大公司將摧毀初創公司 這實爲謬論

“But what happens if Amazon or Google decides to do the same thing?”

“如果亞馬遜或谷歌決定做你們正在做的事情，那會怎麼樣？”

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.

風險投資家時常將亞馬遜和谷歌作爲科技巨頭的代名詞，然後詢問科技創業者這樣一個問題。實際上，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吹灰之力地摧毀那些小型企業，只要它們願意這樣做。想想當谷歌挑戰Uber，蘋果挑戰Spotify，或是亞馬遜挑戰Instacart時引發的那種驚惶感吧。

But here’s the thing: It rarely happens.

但事實是：這一幕極其罕見。

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，這絕不是說大多數初創公司都成功了，或大公司並不常用它們的財富來收購那些可以輔助其主業的初創公司。我只是想指出，現有科技公司看到其他人的新想法獲得關注後，就開始大規模模仿的成功案例非常少見。

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.

舉個例子，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WordPress似乎很好地應對了來自雅虎360的挑戰。

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.

也許你會反駁說，微軟過去曾抄襲了Netscape的創意並將其打敗，但是：（1）Netscape仍以42億美元的價格被美國在線收購；（2）微軟針對Netscape的行爲成爲聯邦政府大規模反壟斷調查的組成部分。而亞馬遜對Quidsi所做的那些事情，則更像是違反公平競爭的恃強凌弱（並最終讓後者被迫接受收購），而不是投入巨資的創新行爲。

But, again, those are extraordinary exceptions to the rule.

但需要再次聲明，這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.

我不是很清楚爲何科技巨頭會採取如此糟糕的手段來擠壓小公司。也許是因爲過往的種種經歷成爲大公司沉重的包袱，或是導致它們變得十分保守，或是沿襲陳舊的產品路線，而這不一定能順暢地轉化爲新的創新努力。也許這樣做是忌憚初創公司的先動優勢，早期採用者往往會堅持使用最初的產品。一種可能性更大的情形是，初創公司沉浸於自己的新點子中，而對於那些巨頭而言，那只是對他們的核心業務缺乏衝擊力的一個新項目而已。