Second Mover Advantage is a well-documented business strategy. Many companies will specifically look for such opportunities rather than try to be the innovator. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage#Second-m...

Since you already know what you are going to build (the existing business is the model) I would spend a fair amount of effort thinking about how you are going to take it to market. Assume you already built it - what are you going to do tomorrow morning to get it out there? If the answer to that question is not clear - spend a lot of time until it is.

Posting to HN and Product Hunt most likely won’t cut it, especially if a clone.

Cloning an existing business seems a lot more interesting if you have some unique method or access to penetrate the market where the current business is falling short.

That is a great idea - going through the exercise of imagining if you were leading a company like the one you are cloning. Can you devise an effective GTM strategy that perhaps could scale more quickly (or convince yourself of that ;))?

Cloning seems pointless to me - they will be ahead of you time-wise. You need to have a good case you can do it better, then it makes sense. Just be prepared to be called a knock-off. Differentiation is normally what people do even if its pseudo differentiation.

Completely agree, in cloning the company one would add his/her own interpretations and approaches to problems and features just by implementing as a engineer who is not at the cloned company. The twist is the differentiation that one intuitively feels exists or can be created that makes the pursuit of cloning that much more meaningful and perhaps effective. (just re-posting this comment as it applies to yours).

Which automaker was first? How come there are so many still out there?

I started a company doing email delivery 2 years before Sendgrid. Sendgrid appeared and raised tons of funding (we were based in France so it was not possible to raise money at that time).

I got really really scared. Fast forward, 2 years after:

- product becomes cheaper - product becomes more reliable - we were making tons of money - we had more customers

I studied microeconomic a little bit after this and this is exactly what they predict.

TL;DR; it's probably poor form but all participants of your market will be better out of it.

Definitely, there appears to be market validation. How big is that market? Perhaps big enough for one more...

And congrats on your venture!

Whatever you do, it will end up having your stamp on it. There will be ways in which this product is different from the product that inspired it. This may not be obvious to you, especially at first, because your perception or mental model of the problem space will both influence your concept of what they are doing and create those differences.

The only way to know if it is a difference that makes a difference is to have a go at it.

Why not? It's like someone opening a grocery store a few blocks away from a Walmart. Let the customers decide.

They already have a head start in terms of both loyalty and grabbing the easy market, so it's not immoral.

I would actually look for much less time. Maybe about 3 months to clone. If you can't go that fast, you could try resegmenting that market and focusing on something smaller.

I think it does sometimes. Right out of the gate I feel more optimistic about you as a developer / founder to clone it as you claim to have "inspiration" for the market. I think clones that come from a place of passion and inspiration for the market. Also, if there is little competition the market still has room for additional players and I assume is not overly saturated yet. Some competition could actually be good for the businesses in the space. I would say yes overall. Before I would clone the product though, I would try your best to search social media, forums, etc, and find any complaints or wants for the current products serving the market and try to at least one-up on some level the existing solutions, both in terms of features, but also in design and marketing.

Forget poor form. If you can be profitable, go for it.

Instead of a direct clone you should try to find your own "twist" on the idea. That way you can still get buzz and be seen as a competitor and not just a knock-off. Finding a good twist is the hard part though. Also, remember that "good artists copy and great artists steal"

Completely agree, in cloning the company one would add his/her own interpretations and approaches to problems and features just by implementing as a engineer who is not at the cloned company. The twist is the differentiation that one intuitively feels exists or can be created that makes the pursuit of cloning that much more meaningful and perhaps effective.

Is your name Zuckerberg? Cause if it is, it's a bit late to ask now, wouldn't you say?

OK. Not Z, but good anecdote. What are some other good ones?

If you're confident that you can call on so much expertise that the quality of their execution hardly matters, go for it - but it's traditional to wait a bit to see if that potential competitor stumbles or misses out on a market.

I'd also be wary if there's any network effect that could favor them (unless you've got bags of money.) Also factor in the chances that a really large competitor will also decide to be competition if the sauce isn't that special but the service is very useful and complements what the big guys are already doing - although this could work in your favor if you're cool being an acqui-hire.

As for ethics, everyone understands it's a competitive market (at the bottom); but bystanders might wonder about your judgement for a while: "me-too" companies often fail, since those who lack the acumen to find their own idea often have little else in their quiver, and so fail to add the innovative improvements that are needed along the way in order to create a truly viable product.

Measure the market. If there is bleed and you can market/reach paying customers/convert etc., go after them, assuming costs to ROI math works out and you aren't over leveraged in case of loss.

If you have no plan to offer something distinct that gives you a moat, you are just commoditizing what the existing firm is offering, which drives out both your and their profit opportunity.

It's not the cloning part that you should worry about, but the acquiring customers part. How will you communicate your service to their customers, and to new ones?

Good idea - similar to this reply - https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=15488168

Creating a GTM strategy and establishing your competitive edge are crucial. It may be interesting and work to improve even the original service. If the cloned company has little competition, perhaps they may not be thinking as much about the influence of competition.

poor form old chap...

Nobody cares about form. I heard on a podcast that Ring has 100+ copycat competitors. If anything, no competitors might be a warning sign.

Rocket Internet answered this question already.

It's slightly different tho because they clone startups from U.S. and bring them to EU.

I don't think they would have success using same method if they were just U.S. based.

If they are executing well, then I think it's poor form and foolish to clone them. Think about joining them instead. You will all be better off.

If they are not executing well, then business is business. Sooner or later someone will clone them, may as well be you.

Also, I firmly believe that every startup idea under the sun has already been done before. And either it failed due to poor execution or poor timing.

So the loophole is to find the prior art -- the thing that came before them, and failed -- and clone that instead.