“大公司將摧毀初創(chuàng)公司”實(shí)為謬論
|
????“如果亞馬遜或谷歌決定做你們正在做的事情，那會(huì)怎么樣？” ????風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家時(shí)常將亞馬遜和谷歌作為科技巨頭的代名詞，然后詢問科技創(chuàng)業(yè)者這樣一個(gè)問題。實(shí)際上，這正是HBO劇集《硅谷》的主要線索。其基本理念是，手握豐富資源的巨頭可以不費(fèi)吹灰之力地摧毀那些小型企業(yè)，只要它們?cè)敢膺@樣做。想想當(dāng)谷歌挑戰(zhàn)Uber，蘋果挑戰(zhàn)Spotify，或是亞馬遜挑戰(zhàn)Instacart時(shí)引發(fā)的那種驚惶感吧。 ????但事實(shí)是：這一幕極其罕見。 ????需要澄清的是，這絕不是說大多數(shù)初創(chuàng)公司都成功了，或大公司并不常用它們的財(cái)富來收購那些可以輔助其主業(yè)的初創(chuàng)公司。我只是想指出，現(xiàn)有科技公司看到其他人的新想法獲得關(guān)注后，就開始大規(guī)模模仿的成功案例非常少見。 ????舉個(gè)例子，Google+打垮了Facebook嗎？Google Buzz摧毀了Twitter嗎？Facebook Poke擊敗了Snapchat嗎？Facebook Places讓Foursquare消失了嗎？我還記得，新公司W(wǎng)ordPress似乎很好地應(yīng)對(duì)了來自雅虎360的挑戰(zhàn)。 ????也許你會(huì)反駁說，微軟過去曾抄襲了Netscape的創(chuàng)意并將其打敗，但是：（1）Netscape仍以42億美元的價(jià)格被美國在線收購；（2）微軟針對(duì)Netscape的行為成為聯(lián)邦政府大規(guī)模反壟斷調(diào)查的組成部分。而亞馬遜對(duì)Quidsi所做的那些事情，則更像是違反公平競爭的恃強(qiáng)凌弱（并最終讓后者被迫接受收購），而不是投入巨資的創(chuàng)新行為。 ????但需要再次聲明，這些都是引人注目的例外案例。 ????我不是很清楚為何科技巨頭會(huì)采取如此糟糕的手段來擠壓小公司。也許是因?yàn)檫^往的種種經(jīng)歷成為大公司沉重的包袱，或是導(dǎo)致它們變得十分保守，或是沿襲陳舊的產(chǎn)品路線，而這不一定能順暢地轉(zhuǎn)化為新的創(chuàng)新努力。也許這樣做是忌憚初創(chuàng)公司的先動(dòng)優(yōu)勢，早期采用者往往會(huì)堅(jiān)持使用最初的產(chǎn)品。一種可能性更大的情形是，初創(chuàng)公司沉浸于自己的新點(diǎn)子中，而對(duì)于那些巨頭而言，那只是對(duì)他們的核心業(yè)務(wù)缺乏沖擊力的一個(gè)新項(xiàng)目而已。 ????我知道的是，除了擔(dān)心亞馬遜和谷歌有可能沖過來搶走他們的飯碗之外，初創(chuàng)公司和他們的投資者還有許多要操心的事情。這類事情過去沒有發(fā)生多少，所以也幾乎沒有理由相信它將在未來發(fā)生。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)） ????譯者：嚴(yán)匡正 ????審校：任文科 |
????“But what happens if Amazon or Google decides to do the same thing?” ????This is a popular venture capitalist question for tech entrepreneurs, with Amazon AMZN 0.10% and Google GOOG 0.65% serving as stand-ins for a much larger group of powerful corporate incumbents. In fact, it’s a primary plot-line on HBO’s Silicon Valley. The basic notion is that huge companies with huge resources are able to crush the little guy if they just put their mind to it. ????Or even the not-so-little guys. Just think about all of the consternation over Google challenging Uber. Or Apple AAPL -0.84% challenging Spotify. Or, yes, Amazon challenging Instacart. ????But here’s the thing: It rarely happens. ????To be clear, this is not to say that most startups succeed, or that big companies don’t often use their wealth to acquire ancillary businesses. Instead, it’s simply to point out that existing tech companies rarely see someone else gain traction with a new idea, and then successfully copy it at scale. ????For example, did Google+ take down Facebook or Google Buzz destroy Twitter? Did Facebook Poke beat Snapchat or Facebook Places cause Foursquare to disappear? I also recall a young WordPress seemed to handle the Yahoo 360 challenge pretty well. ????Maybe you could argue that Microsoft copied and defeated Netscape back in the day, but: (1) Netscape still got acquired by $4.2 billion by AOL, and (2) Microsoft’s actions vs. Netscape became part of the federal government’s massive antitrust case. And then there was what Amazon did to Quidsi, which was more about anti-competitive bullying (and ultimate acquisition under duress) than well-capitalized innovation. ????But, again, those are extraordinary exceptions to the rule. ????I don’t exactly know why big tech does such a lousy job out-maneuvering smaller tech. Maybe it’s because large tech companies are burdened by all sorts of past experiences that cause them to either be too conservative or to follow a well-worn product path that doesn’t necessarily translate well to the new effort. Perhaps it’s more about first-mover advantage, with early adopters sticking with their original love. Or, most likely, startups are consumed with their new ideas whereas, for the incumbents, it’s just a new project that won’t have any imminent impact on the core business. ????All I do know is that startups and their investors have plenty to worry about besides how Amazon or Google is going to swoop in and steal their lunch money. It hasn’t happened much in the past, so there is little reason to believe it will happen in the future. |
最新文章