imitator

I think history has shown that most people will choose the imitator, if the imitation is a good one.

I hope it won't be a huge fad, working under a second-rate Jobs imitator is pretty much my vision of Hell.

So your argument is that Samsung is imitating an imitator. Excuse me while I don't care.

The smart ones will probably create their own unique flavor rather than always be viewed as an imitator.

Seeing how China is still very much still an imitator, even in innovation, the phone still looks very nice.

I think Apple has a big enough name that them being the "imitator" won't scare anybody off. I also think that Apple is a bigger household name than Tesla.

Apple is an imitator, a marketer, and a polisher of other people's ideas. Little more.

The innovator, or the imitator? Price may be the differentiating factor, but I think most ppl would choose the innovator.

I, for one, would really like to see them return to their former glory as a true leader, rather than an imitator and a maker of bad decisions.

The simpler explanation is that he won PG's praise because he is a master imitator. He writes very much like PG, and I think PG saw a lot of himself in Sam, so he promoted him to YC president or whatever he is.

Most importantly, what happened to Mozilla that it stopped being an innovator and became an imitator? Is it something inherent in it's status as a "not for profit"?

> Most importantly, what happened to Mozilla that it stopped being an innovator and became an imitator? Is it something inherent in it's status as a "not for profit"?

I could only interpret the response as a glib remark that to be an entrepreneur in any sense necessarily makes you an imitator of this establishment. My view on this, however, is slightly less cynical.

Users in general are aware that there are many scam/fake/imitator apps out there, but the publisher name provides a quick way of verifying the legitimacy of an app. Compare that with the Windows Store screenshot where there's literally no way to tell which is the real one.

He makes the point that, to a human player, it may be difficult to determine between a human player and a computer imitator. Even though the computer is not AI or otherwise "intelligent" it could be mistaken, under the constraints of the test, as human.

"If an imperfect imitator, wishing to inflict pain, were to build himself a crude idol of wood or wax, and further give it some makeshift semblance of a sentient being, his torture of the thing would be a paltry mockery indeed! But consider a succession of improvements on this practice!

And how to protect against this, when we don't really understand the weaknesses yet - a rogue radar/lidar imitator sending false echoes, strong EM fields messing with electronic components - it could even be an intermittent connection fault in a communications bus. Plenty of unknown unknowns in this field.

At best they imitated designs that came before them and Android imitated the imitator. It made a lot of sense at the time considering the iPhone was in the middle of running away with the market compared to traditional smartphone interfaces like the Blackberry, Palm, Symbian, and Windows Mobile.

Microsoft nearly killed the Mac with its unimaginative imitator, Windows, but probably held off from killing Apple completely because of the Antitrust case hovering over it. Many if not most of the early personal computer software companies were driven out of business by Microsoft.

What they completely miss however is how much money companies like Samsung make by letting someone else do all the hard design/visionary work for them and by confining themselves solely to the role of the imitator/free rider.