"We're flattered Google thinks Campfire is a great product, we're just disappointed that they stooped so low to basically copy it feature for feature, layout for layout," said 37Signals founder Jason Fried by email. "We thought that would be beneath Google, but maybe its time to reevaluate what they stand for."
How cute. 37Signals thinks they invented the basic chat interface.
When you publish and promote an application, it is fair game. That Campfire (which we use and pay for) is so easily reproduced as a side project is a problem 37Signals has, not a problem for other teams.
I played with HuddleChat and the interface similarities are apparent; however, HuddleChat is not a class-for-class, id-for-id knockoff of Campfire.
Add to that the fact that most of the design of Campfire is obvious; the only distinctly 37Signals-ish aspect of it is minimalism. If you (fairly) started a project with the goal of being "at least as functional as Campfire", it's easy to see why you'd end up with something that looked similar.
I don't get the complaining. It's a sample to show the power of AE. It's not as if Google has released HuddleChat on the level of Gmail or Google Maps. Speaking of which, does anyone know if Yahoo or MS complained about design copying when Gmail was released?
From the comments:
""" As one of the App Engine product managers, I wanted to give an update -- we've now taken HuddleChat down from the App Engine app gallery. The App Engine team was looking for some sample apps to help kick the tires on their new system, so we invited Googlers to build some as side projects. A couple of our colleagues here built HuddleChat in their spare time because they wanted to share work within their team more easily and thought persistent web chat would do the trick. We've heard some complaints from the developer community, though, so rather than divert attention from Google App Engine itself, we thought it better to just take HuddleChat down.
Thanks, Pete Koomen Product Manager, Google App Engine Team """
OK, let's be sure we're all talking about the same thing. When I hear that company Foo ripped off product Bar, I think that Foo has made an unethical clone of Bar's design or Bar's actual copy/code/content. By this definition, releasing a piece of software with Bar's exact feature set does not constitute a "rip-off," but merely competition.
This doesn't look like a rip-off to me after an admittedly brief look at the interface. I'd believe it if someone, without looking silly, could actually enumerate a list of Campfire design elements Google "ripped off." To me, Campfire's interface looks minimalist and elegant; HuddleChat looks rather like a wireframe. It seems silly to say that the two apps have the same look and feel.
Should I send a copy of this to 37 signals? I thought this was business 101. If you don't have a sustainable competitive advantage you will undoubtedly suffer. 37 signals doesn't have said advantage.
Even if they did copy Campfire, I don't really see the problem. It just goes to show, that if your software is really easy to make, you will probably see some competition. In my own startup, the business idea is to make localized clones of cool web apps.
Yes or no, it was both a stupid move and in poor taste. Google App Engine requires developers to put a fundamental trust in Google (in a away AWS does not).
It was incredibly stupid of them not so much because they did/did not steal the idea/layout so much as it is about the appearance of stealing it. "Caesar's wife must be above reproach." Intended or not (and I'm sure it wasn't), it sends an implicit signal that Google thinks this platform is best used to make knock-offs of existing products.
With a company full of bright engineers (so many, it seems they hardly know what to do with themselves sometimes), they ought to have been able to come up with a slightly more original idea to showcase app engine.
Of course, in all likelihood, this product came from the ground up, not from the top down, and for some reason, no manager at Google thought it was going to be a problem.
"In all likelihood, this product came from the ground up, not from the top down, and for some reason, no manager at Google thought it was going to be a problem."
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
Or in this case competence. It was trivial for a few Googlers to functionally clone your super-duper web-app in their spare time with Google's new publicly available tools?! Doh!
Is Campfire "obvious"? Design always seems obvious in retrospect. That's the point of design, it isn't a whiz-bang new feature, it's a way to arrange existing things in an effective way. Good design is the art of doing things that--in retrospect--seem obvious.
In any event, i find it interesting that Google now appear indistinguishable from Microsoft. Copying somebody else's app and giving your copy away so you can drive traffic to your platform has been done before.
This isn't a Google application. It's a side project --- and, design aside, a totally obvious side project --- of a couple Google developers. Do you really want to single them out for attacking 37Signals?
As for the non-obviousness of Campfire's design, defend the argument. When Campfire was launched, it wasn't launched as a pioneering new chat interface. I don't see what's particularly interesting about it.
Google launched and showed off an example application that rips Campfire's look and feel off. As for whether it was a "pioneering new chat interface," that is hardly the point where ripping off design is concerned.
It's just like ripping off the layout and visual appearance of a designer's portfolio web site. There is nothing pioneering or innovative about the way designers make web sites to display their work, but there is design in the chocies they make and there is value in those choices.
If design doesn't matter, Google could and should show a chat application with a completely different look. If design does matter, then they are executing a blatant rip off.
Is it illegal? Wrong? Lame? You can decide for yourself. But it is still a rip off.
update: This is my last word on the subject. But I will say the following: there is a very well-known standard of "obviousness": The Clean Room.
Perhaps this application was made in a clean room, or something close enough: if the people making it weren't familiar with Campfire and arrived at almost the identical design from first principles, then of couse I am happy to withdraw my statement and accept that the design in "obvious."
Perhaps they have already spoken up and assured the world that it is just a coincidence that their app is so similar to Campfire. But I am not convinced that a particular design is "obvious" if it is executed by someone who studied another design first.
Please fasten your seatbelts, enjoy the range of free software on offer.
Also, if your business involves software as a service, stay well out of the way of google ;)
How cute. 37Signals thinks they invented the basic chat interface.