• CeeKay125@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Casetify is garbage anyway. Glad to see Dbrand and JRE going to rake them over the coals.

      • CeeKay125@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They make $10 cases and sell them for $60 plus (casetify that is). Not to mention they don’t stand behind their products. Dbrand isn’t “cheap” but also stands behind their products if something happens to it.

    • Synergiance@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You didn’t watch the video then. JRE says it would be one thing if casetify made their own scans of the devices, and would welcome the competition. However, casetify clearly just stole the work JRE and dbrand did, and JRE showed the Easter eggs he and dbrand threw in clearly present on the casetify products. This is not simple competition, it’s casetify needs to do their own work tearing down devices and scanning them instead of stealing the work from others. The Easter eggs are proof that casetify stole the work and didn’t simply replicate it.

    • YahonMaizosz@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You clearly are missing the point. Casetify is being sued because they use the same assets materials which JRE and DBrand use for their cases.

      The Easter Eggs served as a unique identifier proof that those are the same assets being used.

      In other words, Casetify didn’t use their materials but instead took from JRE and DBrand and begin selling them en masse for profits. That’s why they are being sued.

    • radiationshield@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      D-brand or Zack or whoever own the photos and editing work of those. Casetify stole their photos (i.e. they scanned them and took their photos of their website).

      If you take a photo of the Washington monument you own that photo. If someone slaps that photo on a case without your permission, they are stealing your work. You do not need to own the Washington monument, nor do you own anyone else’s photo of the Washington monument and you sure as hell do not own the idea of taking a picture of that building. But that photo they used, that is your work.

      If you watch the video, they pretty much say the same. Casetify can make the exact same type of case, but they must use their own photos of the inside.

      • BaggySpandex@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The anecdotal situation that started a shitshow and ended up dying immediately. It quickly became a non-issue.

          • ILikeTrainsChooChoo_@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            He basically did a test where he bends the phone to check the bend-ability of it. The titanium frame survived, but because the middle portion of the phone was weaker, the glass bent and broke anyway.

            It isn’t exactly a non-issue, because situations like this can and will happen. It was however, blown out of proportion, because it was testing an extremely niche situation.

            • BaggySpandex@alien.topB
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Pretty much yeah. It put it into the zeitgeist that “the iPhone 15 PM is so much easier to break than any other iPhone and you should be worried”, and by and large it never turned into some outlier massive situation. Nobody has really talked about it since.

              • ILikeTrainsChooChoo_@alien.topB
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I do feel that he has a point though. Although he failed to properly test what he intended to show, it does show a weakness in the design. A phone rarely experiences such a uniform force when it’s dropped/ sat on.

  • onewingleft@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I never intend to buy a casetify case, ridiculously expensive. Especially after I expericed their ill-behaved staff at the store.

  • Mr_Anderson_48@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dbrand is probably the way to go for cases and skins. Expensive, but after years of various lineups, I can’t seen any other manufacturer perform at their level.

    • Homicidal_Pingu@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve had a view of their products and they all seems to start breaking bitter about a year. I had a grip case that started warping and several skins that the top layer starts to peel after a year. Just taken the Damascus skin off my Mac due to it

  • Munro_McLaren@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re ugly cases anyways. They literally brand their screen protectors and the brand on their case makes them look cheap af. They’re also overpriced.

    • l-L-li@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why people buy dbrand or casetify is beyond me. Sticker on a phone as ‘protection’, how stupid people are?

    • Doomcalk@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      i bought a couple cases from them. I like the feel of their case, keeps to the boxy design of my phone. the buttons aren’t too thin compared to the other cases i was checking out.

      also the price at the time was similar to dbrand, mous, rhinoshield, etc. i used rhinoshield and dbrand before.