英国卫报的John Naughton发布了一个完美的观察报告--虽然其中的预测对我们来说非常明显--尽管Facebook与苹果公司拥有压倒性的统治权,他们终将衰败."历史告诉我们,对现今的科技工业巨头们来说,只有一条路可走,那就是"衰亡"."这同样适用于谷歌与亚马逊.因为这,不可避免的.
Naughton的论点--历史学家和枪炮与玫瑰的粉丝应该很熟悉--是没有什么会走向永恒.在重读Paul Kenndy关于古罗马帝国,西班牙帝国,与大不列颠帝国的编年史著作<伟大权力的崛起与灭亡>后,他意识到这些老生常谈同样会发生在先进的科技巨头上.
他们都一度站在世界之巅.接着,他们--在当时还是不可想象地--衰败了.他们开始崩塌;他们在历史中隐隐暗去;随着时间的前进,他们的政治与文化影响力逐渐衰退.他们跌得越远,存在感就越低.看看西班牙罗马和英国吧.他们的衰败是由于他们想掌控一切.他们试图将想法强加于人民;他们闭关锁国;他们控制经济;他们认为他们的方法他们的文化是一切的答案.抱着这样的自信与绝对的权力,他们认为没有什么能与之匹敌.接着,他们衰亡了.
但不能只看古代史.看看那些大公司,比如福特微软或柯达,他们曾一度统治由他们所开拓的市场,并为接下来的几十年时间设定了趋势.但是最终,他们都慢慢被人淡忘.
其中一些破产了,比如柯达.其中一些,比如福特或微软,变成了一大票公司中一张并不出众的脸--仍然规模庞大,但不再号令天下,不再拥有90-95%的市场.这些市场有的已经被新兴产品所取代--手机与平板打败了电脑,掠夺了他们的权力.有的完全隐于无形,比如柯达的胶卷产业被数码摄影产业所取代.
当这些公司处于统治地位时,几乎不能想象他们会经历衰败.苹果,亚马逊,谷歌与Facebook也不会有所不同.他们不会在同一时间走下坡路,但他们终将走上下坡路.
尽管苹果与Facebook的销蚀是不可避免的,但销蚀的时机以及原因并不尽然相同.苹果的的能量在于他们造出的产品让人们不顾一切去购买去追随,同时也创造了巨大的利润.而硬件产业定律在于:随着竞争的日益激烈,利润必然逐步减少.所以从长期趋势来看,苹果所得利润将越来越少.决定苹果未来的是:他是否能开发出新的统治市场的产品,如同iPod,iPhone与iPad.
另一方面,目前的Facebook并不制造实物,他提供了一个网络服务,而人们为其估值.为了达到从用户处盈利并满足那些华尔街投资者的目的,他必须表现出更强的侵略性与控制欲.而过分的侵略性也让他饱受谴责.这也正是为什么,到最后,他终将成为历史的一条脚注.如同微软.光芒终将散去.
并不是说苹果会消失.作为一家拥有1000亿美元并且有能力制造出能搅动市场并令人满意且能产生巨大利润的公司,苹果在很长一段时间内仍然会是个成功的赚钱的公司.他会成为另一个索尼--有存在感,但不再统治市场.亚马逊,不谈他刀锋般的薄利,仍有可能保持一定地位.而谷歌会成为另一个微软.
回到Facebook...正如Naughton所说,Facebook会变得全无存在感,继而消失.因为他没有完全不能被取代的产品.为了满足广告投放者与股东们的利益,他一步步向用户隐私紧逼,而他的用户终将被逼上另一块高低.
Facebook也许会最早开始衰败.但是现今所有的科技巨头都会跟随他的步伐步入荒芜,如同之前所有的帝国一般.至少,我们能对取代他们的有所期待
John Naughton at the Guardian has a perfect—albeit obvious—observation: Despite their overwhelming dominance, Facebook and Apple will eventually fall. "History should teach us that for today's technology industry titans, the only way is down." That goes for Google, too. And Amazon. It's inevitable.
Naughton's argument—familiar to historians and Guns 'n Roses fans alike—is that nothing lasts forever. He realized aptly that truism applied to today's tech giants after rereading Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, which chronicles the history of Rome, Imperial Spain, and Britain.
All of them reached world domination and, eventually, the then-unthinkable happened: they fell. They started to crumble and, eventually, fade into history, losing more and more political and cultural relevance as time passed by. The farther their falling is, the more irrelevant they are. Ask Spain, Rome, or the UK. Each fell because they tried to control it all. They tried to impose their ways, close their walls and command commerce, and thought their way, their culture was the only answer to everything. In that confidence, and with absolute power, they thought nobody else could compete with them. And they failed.
But why look at ancient history? Might as well ask companies like Ford, Microsoft, or Kodak, all of whom once dominated the market they had created, and set trends for decades to come. But ultimately, they faded into irrelevance.
Some of them went bankrupt, like Kodak. Some, like Ford or Microsoft, became just another face in the crowd, still big but no longer setting the agenda, no longer dominating 90- or 95-percent of everything. Some were superseded with new markets that made their markets obsolete, thus killing their power—like the fall of the PC in favor of phones and tablets. Some just lost relevance, like Kodak's chemical business replaced by the ascendance of digital photography.
When these companies were dominant, it was inconceivable that they would ever not be. Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook won't be any different. They will not fall at the same time, but they all will. From his article:
Although the eclipsing of Apple and Facebook is inevitable, the timing and causes of their eventual declines will differ. Apple's current strength is that it actually makes things that people are desperate to buy and on which the company makes huge margins. The inexorable logic of the hardware business is that those margins will decline as the competition increases, so Apple will become less profitable over the longer term. What will determine its future is whether it can come up with new, market-creating products such as the iPod, iPhone and iPad.
Facebook, on the other hand, makes nothing. It just provides an online service that, for the moment, people seem to value. But in order to make money out of those users and satisfy the denizens of Wall Street, it has to become ever more intrusive and manipulative. It's condemned, in other words, to intrusive overstretch. Which is why, in the end, it will become a footnote in the history of the internet. Just like Microsoft, in fact. Sic transit gloria.
It's not that Apple will disappear. With over $100 Billion in the bank and the ability to churn out desirable products with great margins, they will continue to be a successful, profitable company for a long, long time. Most probably, it will become a Sony. Relevant, but not dominant. Amazon, despite its razor-thin profit margins, is likely here to stay in some capacity. Google may turn into yet another Microsoft.
As for Facebook... like Naughton says, Facebook may become completely irrelevant and disappear, because it doesn't make anything irreplaceable. As it continues to push the limits of privacy to satisfy the demands of advertisers and shareholders, its users will seek higher ground.
Facebook may be the first one to fall. But all of today's tech giants will follow its path into dull obsolescence, just like every empire before them. At least we can look forward to whatever takes their place.
联系客服
