评论
打印
“But what happens if Amazon or Google decides to do the same thing?”
“如果亚马逊或谷歌决定做你们正在做的事情，那会怎么样？”
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.
风险投资家时常将亚马逊和谷歌作为科技巨头的代名词，然后询问科技创业者这样一个问题。实际上，这正是HBO剧集《硅谷》的主要线索。其基本理念是，手握丰富资源的巨头可以不费吹灰之力地摧毁那些小型企业，只要它们愿意这样做。想想当谷歌挑战Uber，苹果挑战Spotify，或是亚马逊挑战Instacart时引发的那种惊惶感吧。
But here’s the thing: It rarely happens.
但事实是：这一幕极其罕见。
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.
需要澄清的是，这绝不是说大多数初创公司都成功了，或大公司并不常用它们的财富来收购那些可以辅助其主业的初创公司。我只是想指出，现有科技公司看到其他人的新想法获得关注后，就开始大规模模仿的成功案例非常少见。
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.
举个例子，Google+打垮了Facebook吗？Google Buzz摧毁了Twitter吗？Facebook Poke击败了Snapchat吗？Facebook Places让Foursquare消失了吗？我还记得，新公司WordPress似乎很好地应对了来自雅虎360的挑战。
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.
也许你会反驳说，微软过去曾抄袭了Netscape的创意并将其打败，但是：（1）Netscape仍以42亿美元的价格被美国在线收购；（2）微软针对Netscape的行为成为联邦政府大规模反垄断调查的组成部分。而亚马逊对Quidsi所做的那些事情，则更像是违反公平竞争的恃强凌弱（并最终让后者被迫接受收购），而不是投入巨资的创新行为。
But, again, those are extraordinary exceptions to the rule.
但需要再次声明，这些都是引人注目的例外案例。
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.
我不是很清楚为何科技巨头会采取如此糟糕的手段来挤压小公司。也许是因为过往的种种经历成为大公司沉重的包袱，或是导致它们变得十分保守，或是沿袭陈旧的产品路线，而这不一定能顺畅地转化为新的创新努力。也许这样做是忌惮初创公司的先动优势，早期采用者往往会坚持使用最初的产品。一种可能性更大的情形是，初创公司沉浸于自己的新点子中，而对于那些巨头而言，那只是对他们的核心业务缺乏冲击力的一个新项目而已。
