“But what happens if Amazon or Google decides to do the same thing?”“如果亚马逊或谷歌要求做到你们正在做到的事情，那不会怎么样？”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.风险投资家经常将亚马逊和谷歌作为科技巨头的代名词，然后告知科技创业者这样一个问题。实质上，这正是HBO剧集《硅谷》的主要线索。其基本理念是，握非常丰富资源的巨头可以不费吹灰之力地毁坏那些小型企业，只要它们不愿这样做到。看看当谷歌挑战Uber，苹果挑战Spotify，或是亚马逊挑战Instacart时引起的那种惊恐感吧。

But here’s the thing: It rarely happens.但事实是：这一幕极为少见。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.必须回应的是，这决不是说道大多数初创公司都顺利了，或大公司并不常用它们的财富来并购那些可以辅助其主业的初创公司。我只是想要认为，现有科技公司看见其他人的新点子取得注目后，就开始大规模仿效的顺利案例十分少见。

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.荐个例子，Google+击垮了Facebook吗？Google Buzz毁坏了Twitter吗？Facebook Poke打败了Snapchat吗？Facebook Places让Foursquare消失了吗？我还忘记，新的公司WordPress或许很好地应付了来自雅虎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.或许你不会驳斥说道，微软公司过去曾剽窃了Netscape的创新并将其击败，但是：（1）Netscape改以42亿美元的价格被美国在线并购；（2）微软公司针对Netscape的不道德沦为联邦政府大规模反垄断调查的组成部分。而亚马逊对Quidsi所做到的那些事情，则更加看起来违背公平竞争的恃强凌弱（并最后让后者不得不拒绝接受并购），而不是投放巨资的创意不道德。

But, again, those are extraordinary exceptions to the rule.但必须再度声明，这些都是引人注目的值得注意案例。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.我不是很确切为何科技巨头不会采行如此差劲的手段来断裂小公司。或许是因为过往的种种经历沦为大公司沈重的包袱，或是造成它们显得十分激进，或是沿用陈旧的产品路线，而这不一定能流畅地转化成为新的创意希望。

或许这样做到是猜忌初创公司的先动优势，早期使用者往往不会坚决用于最初的产品。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少冲击力的一个新项目而已。

本文来源：9761国际游戏官网-www.jewels-gems-clocks-watches.com