Mossberg criticism of Apple, Google and other Silicon Valley Giants: hindering innovation-Google, Apple, Microsoft IT information

(This free, Dr Mok's "weekly review" column--translator's note)

In 2011, I in the D9 with Google Executive Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the General Assembly (Eric Schmidt) started a conversation, he inadvertently referred to the "gang of four" concept, which is 4 in his view the leading companies in the consumer technology industry as a whole. As soon as he took office, I mentioned the word.

Schmidt explains that he thinks there are 4 platforms-technology giants dominated the field of consumer technology, Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook respectively. "No merger of the four companies to achieve this level of scale. "He said.

Eric Schmidt

"Every company I mentioned above are able to take advantage of modern computer science concepts and in their areas of focus with great speed very aggressive scale. "He went on to say that" in ten or twenty years ago, only one company can reach them now reach and economies of scale. ”

That company is who? Is Microsoft, but it is excluded from the "gang of four" out of range. When asked about the reason behind, Schmidt said he thinks the Seattle software company has become a focus of date products, business-oriented companies (in the second-day meeting, Microsoft executives shidifen·xinnuofusiji (Steven Sinofsky) quipped: "as long as being called the ' gang of four ', certainly come to no good. "-1970, he may refer to the" gang of four "fell. ）

Now, 6 years later, either individually, or merged, this 5 companies (I worked in the Microsoft) than are more powerful than the original. Every company has experienced successes and failures, and also moved into new areas of business. But from my perspective, than the Schmidt referred to the "gang of four" dominance when more secure.

Oligopoly pattern

In fact, 2017 consumer technology market has become an oligopoly market. At least it may seem, these giants and once a leading industrial enterprises in key industries American heritage is very similar.

Is clear, I am not saying that "five people" through pricing conspiracy to hinder innovation, or engage in any illegal activities . I'm obviously not saying that they should had been lawsuits for violations of antitrust law, like Microsoft in the late 1990 's.

But I do think their strong influence to cast a shadow over Silicon Valley : this is a place of legend, many garages or dorm are born great and innovative consumer technology innovation, and eventually grow into powerful company--"five-" every family has experienced in the process.

What I'm worried about is, even now the entrepreneurial companies, even if they're good enough, and ultimately can only be swallowed up by the Giants, became a feature of their products.

Even without acquisitions, to the prosperity and development of entrepreneurial companies will only be able to control these giant platform "modest success" could also pay into to these giants. For example, last week listed the Snapchat parent company, Snap in 2013 has rejected the "five" members of Facebook offer of as much as $3 billion. But it is to today's businesses rely on Google's cloud computing services, as well as Apple and Google's mobile application platform.

The annual acquisitions

Other "five-" fate more tragic pose a threat or opportunity to the company, they tend to be bought by each other directly. The five company acquisitions every year a large number of small businesses, in many cases only after the personnel of these companies or patents. In fact, there are many entrepreneurial the main goal of the company was bought by giants.

I recall a bit, would give the following acquisitions of several famous cases:

--Google acquired YouTube, DoubleClick, Android and Nest.

--Microsoft buys Skype, Nokia and LinkedIn.

--Facebook buy Instagram, WhatsApp and Oculus.

--Amazon to buy Audible, Zappos and Twitch.

Even the little spree, Apple rarely disclose the small transactions, acquisition of chip design company P.A. Semi, headset manufacturers and music service company Beats as well as voice Siri.

Almost every acquisition enhances the power of these giants, extending their tentacles. Can you imagine what Android Google or YouTube is like? Can you imagine not ultra high speed custom processor or Siri for iPhone and iPad: what?

Plagiarism and tax

"Five people" strength is using its huge technical teams to mimic the way other companies products, and then into your platform. Recently there have been two examples: Facebook owned the Instagram launches with Snapchat very similar to the "Stories" feature; Amazon Twitch seem to have developed a very similar service with Twitter.

For many small businesses, must be paid to the owners of these platforms with some form of "tax", or to comply with the rules they can adjust at any time-for applications, particularly for parts and service enterprises. This is clearly harmful to innovation.

Cooperation and competition

Even in the "five people" among the members, there is coexistence of interdependence and mutual penetration of the status quo. Perhaps the most famous example is Google's acquisition and development
Href = "http://Android.iThome.com/" target= "_blank" >Android, and finally with Apple
Href = "http://iPhone.iThome.com/" target= "_blank" >iPhone war, or even forcing Mr Schmidt left the Apple Board of Directors.

4 of the 5 companies have some form of streaming music services are provided. Google has also retained the failed Google+, this is an attempt to challenge Facebook's product. Amazon was just a remarkable network of retailers, but now introduced many hardware products, and become a leader in the emerging field of artificial intelligence – "five-" all members are actively expanding this area. Facebook has introduced a commodities market, Amazon formed a certain degree of competition. Amazon AWS cloud computing services with Google and Microsoft go head-to-head.

But they are in competition there is also cooperation. Facebook is vital to Apple, or even directly with the Twitter integration in the iOS system. Microsoft also develop many applications for Android and iOS, Google, Amazon and Facebook, too. ICloud and you can run iTunes on Windows, can also be used on the Mac Office. Apple has Google as the default search engine on its Safari browser.

When Apple refused to unlock the iPhone for terrorists, "FBI world war", the other 4 companies (as well as many other technology companies) solidarity. When faced with a problem as Trump's immigration policy, they also come together.

Outer platform

Of course, in "five", but also some very well-known companies are operating or trying to run a number of confrontations with consumer brands. For example, Twitter is a platform, but were met with poor management, and through the application of simplified content access difficult to hold back on the road. Slack is not a consumer application, but if you prefer, they can achieve this transformation-but have to rely on a "five-" platform.

Nintendo is a platform-independent company, Sony game consoles too, Netflix is – although it is highly dependent on "five". Roku is also one of the more successful independent company.

America's big four mobile operators in China (traditional oligarchs themselves) may occasionally develop their own software and services, and want to build their own platforms. For example, if you are using a Verizon service, will be on the phone to watch the United States Football League (NFL) games. But so far, I think they have not developed into "five-" the real platform.

Outside the United States, companies like Alibaba and Tencent also has a strong platform. Samsung occasionally tries to be a powerful platform for mobile applications and services. Samsung bought Siri even founder of artificial intelligence company founded by Viv. But Google's carrot and stick approach, Google service you want to use Samsung seems to always converge on a regular basis their ambitions.

Summary

"Five people" every company I love, and I use their products every day or every week. I am also aware, in the United States under the capitalist system, has always been a few Giants long dominated an industry tradition-for example, the automobile industry and the broadcast television industry has seen the "big three". But in the end, a rising star (or the Government) is broken in this situation.

Finally, I don't even think that "five people" type of oligopoly pattern is detrimental to consumer technology markets, it would essentially limit the independent development of the company has a new idea. However, this situation will end, but I do not know when.

莫博士批评苹果、谷歌等硅谷巨头：阻碍创新 - 谷歌,苹果,微软 - IT资讯

（本文出自由莫博士主持的“每周评论”栏目——译者注）

2011年，我在我们的D9大会上跟谷歌执行董事长埃里克·施密特（Eric Schmidt）展开了一次沟通，他当时不经意间提到了“四人帮”的概念，也就是4家在他看来主导整个消费科技行业的公司。他刚一上台，我就提到了这个词。

施密特解释道，他认为有4家平台型科技巨头主导了消费科技领域，分别是谷歌、苹果、亚马逊和Facebook。“从来没有四家公司的合并规模能够达到这种程度。”他说。

埃里克·施密特

“我上面提到的每一家公司都能够利用现代化的计算机科学概念，而且都在他们专注的领域以极快的速度非常激进地扩大规模。”他接着说，“在一二十年前，只有一家公司能达到这些跨国公司如今的触角和经济规模。”

那家公司是谁？是微软，但它却被排除在“四人帮”范围之外。在被问及背后的原因时，施密特表示，他认为这家西雅图软件公司已经变成一家着眼于过时产品、以企业为导向的公司（在第二天的会议上，微软高管史蒂芬·辛诺夫斯基（Steven Sinofsky）却讽刺道：“只要被人称作‘四人帮’，肯定没有好下场。”——他可能指的是中国1970年代的“四人帮”倒台。）

6年后的今天，无论是单个来看，还是合并来看，这5家公司（我把微软算进来了）的实力比都比当初更加强大了。每家公司都经历过成功和失败，也都进军了新的业务领域。但在我看来，他们比当初施密特提到“四人帮”时的主导地位更加稳固了。

寡头格局

事实上，2017年的消费科技市场已经成为一个寡头市场。至少表面看来，这些巨头与曾经主导关键行业的那些美国传统工业企业非常相似。

需要明确的是，我并不是说“五人帮”通过串谋定价来阻碍创新，或者从事任何非法勾当。我显然也不是说他们应该因为违反反垄断法而遭到诉讼，就像1990年代末的微软那样。

但我的确认为，他们强大的影响力给硅谷蒙上了一层阴影：这是一个充满传奇的地方，许多车库或宿舍里都曾诞生过伟大而新颖的消费科技创意，并最终成长为不可一世的公司——“五人帮”中的每一家都曾经历过这样的历程。

我担心的是，即便如今再出现这样的创业公司，即便他们足够优秀，最终也只能被这些巨头吞并，成为其产品中的一项功能。

即便不被收购，得以繁荣发展的创业公司往往也只能在这些巨头控制的平台上“小有成就”，还有可能向这些巨头支付分成。例如，上周上市的Snapchat母公司Snap曾在2013年拒绝了“五人帮”成员Facebook高达30亿美元的收购要约。但它如今的业务却要依赖谷歌的云计算服务，以及苹果和谷歌的移动应用平台。

一年一度的收购潮

其他给“五人帮”带来威胁或机会的公司命运更加悲惨，他们往往会直接被对方收购。这五家公司每年都会收购大量小企业，很多情况下只是看重这些公司的人才或专利。事实上，有很多创业公司的主要目标就是被巨头收购。

我简单回忆了一下，就能列出如下几家著名的收购案例：

——谷歌收购YouTube、DoubleClick、Android和Nest。

——微软收购Skype、诺基亚和LinkedIn。

——Facebook收购Instagram、WhatsApp和Oculus。

——亚马逊收购Audible、Zappos和Twitch。

就连很少展开大举收购，也很少披露小型交易的苹果，也收购了芯片设计公司P.A. Semi、耳机制造商和音乐服务公司Beats以及语音助理服务Siri。

几乎每一笔收购都增强了这些巨头的实力，扩大了它们的触角。你能想象没有Android或YouTube的谷歌是什么样子吗？你能想象没有超高速定制处理器或Siri的iPhone和iPad是什么样子吗？

抄袭与税收

“五人帮”壮大实力的方式就是利用其庞大的技术团队模仿其他科技公司的产品，然后整合到自己的平台上。最近就出现过两个例子：Facebook旗下的Instagram推出了与Snapchat非常相似的“Stories”功能；亚马逊Twitch似乎也在开发一款与Twitter十分相似的服务。

对很多小企业来说，必须要向这些平台所有者支付某种形式的“税”，或者遵守他们随时都有可能调整的规则——对应用、配件和服务企业来说尤其如此。这显然有害创新。

合作竞争

即便是在“五人帮”成员之间，也存在相互依赖与相互渗透并存的现状。最著名的例子或许就是谷歌收购和发展href="http://android.ithome.com/" target="_blank">Android，并最终与苹果href="http://iphone.ithome.com/" target="_blank">iPhone兵戎相见，甚至迫使施密特离开苹果董事会。

这5家公司有中有4家都提供某种形式的流媒体音乐服务。谷歌还保留了已经失败的Google+，这是一款试图挑战Facebook的产品。亚马逊原本只是一家了不起的网络零售商，但现在却推出了许多硬件产品，而且成为了新兴的人工智能领域的领导者——“五人帮”的所有成员都在积极拓展这个领域。Facebook也推出了一个商品交易市场，与亚马逊形成了一定程度的竞争。亚马逊AWS云计算服务则与谷歌和微软正面交锋。

但他们在竞争之外也有合作。Facebook对苹果至关重要，甚至与Twitter一起被直接整合到iOS系统中。微软也为Android和iOS开发了许多应用，谷歌、亚马逊和Facebook同样如此。你可以在Windows上运行iTunes和iCloud，也可以在Mac上使用Office。苹果仍将谷歌作为其Safari浏览器上的默认搜索引擎。

当苹果因为不肯解锁恐怖分子的iPhone而“大战FBI”时，另外4家公司（以及其他许多科技公司）都予以声援。而面对特朗普的移民政策这样的问题时，他们同样团结一心。

外围平台

当然，在“五人帮”之外，也有一些非常著名的公司正在运营或试图运行一些与之对抗的消费品牌。例如，Twitter就是一种平台，但却遭遇管理不善，而且在通过应用简化内容获取难度的道路上有所退缩。Slack还不是一款消费应用，但如果愿意，他们完全可以实现这种转型——但它也要依赖“五人帮”的平台。

任天堂也是一家独立平台公司，索尼的游戏机同样如此，Netflix也属于这种情况——尽管它高度依赖“五人帮”。Roku同样是一家较为成功的独立平台公司。

美国四大中国性移动运营商（他们本身就是传统的寡头）偶尔也会开发自己的软件和服务，希望打造自己的平台。例如，如果你使用的是Verizon的服务，便可在手机上观看美国橄榄球联盟（NFL）的比赛。但目前为止，我认为他们都没有发展成“五人帮”那种真正意义上的平台。

在美国之外，阿里巴巴和腾讯这样的公司也都拥有强大的平台。三星偶尔也会尝试成为一家强大的移动软件和服务平台。三星甚至收购了Siri创始人创办的人工智能公司Viv。但面临谷歌的软硬兼施，希望使用谷歌服务的三星似乎总会定期收敛自己的野心。

总结

“五人帮”中的每家企业我都很喜欢，我每天或每个星期都会使用他们的产品。我也清楚地意识到，在美国的资本主义制度下，历来都存在少数巨头长期主导某个行业的传统——例如，汽车行业和广播电视行业都曾经出现过“三巨头”。但最终，后起之秀（或政府）还是打破了这种局面。

最后，我甚至认为这种“五人帮”式的寡头格局对消费科技市场不利，它本质上会限制有新想法的公司独立发展。不过，这种局面终将结束，只是不知具体何时罢了。