would be very similar, but not identical. My point is how do you know the machines aren't entirely different inside?

The other presumption seems to be that there are patents involved in the Rupes polishers, and that somehow the patent office is responsible for determining patent infringement. Only a small percentage of "things" which are sold are patented, and the patents rarely apply to the whole "thing". I don't have a Rupes, but I just took a quick look at the manual for the 21 online, and I see no patents mentioned (that doesn't mean there aren't some).
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I was wondering that also.



It seems to me there are a lot of presumptions there, one that the new polisher is simply reverse engineered from a Rupes, a copy produced by cheap labor. Based on a "similar" external appearance, how can you make the judgement that it is simply a reverse engineered copy? I look at the two and I don't see two "exactly the same" machines, I see two machines with front handles, triggers, etc. No part on the two is visually identical, only similar. I'm sure if you broke down some other DA polishers and removed color, they would have the switches in the same place, and would be very similar, but not identical. My point is how do you know the machines aren't entirely different inside?

The other presumption seems to be that there are patents involved in the Rupes polishers, and that somehow the patent office is responsible for determining patent infringement. Only a small percentage of "things" which are sold are patented, and the patents rarely apply to the whole "thing". I don't have a Rupes, but I just took a quick look at the manual for the 21 online, and I see no patents mentioned (that doesn't mean there aren't some).
Click to expand...

As I've said, this is my opinion (given the information at hand) and I don't know if these machines are produced fairly or not. No the polishers are not EXACTLY the same, but you can't deny an uncanny resemblance and similarity of operation. Is that by accident, or for ease of production and to capitalize on Rupes success?

Regarding patents on Rupes polishers, given the complexity of the machine, the technology and the expense gone into designing and building it, I'd say one could safely bet on Rupes having multiple international patents protecting it. If not, I'd be extremely surprised.

At the end of the day, this argument is a waste of time. We don't have all the facts. The polisher is out there and available for purchase. Those who want it will buy it. I certainly won't.
 
Last edited:
There is also some "uncanny" resemblance between traditional DA polishers, but no one claims that they are just Chinese copies of the other. (well, maybe) I looked through some other Rupes literature, and I see no patents referenced. Usually companies aren't shy about mentioning their patents in their literature, although this isn't always the case. Again, just because something is complex and put a lot of expense into designing something doesn't mean that anything in it is patentable, or even if there is, that the company went through the expensive and agonizing process of patenting it. A patent isn't worth anything unless you also go through the time and expense of protecting it.
 
THis convo has reminded me of when U was leader in TV's. And how the turn around to Japan, and they made em "smaller, cheaper, more reliable".
 
Ronkh said:
THis convo has reminded me of when U was leader in TV's. And how the turn around to Japan, and they made em "smaller, cheaper, more reliable".
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's the right way to look at that...we sent a lot of stuff to Japan for them to make for us using their cheap labor, until they figured out how to make the stuff better than we did, and used their superior (at the time) work ethic (born out of being destroyed in WWII) to beat us at our own game. The Chinese are simply doing the same thing, and in another 30-40 years we'll be the cheap labor for them, while they are the innovators and we are the followers.

Turnabout is fair play, right?
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I don't know if that's the right way to look at that...we sent a lot of stuff to Japan for them to make for us using their cheap labor, until they figured out how to make the stuff better than we did, and used their superior (at the time) work ethic (born out of being destroyed in WWII) to beat us at our own game. The Chinese are simply doing the same thing, and in another 30-40 years we'll be the cheap labor for them, while they are the innovators and we are the followers.

Turnabout is fair play, right?
Click to expand...

I sorta was just commenting on this cuz a big % of the people don't even remember Zenith, Maganovox, RCA etc, and how much things change in manufacturing and tech innovation.

Just my old age nostalgia
 
Setec Astronomy said:
Are you a Rupes owner by any chance?

In the end I don't know if these machines will cost Rupes any sales, if they cater to a market segment that was never going to pony up for a Rupes, anyway.
Click to expand...

No, but I'm seriously considering buying one. Since I'm not a professional detailer, spending this much on a polisher (even what this Optimum/Zentool costs) is bordering on crazy, but soon enough I'll likely invest in the Rupes or Flex. My PC is over 12 years old, now. A little loud and buzzy, but it still runs well.

True, some may never pony up for the Rupes, others save up and buy it when they can. Some will just buy this machine, costing Rupes some sales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top