Automated Fixtures Entry level LED profiles

[Wood4321]

Jack,
I would argue that product design is the actual design of the fixture, from the overall look of the fixture, down to where each screw goes. While I do consider gobo and color selection as part of the product design, it is only a tiny part of it.

Now that I have had some time to think on it, I have come up with an alternate theory. They may come from the same factory as the Chauvets,They may be being pulled off the assembly lines "off the books" and sold on the side.

Also, I spend a bit more time on another lighting bulletin board, and some of my angst against MS Lighting comes from my time over there.
Here is a link to a thread with several well respected Industry types sharing their opinions about MS Lighting.

 

[jfetter]

I agree, "product design" should be initial concept thru final manufacturing but I also think both definitions are valid, though maybe not completely accurate or in-line with what most would expect them to mean. Please note guys, I am not a shill, I am not trying to convince anyone but unfortunately this argument is based mostly on emotion, not fact. It's not an easy concept to accept, that a cheaper product, from China at that, can be as good, or even possibly the same as one we've grown familiar with.

I read every post from the other site referenced and 90% seemed more like speculation, hearsay and things like "if it's Chinese, it's an illegal copy!". I know where this feeling comes from, I really do, I've experienced it first hand but... It just doesn't add up that every fixture NOT from a name brand vendor (notice I refuse to say manufacturer) is a fake, clone, copy and somehow less capable. Doesn't it seem just a tad egotistical to think the Chinese, who we all admit do build the final product after all, can't also design it? Their technology isn't behind ours anymore, it hasn't been for some time.

I don't know where to go here, I don't want to push this and clearly it's more emotional than factual, understandably so. On the other hand, I don't want to promote illegal, or at a very minimum unethical products. So can anyone think of a way to prove the products are identical or not? I can't imagine calling Chauvet would really mean much, just as well call MS Lighting. Perhaps a comparison of part numbers on key components inside? Even if it were shown they are identical, someone would likely surmise they are stolen or black market parts. Is there any point in trying to prove it I suppose is the best question...

Jack

 

[jstroming]

I have a Chinese sharpy knock-off. We call it the "shapy" (we figured it would be missing something hehe) Bought direct from china. Put simply, it is amazing. I paid $800 for the demo unit.

 

[MNicolai]

Their technology isn't behind ours anymore, it hasn't been for some time.

My concern is not about technology; my concern is with IP (intellectual property).

A friend of a friend found out I had theatrical lighting experience and that I was employed by a major US lighting manufacturer. They asked me to design an LED lighting fixture for them specifically so they could send the design over to China to be produced and so that they could sell the fixtures here in the States for their event services business.

I rejected their "offer" and they never brought anything to fruition.

I have no doubt that there are Asian manufacturers just as capable (if not more capable) than US manufacturers. What bothers me is when I see a product that was clearly released by a reputable North American or European fixture that was then copy-catted as a "Chinese Knock-Off" (I put that in quotes because this happens all over the world, not just in China -- except when it's a copy in the United States, a patent suit usually cleans up the mess).

[One] of the reasons that the "Chinese Knock-Offs" can be sold at such a low price is the lack of customer support for foreign buyers. If an ETC or an Apollo or a Strand lighting product fails, I know a person I can call and have a conversation with at each company who can fix my problem quickly.

Another reason is that labor is cheap, but that's the nature of a global economy and it's one of the reasons that it's hard for the United States to be competitive with foreign manufacturers.

[Another] very critical reason that "Chinese Knock-Offs" are cheaper is a lack of RnD. If Avo makes a console, spending millions of dollars to design the hardware, test the hardware, refine the hardware, develop the software, bug-test the software, and continue creating new iterations of the software, then that's a very large amount of overhead that they have. If a company in China copy-cats the hardware (and for argument we'll say it's exactly the same quality as the hardware you get from Avo), they don't have to develop their own software because they can install the Avo client on their own copies. They get to flourish on Avo's coattails by selling a product significantly cheaper at the same level of quality.

Truthfully, Avo probably doesn't lose much (or any?) money on these copies, because the people shopping at that price point were never going to pay for a genuine Avo console even if the knock-off wasn't available. The manufacturer who does lose out is the one selling a comparable-enough console in that consumer's lower price bracket.

Let's say a company releases the "Super Amazing 10kW LED Moving Head". What your argument fails to address is that whoever first creates that fixture pays gazillions in software, hardware, and research costs. They pay tons of money to figure out how close this lens should be to that other lens. They pay the "UL gold" to send the product to Underwriter's for testing, only to get it bounced back and failed, so that they can pay the "UL gold" again on a newer iteration of the fixture to get it UL Listed. By the time the "Super Amazing 10kW LED Moving Head" hits the market, it's gone through at least a couple dozen hardware revisions, dozens to hundreds of software revisions, and the company that releases it has paid buckets and buckets of money to go through the trial and error of manufacturing that fixture.

Once the "Super Amazing 10kW LED Moving Head" is available on the market, anyone can buy a few, tear them apart, and study them to make copies of their own. They may even produce a higher-quality fixture (but probably not) and sell it at a much lower price because they had to pay for far fewer iterations of the design.

In a global economy where IP can be stolen without recourse, the companies with the largest innovations stand to lose big-time while the companies that copy-cat other manufacturers see lots of profit from little to no innovation.

For an end-user, the decision to buy a knock-off is a moral one, but it carries much more gravity with it than they realize. The people who wanted me to help them build their very own knock-off weren't thinking about who they would be hurting; they only thought about their own personal greed. I explained to them very clearly several reasons why I wouldn't help them, and they remained firm that they wanted to see dollar signs regardless of who they may be stealing IP from. They remained unconvinced that they would have been doing harm to local jobs/manufacturers/IP by producing a knock-off.

 

[derekleffew]

I thought we'd tortured this particular equine enough in this thread http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting-electrics/26263-opinions-chinese-knockoffs.html .

...Did Lexus do all the hard work and Toyota just "build it" (as though the easy part!)? Or...

The difference is that both brands share one parent company, in the same way that Elation Lighting and American DJ are related. Or that Philips Lighting owns Strand, ET, Selecon, Vari-lite, CK, et cetera, and product lines across brands are being combined, as well as being eliminated to reduce redundancy. General Motors killing Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, and Geo anyone? Chevy Camaro or Pontiac Firebird?

...but assuming this IS a clone, yet from all appearances looks the same AND performs the same, how can anyone justify paying the price of the original?

From the thread cited above: "What if the "clone" manufacturer takes over the market with its cheap prices, forcing the "original" manufacturer out of business? Then who will the clone manufacturer copy from? Where will advance of the industry come from?

 

[jfetter]

OK guys, I understand the reasons not to buy a product clone of any kind but some people seem to be getting lost in the emotion here. I am in no way condoning this practice in the slightest but the question remains, IS THIS A CLONE?! Remember, assumptions are being made that Chauvet designed this fixture and intellectual property is involved, again, assumed. I think we all understand (hopefully) that stealing only an idea is still stealing, Microsoft alone loses over a billion a year in China, that's a "B", by no means chump change! However, everyone is assuming this simply must be theft in this case, something I don't so quickly accept as their is simply nothing to indicate this. In fact you could argue it's been almost established the product appears to come from the actual manufacturer. This really boils down to 2 issues for me;

1.) Is the fixture a copy or the real thing, something we should be able to determine and hopefully agree on (with a little poking under the hood of both fixtures).

2.) If the real thing, is it ethical/moral/legal for them to sell direct and us to buy direct, something a little more dificult to establish but I refuse to believe impossible (though difficult I'm certain)...

Jack

 

[shiben]

OK guys, I understand the reasons not to buy a product clone of any kind but some people seem to be getting lost in the emotion here. I am in no way condoning this practice in the slightest but the question remains, IS THIS A CLONE?! Remember, assumptions are being made that Chauvet designed this fixture and intellectual property is involved, again, assumed. I think we all understand (hopefully) that stealing only an idea is still stealing, Microsoft alone loses over a billion a year in China, that's a "B", by no means chump change! However, everyone is assuming this simply must be theft in this case, something I don't so quickly accept as their is simply nothing to indicate this. In fact you could argue it's been almost established the product appears to come from the actual manufacturer. This really boils down to 2 issues for me;

1.) Is the fixture a copy or the real thing, something we should be able to determine and hopefully agree on (with a little poking under the hood of both fixtures).

2.) If the real thing, is it ethical/moral/legal for them to sell direct and us to buy direct, something a little more dificult to establish but I refuse to believe impossible (though difficult I'm certain)...

Jack

I dont really think poking under the hood is gonna do anything for you. Say it is a clone. If you got your hands on some blueprints or are semi-useful at making a good technical drawing from the original, you will have an identical piece, with no noticeable variation. Further, if you happened to get your hands on the tooling, whats even the point of that? As for software, once you copy it once, no reason you could not do the same every time. Im pretty sure your average model shop in the US could, with very little trouble, make an exact replica of a fixture that you could not tell was an original or not. There are machines specifically designed to be able to do things like this (not with ripping IP in mind, but a part is a part is a part). So basically, you could fiddle under the hood all you want but just because some company bothered to zip tie some wires (its on the plan, so do it) does not make them not a knockoff. A better way would be to consult the relevant US patents (should be listed in the manual) and see who filed them. If its some random company in China, you have your answer.

As for question 2 really depends on the answer to 1. Who filed the patents? Thats who you ought to buy from. Otherwise its morally unjustifiable in my opinion. Made in China is not a for sure mark of the beast, so to speak. It is likely everything you own has parts made in China at some point, if it wasnt outright manufactured there in total. However, the way dealing with China is these days, you need to suspect everything thats being sold by a Chinese company as their own. The good news is that as their population becomes more wealthy and has more very rich people, there will become a reason to differentiate, this is my REAL rolex vs. your knockoff, because it shows how rich I am, for example, and at that point you will start to see more aggressive IP protection in China. When your more worried about feeding a billion people, IP is kind of pointless. Once you can feed a billion people and a bunch of them are super rich, those who are super rich will want to show off and those people will pressure leadership, etc. Also, right now why would they stop? They make money and people send protected work to them anyhow, because its cheap. It will change, just not as fast as a major manufacturer would like.

 

[jfetter]

...The difference is that both brands share one parent company, in the same way that Elation Lighting and American DJ are related...

To be clear, my point wasn't about the legality of Lexus being mostly re-branded toyota parts but rather the fact folks will pay a considerable premium for the marketing of one product over another if owning one product implies "status" or is otherwise touted as superior, fact or not. In this case, is the Lexus product superior to the Toyota product? Two arguments about these Chinese lights are common, the first regarding it being an illegal "copy" and the second, it being "cheap crap", I was simply adressing the "cheap crap" argument...

Jack

 

[JohnD]

What I wonder about, what do you do for repairs? Do you have to send it back, on well actually, a slow boat to China. A vendor having a presense here might be well worth the added cost, especially for something as complex as a moving light.

 

[jfetter]

As for question 2 really depends on the answer to 1. Who filed the patents? Thats who you ought to buy from. Otherwise its morally unjustifiable in my opinion.

I'm not sure it's not as cut and dry as that. If you search "Chauvet" for current or pending US patents, you will find nothing, however if you search "Vari-Lite", you will find 80 current patents with none pending. My assumption is many companies are or should be licensing through Vari-Lite if anyone still "owns" exclusive rights. I still see little fact and a lot of assumptions, based on emotion and/or sentiment IMO...

Jack

 

[Ford]

Hi folks, I'm Ford, the Sr Product Manager at Chauvet. I can say without a shadow of doubt that these are fakes. They may look nearly identical (down to where they fasten their zip-ties), but I am quite certain you will see differences in performance, and especially reilability.

I spend about 6 weeks, to 2 months a year in Asia. I make no qualms about our units being assembled (sometimes, completely manufactured) there. But anyone who has travelled there can tell you that there is a vast difference in the manufacturing facilities between companies. Apple makes the Ipad, and Iphone there. Even Martin uses parts manufactured in China. There are plenty of solid factories. There are also factories which literally have dirt floors, and run circuit boards under cold water to cool them off after soldering.
I have seen many direct copies of our units. In fact, we recently had to do a major redesign of an upcomming unit, because an employee at one of our factories leaked a housing to the local mold maker. They then used our housing to make a "public mold". It looked exactly the same, with the one difference being that the Gobo Access door was not actually a door, it was just a part of the mold...it had the arrows showing how to open it, but was all a single piece, so there was no actual way to get into the unit without removing the covers. If it hadn't cost us tens of thousdands of dollars, it would have been hilarious (it may still be hilarious, depending on your point of view).

Even if they use the same ICs (most of which they can get in the open market), the programming of the motor drivers (how they do what they do), or the LED drive currents or any of the myriad of other technical details that are not visible to the eye are most assuredly different. I will guarantee you that this copy does not have ETLc certification. I would be ASTOUNDED if it uses the same PSU (as we now purchase all of our PSUs for these units from a US Power Supply company).

There are a host of technical issues that need to be solved when it comes to LED spots (and Chauvet should know, as we released the VERY FIRST LED MOVING HEAD SPOT the MINSPOT).
In fact, Given the fact that the Q-Spot 260 LED has been on the market for a number of years, and despite the incredible innovation in LED technology over the last several years it is still the standard to which other manufacturers hold themselves (in the "Entry Level"), and was the brightest, most dependable unit available in it's pricerange for over two years... the real question here, were I a discerning customer, might be,"What is coming next from the innovators of the LED moving head?" and "Can I wait for it?"

I'd take a good look at what is in our current catalog, and also what is being released at NAMM later this week.

Then, I'd go to my local dealer, and ask for a shootout against some of the competition (which you can do with a reputable company), I'd factor in warranty, and actually HOW i am going to get these warranty repairs done, I'd look at value for the dollar, and finally I'd make my decision comparing apples to apples.

 

[jfetter]

Hi folks, I'm Ford, the Sr Product Manager at Chauvet...

Ford,

Thank you for the reply, I for one find it admirable that a manufacturer would even comment, kudo's for that!

Jack

 

[derekleffew]

[Thanks Ford. You need to update your profile; you haven't lived in Ithaca for years now. At the top of the page, click on "Settings." Halfway down the new page, on the left side, click on "Edit Profile." Remember to "Save Changes" all the way at the bottom when finished. ]

jfetter, I find it interesting that you're in Miramar, with Chauvet USA just a stone's throw away in Sunrise. If I lived next to a [-]Ford[/-] (sorry Ford) Chevrolet dealer, I highly doubt I would buy a Toyota or Lexus IF there were no dealers in the US.

"The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of a low price is forgotten."
--Benjamin Franklin

 

[jfetter]

...I find it interesting that you're in Miramar, with Chauvet USA just a stone's throw away in Sunrise. If I lived next to a [-]Ford[/-] (sorry Ford) Chevrolet dealer, I highly doubt I would buy a Toyota or Lexus IF there were no dealers in the US.

Well, my proximity to Chauvet has no bearing on their prices or customer support, it's not like I can drive down and pickup some discount fixtures and then drive through their "support drive-thru window" when I have issues. In fact I own 15 Chauvet fixtures, plus one of their foggers and their D-Fi wireless system if that makes you feel better. :-\

Truthfully I am more interested in performance and maybe that can only be evaluated by a head-to-head comparison. IMO this boils first down to intellectual property, that is a more difficult question to find the answer to but ultimately one of two deciding factors for me. The second being performance of the product, to be able to determine return on investment or "value" if you will.

This manufacturer/supplier from China BTW makes NO claims of this fixture being the same or even related, they simply market it on its features. The entire "is it the same inside" part of all of this is MY question. I think that is important as it would be another story if they were somehow saying it was the same or using the success of one product to directly market and sell their wares...

Jack

 

[Ford]

Ummm...
The Q-Spot series had a fairly "unique" housing style. This was a large departure from anything else on the market...and I have heard several people say that the 160 LED, and 260 LED are...well, let's just say "less than attractive".

While this particular factory may not state "SAME AS" on their label... the fact that they copied the housing kinda implies that it is either the same, or related... and they are definitely using the success of the Q-Spot to sell their wares, or you wouldn't be asking the question.

OK...I'm going back into cloak mode...
-Ford

 

[derekleffew]

... it's not like I can drive down and pickup some discount fixtures and then drive through their "support drive-thru window" when I have issues. ...

Touché. That's funny.

Perhaps if ALL manufacturers had a conveniently-located Genius Bar <insert snarky, sarcastic remark here> (Las Vegas has three, all within five miles and all on the same street!), we wouldn't need forums like this one.

 

[DuckJordan]

Well, my proximity to Chauvet has no bearing on their prices or customer support, it's not like I can drive down and pickup some discount fixtures and then drive through their "support drive-thru window" when I have issues. In fact I own 15 Chauvet fixtures, plus one of their foggers and their D-Fi wireless system if that makes you feel better. :-\

Truthfully I am more interested in performance and maybe that can only be evaluated by a head-to-head comparison. IMO this boils first down to intellectual property, that is a more difficult question to find the answer to but ultimately one of two deciding factors for me. The second being performance of the product, to be able to determine return on investment or "value" if you will.

This manufacturer/supplier from China BTW makes NO claims of this fixture being the same or even related, they simply market it on its features. The entire "is it the same inside" part of all of this is MY question. I think that is important as it would be another story if they were somehow saying it was the same or using the success of one product to directly market and sell their wares...

Jack

Here are some facts for you:

1. this chauvet fixture is manufactured in china.
2. the chinese version of this fixture (not sold by chauvet) is a complete copy of the fixture.
3. the reason for the price difference is R&D costs.
4. Its not about whether you are getting a better deal, its about keeping innovation in motion.

This has nothing to do with emotions, I find it very hard to hire anyone who is willing to buy a product that is blatantly a rip off of another. Your comparison to OEM parts is similar to comparing apples to bannanas. An OEM part is a peice of equipment that was built by another manufacturing company. While Ford may sell the same part just branded ford (and their warranty comes with) the same manufacturer is allowed to sell it as an OEM part (by ford).

Obviously this is not the case with these units. They are ripped off of another fixture. I actually had a friend who created his own LED unit. While he was selling these fixtures he found a chinese manufacturer that created an exact duplicate, and took the cost out of the unit and sold it for just under 2% markup from material cost. It completely took him out of business.

Buying from a company who cares not if they are taking out the same company that they stole from will ultimately hurt all of us not just you if the fixture goes bad. Its similar to the don't litter thing, If one person does it, then everyone will start and soon you'll have a world full of garbage.



"This manufacturer/supplier from China BTW makes NO claims of this fixture being the same or even related," as far as thats concerned they don't have to market it as the same thing, Its obvious from the features and case and build of the unit. Thats like me taking windows and changing the logo and selling it as my own for about 10 bucks a copy. I don't claim its windows or related to windows. But it still is.

 

[jfetter]

...the fact that they copied the housing kinda implies that it is either the same, or related... and they are definitely using the success of the Q-Spot to sell their wares, or you wouldn't be asking the question.

Just so you know, appearance of the head alone wouldn't even have me asking a question like this. I do think it's a fair question given the stuff I've already cited, in it's entirety, it's fairly compelling IMO. If you are interested, take a closer look at this product, this isn't just slapped together on-the-fly...

Jack

 

[DuckJordan]

The fact doesn't change no matter how much you want it to. They are blatant ripoffs.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[jfetter]

The fact doesn't change no matter how much you want it to. They are blatant ripoffs.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

I don't "want it to", it's simply logical. I do not agree they are blatant rip-off's just yet. I still say making a product look LIKE another is one thing but making it exactly the same is not logical at all. In fact, it raises their cost to do so, a blatant rip-off (IMO) would be similar on the outside only. Likewise, if you were trying to sell based on the "look", you would assume a fly-by-night vendor, not one who actually builds a good product. I'm sorry but in what world is building a GOOD or equally functioning copy of the original and then selling it at 40% MSRP profitable, even in China? Nothing with China is as simple as we want to make it, of this I know first hand, all the pieces aren't in this puzzle yet IMO...

Jack