英國衛(wèi)報的John Naughton發(fā)布了一個完美的觀察報告--雖然其中的預測對我們來說非常明顯--盡管Facebook與蘋果公司擁有壓倒性的統(tǒng)治權(quán),他們終將衰敗."歷史告訴我們,對現(xiàn)今的科技工業(yè)巨頭們來說,只有一條路可走,那就是"衰亡"."這同樣適用于谷歌與亞馬遜.因為這,不可避免的.
Naughton的論點--歷史學家和槍炮與玫瑰的粉絲應(yīng)該很熟悉--是沒有什么會走向永恒.在重讀Paul Kenndy關(guān)于古羅馬帝國,西班牙帝國,與大不列顛帝國的編年史著作<偉大權(quán)力的崛起與滅亡>后,他意識到這些老生常談同樣會發(fā)生在先進的科技巨頭上.
他們都一度站在世界之巔.接著,他們--在當時還是不可想象地--衰敗了.他們開始崩塌;他們在歷史中隱隱暗去;隨著時間的前進,他們的政治與文化影響力逐漸衰退.他們跌得越遠,存在感就越低.看看西班牙羅馬和英國吧.他們的衰敗是由于他們想掌控一切.他們試圖將想法強加于人民;他們閉關(guān)鎖國;他們控制經(jīng)濟;他們認為他們的方法他們的文化是一切的答案.抱著這樣的自信與絕對的權(quán)力,他們認為沒有什么能與之匹敵.接著,他們衰亡了.
但不能只看古代史.看看那些大公司,比如福特微軟或柯達,他們曾一度統(tǒng)治由他們所開拓的市場,并為接下來的幾十年時間設(shè)定了趨勢.但是最終,他們都慢慢被人淡忘.
其中一些破產(chǎn)了,比如柯達.其中一些,比如福特或微軟,變成了一大票公司中一張并不出眾的臉--仍然規(guī)模龐大,但不再號令天下,不再擁有90-95%的市場.這些市場有的已經(jīng)被新興產(chǎn)品所取代--手機與平板打敗了電腦,掠奪了他們的權(quán)力.有的完全隱于無形,比如柯達的膠卷產(chǎn)業(yè)被數(shù)碼攝影產(chǎn)業(yè)所取代.
當這些公司處于統(tǒng)治地位時,幾乎不能想象他們會經(jīng)歷衰敗.蘋果,亞馬遜,谷歌與Facebook也不會有所不同.他們不會在同一時間走下坡路,但他們終將走上下坡路.
盡管蘋果與Facebook的銷蝕是不可避免的,但銷蝕的時機以及原因并不盡然相同.蘋果的的能量在于他們造出的產(chǎn)品讓人們不顧一切去購買去追隨,同時也創(chuàng)造了巨大的利潤.而硬件產(chǎn)業(yè)定律在于:隨著競爭的日益激烈,利潤必然逐步減少.所以從長期趨勢來看,蘋果所得利潤將越來越少.決定蘋果未來的是:他是否能開發(fā)出新的統(tǒng)治市場的產(chǎn)品,如同iPod,iPhone與iPad.
另一方面,目前的Facebook并不制造實物,他提供了一個網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù),而人們?yōu)槠涔乐?為了達到從用戶處盈利并滿足那些華爾街投資者的目的,他必須表現(xiàn)出更強的侵略性與控制欲.而過分的侵略性也讓他飽受譴責.這也正是為什么,到最后,他終將成為歷史的一條腳注.如同微軟.光芒終將散去.
并不是說蘋果會消失.作為一家擁有1000億美元并且有能力制造出能攪動市場并令人滿意且能產(chǎn)生巨大利潤的公司,蘋果在很長一段時間內(nèi)仍然會是個成功的賺錢的公司.他會成為另一個索尼--有存在感,但不再統(tǒng)治市場.亞馬遜,不談他刀鋒般的薄利,仍有可能保持一定地位.而谷歌會成為另一個微軟.
回到Facebook...正如Naughton所說,Facebook會變得全無存在感,繼而消失.因為他沒有完全不能被取代的產(chǎn)品.為了滿足廣告投放者與股東們的利益,他一步步向用戶隱私緊逼,而他的用戶終將被逼上另一塊高低.
Facebook也許會最早開始衰敗.但是現(xiàn)今所有的科技巨頭都會跟隨他的步伐步入荒蕪,如同之前所有的帝國一般.至少,我們能對取代他們的有所期待
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.
