Aaron and I were discussing how the web facilitates inspiration and sometimes even copying of other sites or applications.
This is a positive outcome of open access that can create evolutionary improvements. However in my experience I have also seen people clone an interface where they missed the larger context of the interaction, or even worse they cloned something that was internally known to be a quick hack or incomplete solution that was delivered to meet a deadline or as the first phase of a multi-phase story that was never completed.
Buran and Enterprise
This reminded me of the fascinating history of the U.S. and Russian space programs. During the space race of the 1970’s and ’80’s the Russians were known to be accessing the unclassified engineering plans for the upcoming Space Shuttle. While this was a necessary, and arguably a greater good to science and industry, the US program did not want the Russians to beat them to the delivery of a reusable launch vehicle.
I proposed using the Farewell material to feed or play back the products sought by [the Soviets], only these would come from our own sources and would have been ‘improved,’ that is designed so that on arrival in the Soviet Union they would appear genuine but would later fail. U.S. intelligence would match Soviet requirements supplied through Vetrov with our version of those items, ones that would not — to say the least — meet the expectations of that vast Soviet apparatus.
From “How the Soviets stole a space shuttle”. And apparently this ploy was successful: “Soviets have ablative material in their elevon gaps, just like we did. We fooled them and now use tiles in the gaps.”
Receiving inspiration, and even copying the aspects, of other applications is clearly an effective means to jumpstart features. However this should not preclude your own diligence in engineering and design to ensure you have appropriately incorporated these concepts for an effective, and operational, means.