One way they turn designs around so fast is by stealing from indie artists [0], [1].

[0] http://shoparttheft.com/ [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/zara-stealing-artist-1.36890...

This is why clothing is branded. You can make a T shirt with 'Hello World' on it and anyone can copy that, with a different font not even being necessary. However, if you don't go for the 'Hello World' and have your brand name on the T shirt then anyone copying it will have some lawyers to deal with (potentially). Therefore the only things you can sell in fashion retail that are not going to be blatantly ripped off are things with a brand name or logo. Hence our tediously branded clothes.

There is the other matter of counterfeit goods, if you make a T shirt and put three stripes on it and stitch 'Adidas' on there then that is a counterfeit. In the examples above where Zara have stolen someone's hard work, this is definitely copying, not counterfeiting.

So long as nobody is counterfeiting stuff then all is good. I also think a lot of artists would be delighted if Zara stole their ideas, at least they get some validation which is better than being ignored.

As an artist who is friends with people who've had their work ripped off by companies like Zara, I can assure you that we would rather be ignored. I'm sure out on the street, you'd rather be left alone than be mugged because you have a nice looking watch.

From my perspective, knowing some photographers, it's more like a tension (and of course there are exceptions) but a good portion want the attention and want the benefits of it, but also dislike the darker parts that attention brings --like copying and use without permission. But without the attention they are not in demand.

Few do it for its own sake in anonymity (though there have been a few).

As an aside, there are many amateur photographers who don't care about the money because for them it's a hobby and put stuff up as CC and some professional photographers hate that because agencies will use a CC instead of paying for a commissioned work (depending on use and license).

So, basically, it's akin to when you liked a music artist but didn't want them to become famous so you could keep the artist to your cool circle of friends but of course the artists wanted to become better known so they could actually make some money to cover the bills and then you got to call them sell-out and poseurs.

It's really not anything like either of those scenarios. Zara (and many companies like them) like to rip off working artists because its essentially already been market tested by the trend leaders from which they take their cues.

There are degrees of success in any form of commercial art, and the people companies like to rip off are not people pittering away in obscurity or hobbyists. Instead, it's those that are appealing enough to get by and have an audience, but with not enough resources to mount a significant legal defense to their out-and-out thievery. If you look into the Zara case, these are the exact circumstances of the illustrators from whom they're stealing work.

I understand that audience members have different kinds of social relationships with works of art, but you should trust artists when we say we don't want or need wealthy conglomerates stealing our work. In the age of the internet, we have tools to get our work out there (thanks to those on this site that work on building these tools). And if large companies want to find and pay to work with us, well, that's even easier than ever too.

> So long as nobody is counterfeiting stuff then all is good. I also think a lot of artists would be delighted if Zara stole their ideas, at least they get some validation which is better than being ignored.

Anthony Clark got ripped off by Little Caesar's just yesterday and is a long way away from 'delighted': https://twitter.com/nedroid?lang=en

Commercial artist don't need validation. They are usually employed as artists as their day jobs and make art in other mediums for side projects. This is like windows including a cracked version of sublime text and saying well at least you know someone likes your work.

If it's any consolation, non "indie" artists including large clothing manufacturers also maintain a baseline lividness usually reserved in the industry for counterfeiters.

http://archive.is/0IIJa for no paywall

There's also Lesara, a German startup, that sells online, and in 10 days from seeing a fashion item, can manufacture it, in Asia, and have it availble on it's online store(probably shipping by air from Asia). And they say it is cheaper.

The only question: is the future of fashion retail online ?

Altough even if it's not, they can probably change the business model, and sell to stores.

How the heck do people buy clothes online? Fit is incredibly important and sizes are usually useless as they vary so much even within the same brand. Even something like Indochino where they "custom tailor" it, the people I know who've used it have had to send back the suits at least 3 times to get them remade until they fit.

My so returns around 50% of the them. I don't really get it, never bought clothes online, I don't think I ever will...

Personally I've never had issues with fits from Bonobos. The actual measurements match up with the advertised sizes.

A friend of mine told me: You like a dress? Buy three sizes, return the two that didn't fit.

This is my SOP for shoes as well.

So any ideas of other product areas this approach can be applied to?

In before 'wah wah paywall'. Here's how you bypass it:

1. Open a Google Chrome Incognito or Sarafi private browsing session

2. Paste the URL

3. #boom

Easier workaround:

1. Click web under the title on the HN page.

2. Click the first Google result.

I posted mine because this didn't work (the first link directed back to WSJ). Also, your suggestion is missing the boom. That's no fun.

Didn't work on Chrome, tried on Firefox instead, thanks

Coats are somehow relevant to computing, but the political implications of computing aren't?

What is this doing on Hacker News?

It has nothing to do with coats.

It has to do with 'fast business' approaches, which is very relevant to entrepreneurialism.

I can absolutely guarantee you that were you to get a tour of their facilities and see their processes, you'd be shocked and amazed.

Zara, H&M, IKEA are in many ways much better than the Silicon Valley at doing a lot of things, particularly when it comes to supply chains, materials, brick and mortar, esp. consumer-facing marketing.

HN isn't just about "computing". This article is a very good example of how even big companies that are dealing with physical products can go from idea to production in a small amount of time.

Big companies are diametrically opposed to the practice of hacking. Hacking consists of making computers and other more-or-less formal systems (sometimes—as a joke or in security—ones which include the responses of human operators) perform unexpected tricks. The status quo is established by the actions of large-scale corporate and political actors, among them the computing industry.

It's important for hackers to be aware of the actions of corporations and governments because they will have effects on us and we can exert some influence on them in return, but I don't see how this logic applies here.

"[Going] from idea to production" is such a vague concept that I find it hard to pick a sphere of human activity to which it can't be applied. It certainly doesn't explain why this article is appropriate for discussion in a niche which actively brands itself as catering to hackers.

Since it seem to bear repeating: "Hacker News Guidelines

What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."

At least for me, logistics gratifies my intellectual curiosity.

Hmm.

I think if you try posit a canonical definition of the word 'Hacking' here, you're going to have a bad time. The community decides the relevance by voting.

> The status quo is established by the actions of large-scale corporate and political actors

Then isn't it important for people to learn about the status quo? Especially given it's moving so fast. Without this article I would have probably considered a startup doing the same to be cutting-edge, disruptive and most definitely 'hacking'. Now we all know where the bar is set.

It's about time to market and processes allowing for quick iteration. Items of great relevance to any startup.

The political implications of computing are relevant, but we asked users to take a breather from political stories for a week, because the threads tend to erupt into flamewars.

As for what belongs on HN, the answer is: "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.