Talk:V-Cube 7

Untitled

I'm confused. What form of English is this article supposed to be in? It seems that the spellings are inconsistent throughout the article. I think it is supposed to be in British English. But I'm not sure.--Mjr162006 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put it in American English as far as I can tell. Part of this article was copied and adapted from the Rubik's Revenge article (which may have used British spellings) and part of it is stuff I wrote, which has American spellings. I didn't even notice the two spellings of color in the article. Hellbus (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

X by Y by Z

7x7x7 would imply 7 surfaces? Should this be 7x7x6? 66.129.242.4 (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Hellbus (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Each "7" in 7x7x7 refers to the number of divisions along each of the 3 coordinate axes. They do not refer to the number of surfaces.—Tetracube (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

11x11x11 Cube article?

Good news, bad news. 11x11x11 cubes are definitely available for purchase. For $300us. Ouch. The bad news is they're clear violations of Verdes' patents. I don't think that the fact that something is illegal should be a factor in whether it should have an article written about it though. Time to put up an 11x11x11 article? - Richfife (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe as a subsection of one of the V-Cube articles. I've also seen photos of a knockoff 9x9x9. I'd be hesitant to make an article on such a cube unless it was legit. I do, however, know that the total number of permutations would be 1.085 × 10⁴²⁵.

(108 045 178 258 420 731 738 925 754 663 524 543 361 804 989 461 778 909 661 194 248 616 146 199 189 531 110 986 674 596 948 308 149 097 195 104 597 861 969 894 942 798 553 423 867 871 880 815 315 651 620 138 828 397 458 174 623 717 108 406 062 472 644 120 648 145 631 502 753 444 208 947 192 594 683 946 979 016 765 246 017 714 771 117 240 905 886 538 309 863 990 564 915 352 623 878 213 736 994 673 497 302 521 176 618 898 434 465 690 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to be precise)

circular

Should it be mentioned that the cube has a slightly circlular surface because of the large amount of cubies that the corners barely have any room? With a more circular surface there are less corners that jut out. The more of the corner juts out the less it has to hold onto the cube. 69.136.72.16 (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned. Last paragraph of the "Mechanics" section. There's a picture illustrating the problem too. - Richfife (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

rename to 7x7x7 cube?

Could we rename this page to be about the 7x7x7 cube in general and not the V-Cube in particular? There is at least one other manufacturer for such cubes (fortunately more affordable).

Also +1 for creating a 9x9x9 and 11x11x11 articles regardless of Verdes' patents. Verdes had years to manufacture these cubes according to his schematics, and still has not done it, I don't see why the cubing community should be held back any longer, or why he should collect money from more capable competitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zegue Bamba (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

1 other LEGAL manufacturer? Where? Anyway, the 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5 cubes are all named according to their first trademarked name. Why is this any different? And, in regards to your "more capable competitors" remark. Verdes hired a Chinese company to make prototypes of his own completed designs and they decided to take the design for themselves instead and threatened to flood the market with copies unless Verdes gave them a manufacturing contract according to their terms. So, by "more capable" you mean "more unethical", right? - Richfife (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

* 1 other LEGAL manufacturer?

Legal according to who? Archaic laws made up by western countries in order to preserve their position and screw the rest of the world? Those make no sense in the 21st century. There are hundreds of other people who would have designed those cubes if Verdes hadn't, and that number will keep growing exponentially with advances in engineering, CAD, etc. Verdes certainly deserves props for his design, and he will forever be famous in the cubing community, but that doesn't give him the right to racket competitors. And it's not like he didn't even make money. He was the first to market the 6x6 and 7x7, that allowed him to sell those at a premium. I bought a 6x6 from him in 2008 for €53 incl. shipping, I was pretty happy with it but didn't get the 7x7 because of the price. But now these cubes are sold under $20 on eBay, this is great because many more people can afford them and enjoy them, and some of them will invent the next big things. That is progress. Verdes could have stayed in the race, by lowering his own prices after recouping his initial investment, and by offering new kinds of cubes, but he chose litigation. Too bad. The world doesn't wait.

• the 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5 cubes are all named according to their first trademarked name. Why is this any different?

The difference is that Rubik's cube is a universally known name, while V-Cube is not.

• ... threatened to flood the market with copies unless Verdes gave them a manufacturing contract according to their terms.

If that story is true it just shows that greed doesn't pay.

• So, by "more capable" you mean "more unethical", right?

What a typical arrogant Western posture. No, I mean more capable. The real investment is manufacturing. Verdes should have recognized that. I'll bet the Chinese got fed up being treated like uncreative thieves. As the Koreans must be with Apple.Zegue Bamba (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! - Richfife (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Defending knockoffs? That's a new one for me, ZB. One that I can do without. Hellbus (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And asking that the inventor's name be removed from the page out of respect for knockoffs. That's taking it to a level I didn't see coming. Also, a patent doesn't require a working model. It only requires a drawing, even a hand drawing. Advances in CAD or engineering aren't responsible for Verdes' design. - Richfife (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

::::: And asking that the inventor's name be removed from the page out of respect for knockoffs. That's taking it to a level I didn't see coming. Let me ask you this, ZB: If a 6x6 and a 7x7 are such an obvious next step and Verdes' design is nothing special, how come the Professor's cube was on the market and sold hundreds of thousands if not millions of pieces for over 20 years before anyone was able to devise a bigger ply cube? Do you seriously think no one tried? - Richfife (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Repost of a comment already deleted. - Richfife (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

* "asking that the inventor's name be removed from the page out of respect for knockoffs"

I didn't suggest that the inventor's name to be removed from the page, only from the *name* of the page. Just like if you want to know about airplanes, you search for airplanes and then you can learn who invented it.

* "If a 6x6 and a 7x7 are such an obvious next step and Verdes' design is nothing special..."

I never said that. On the contrary I find it brilliant. But it was inevitable that someone would discover it, because more and more people have access to more and more knowledge and better tools. So Verdes was the agent of progress, and absolutely deserves credit and rewards for his ingenuity. But without him, it would just have been delayed. This is no different from all the other inventions that have been made before.

However, the invention is not really worthwhile until it gets put to good use. In this case, this means getting in the hands of as many people as possible. And here lies the problem, because the agent of progress has become an agent of obstruction. Can you imagine where we would be now if the inventor of the wheel had patented it, and nobody was allowed to create wheels without paying royalties to their descendants? Zegue Bamba (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Can you imagine where we would be now if the inventor of the wheel had patented it, and nobody was allowed to create wheels without paying royalties to their descendants?" No, I can't. Patents last 17 years. That is the amount time deemed appropriate to exploit your inventions before releasing them to the general public. Don't like it? Petition your government. Don't whine about it here. I don't doubt there are ways to make 7x7 cubes that DON'T violate Verdes' patents. Probably hundreds of ways. But none of your producers has managed it. There are at least 3 completely different 5x5 mechanisms on the market. Why hasn't anyone done the same for the 7x7? If they did, they could freely distribute them anywhere and everywhere. There are no 7x7 cubes that are not based on Verdes' idea. At all. There is no evidence that someone would have developed it in his absence. At all. Claiming that there would have been is meaningless. Uwe Meffert, for instance, is no slouch when it comes to puzzle design. If you want to create a redirect, go ahead.

Also, you're responding to something I already removed from the original comment. - Richfife (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Patents last 17 years. That is the amount time deemed appropriate to exploit your inventions before releasing them to the general public."

This is perfectly ridiculous in an age where information doubles every 2 years. Take for instance 1-click checkout. That was an original idea for what, 3 months?

"Don't like it? Petition your government. Don't whine about it here."

I'll "whine" if I want to. Actually, you were the one "whining" about "knockoffs" in the first place.

"But none of your producers has managed it."

They are not "my" producers, and I doubt they even tried as that would make no more sense than reinventing the wheel.

"Claiming that there would have been is meaningless."

Quite the contrary, it is claiming there would not have been which is absurd. This is no different than any other invention. They just happen as mankind's knowledge expands. The inventors are the first ones to get there, but they only speed up a process which would be happening anyway. If the wheel somehow did not exist today, it would be discovered independently by at least a billion people in the first year.

"Also, you're responding to something I already removed from the original comment."

It was written before you removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zegue Bamba (talk • contribs) 22:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I think I can sum up this conversation and with any luck put an end to it. The article name is not going to change, and ZB's continued trolling only confirms that. Hellbus (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

News on this: as of January 2012, there are no longer any 6x6 and 7x7 cubes for sale on eBay other than the V-Cube brand. The 6x6 are $39.95 and the 7x7 are $44.95. This could be the work of Verdes Innovations' lawyers. For comparison, the cheapest 6x6 and 7x7 I saw online were $11.95 and $14.95 respectively. Well, I'm sorry, but when people can build micro-processors on the nanometer scale or send someone to the moon, coming up with a way to rotate 7x7x7 pieces on 3 axis isn't earth-shattering in comparison. Any mechanical engineering grad student worth his salt and seriously wanting to solve that problem could also discover the design. Verdes was just the first one. Even if we only consider Rubik's type puzzles, if you just look at all the crazy ones of all shapes that are coming out now, by Oskar and many others, it is obvious that the state of the art there has long moved past 6x6 or 7x7 designs, and those designs should be in the public domain by now. It's a disgrace to the patent system that one man should be granted a 17-year monopoly in order to sell those cubes at 3 times their market value. Even if he's Greek and the Greeks could use a break right now, because the Greeks in general don't benefit from this system. Anon26593 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the ShengShou big cubes which came out in 2012 use a different design, and those cubes turn quite a bit more smoothly (not just my opinion, but also of several YouTube puzzle reviewers). As for my "trolling": Western "intellectual property" laws are not applicable everywhere in the world. Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia should adopt a global point of view. Zegue Bamba (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there is merit in renaming / creating a new article. There is confusion in the article between the product, the V-Cube 7 (which as a product may deserve its own article) and a 7x7x7 cube in general. For example, the "permutations" section is the same for all 7x7x7 cubes - not just the V-Cube 7. The Records section is the inappropriate for the article, as the current records listed don't necessarily use the V-Cube 7 (in competitions it is referred to as the 7x7x7 cube and non-V-Cubes are permitted). In the case of the average record, it can be seen on the video that Zemdegs uses a ShengShou Mini. Particularly with the production of the ShengShou 7x7x7 (and mini version) and the MoYu AoFu 7x7x7 there is a strong case for a 7x7x7 article in general (there may also be a case for the V-Cube 7 as one particular variety of the item). EeeeeWarne (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that none of the records mentioned in the Rubik's Cube article are set using Rubik's(tm) brand cubes either, but there's little controversy over there. - Richfife (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The puzzle articles are named after the first product of their type patented and/or sold. Other companies make puzzles, but given that their external behavior is the same regardless of the internal mechanism, I see little point in renaming them. Hellbus (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As a speedcuber of 9 years, I can safely say that no one ranked in the top 1000 in the world uses V-Cube brand 6x6x6's or 7x7x7's. The basic idea of his design is still used, but if his actual design were still used records would be at least a minute slower. I believe a separate "7x7x7" page is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkwikihelper (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The Professor's Cube article describes multiple mechanisms and manufacturers but is named after the first 5x5 cube. There is no need to rename or effectively duplicate this article. Hellbus (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-primary sources needed

The permutations section is heavy on math claims. Certainly, some of this product's notability must arise from its difficulty. For this reason, we need to see non-primary and reliable sources publishing this information on the the product. Asking the reader to trust the information on the manufacturer's site alone, without ability to verify via a secondary source, is not encyclopedic. This, per WP:PRIMARY. I have tagged the section as such. At first glance, it looks like other parts of the article may need similar scrutiny. A similar issue is apparent in the same manufacturer's V-Cube 6 article. --Ds13 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed the link to point to Jaap's puzzle page, which (to cubers at least) seems to be reliable. Did the same for 6. Hellbus (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many pictures

Hi, I think the article currently has too many pictures. I'd remove at least one of them, maybe two. But which ones? Judith Sunrise (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Rename the article's header to "7x7x7 Cube" instead of "V-Cube 7"

Sorry for making a new topic, I wasn't able to figure out how to add a new comment to a topic without having to reply to an existing comment

First of all, the argument in the previous topic was over 10 years ago, and the general standpoint of the (speed)cubing community has changed quite starkly. While yes there are patents for the V-Cube 6 and 7, that shouldn't mean that all 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 puzzles should also be considered as "V-Cube 6s" or "V-Cube 7s". The mechanism of modern cubes have become significantly different since 10 years ago.

The WCA refers to the puzzle as 7x7x7 and not a V-Cube 7, as does community wikis like speedsolving.com and ruwix.com (all 3 of which are used as sources for the article). Also, it is honestly misleading, if not, factually incorrect to include the statistics of the fastest 7x7x7 solves when they puzzles they used were not the V-Cube 7.

The argument that the article's name should stay "V-Cube 7" because it follows the pattern of other twisty puzzle pages of using the name of the first puzzle of that type such as "Professor's Cube" for the 5x5x5 is flawed. If we were to follow that pattern, then the article on "Car" should be renamed to the name of the first patented car. Instead, I believe we should use what is the common name for the puzzle/object as the article's title. V-Cube 6 and V-Cube 7 are not common names of the puzzle, and are only used to refer to the specific products manufactured by V-Cube. The generic term for the 7-layered varient of the Rubik's Cube is "7x7x7". (More accurately speaking, the most common term is "7x7". however that is just a short form of the more formal 7x7x7 since the 3rd dimension is inferred when we are talking about cubes)

Proposed solutions:

a) Rename this article (and V-Cube 6) to use the "common name" for the puzzle, not the "first patent name". It would still be mentioned in the article that the first produced 7x7x7 was the V-Cube 7. Perhaps you could also name the article as "7x7x7 Cube (V-Cube 7)"

b) Separate the article into two, one that talk about the puzzle (7x7x7 Cube) and the other, the product (V-Cube 7). The 7x7x7 Cube page would talk about the puzzle in general (includes world records), while the V-Cube 7 page should only talk about the product itself. Any reference that is meant to link to a page talking about a 7-layered version of a Rubik's Cube should be directed to the 7x7x7 and not the V-Cube 7 page. A similar format should be used for the V-Cube 6 page. KMMineCube (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)