【英语科技】手机“战场”狼烟起

We are only just into the new year and the battle to dominate the mobile internet is joined.

Google this week launched the Nexus One, its challenge to the Apple iPhone as the leading device in this vital growth area for consumer technology. Later this month, Apple will strike back with its new tablet device, a larger and more versatile cross between an iPhone and a MacBook.

Apple and Google used to co-exist in harmony, with two directors on both boards. But the rivalry between the fourth and fifth-most valuable US companies – both are nearing $200bn in market capitalisation – is sharpening as they skirmish at the new internet frontier.

The contest appears to pit not only two companies but two approaches to business. On one side is Apple, a secretive endeavour which is seemingly wedded to old, closed ways of competing; on the other side is Google, a champion of open source software and open systems.

“A well-managed closed system can deliver?.?.?.?well-designed products in the short-run – the iPod and iPhone being obvious examples – but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best,” wrote Jonathan Rosenberg, a Google executive.

Yet Apple is not as closed as Google portrays it, and nor is Google as open. Instead, like the proverbial half-empty glass, Google is best regarded as half-open and Apple as half-closed. That is significant because it shows how such companies need to compete in a networked industry.

Google is fighting for its own interests as hard as Apple does. That is, at one level, obvious since they are both public companies that try to maximise revenues. Yet its insistence on not being “evil” and its dismissive view of Apple and Microsoft obscures this.

The Android operating software which Google uses for the Nexus One and other “Google phones” is indeed, unlike Apple’s OS X or Microsoft’s Windows, open source. But the search advertising technology from which it makes money is as closely guarded as the recipe for Coca-Cola.

Mr Rosenberg came up with a laughable justification in his memo about openness (most of which is worth reading). He wrote that giving away Google’s proprietary search code would “not contribute” to openness and “would actually hurt users”. Oh, please.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with it keeping a few secrets – most businesses do and that hardly makes them “evil”. The point is that its openness is selective, being intended to expand the universe of fixed and mobile internet users, and thus its revenue pool.

Google is, as Chris Dixon, an internet entrepreneur, argues, using open source software to commoditise – and make cheaper for consumers – any technology that brings more people to its advertisement-serving algorithms, whether via a computer or a mobile phone.

The significance of Nexus One is not the phone, but its open source software and Google’s direct sales model. It wants to make mobile devices and software more accessible to raise demand for advertising, the segment it dominates.

“Our model is open because we have great confidence in applications such as Gmail and Google Maps. If a lot of consumers want to use the good stuff that our developers create, then our advertising model works,” says Andy Rubin, the executive in charge of Nexus One.

This is, of course, like Microsoft’s drive to commoditise hardware during the 1970s and 1980s – putting a computer on every desk – in order to charge for software. Some of Google’s tactics, such as bundling free navigation software with Android phones, are eerily familiar.

Apple lost to Microsoft in desktop computing in the 1980s because it did not grasp the true value of openness. Apple remained largely closed – an Apple computer mostly ran Apple software – while Microsoft entrenched itself by getting others to use the Windows platform.

This raises the question of whether the same thing – with Google taking the part of Microsoft and Apple reprising its role – will be repeated in mobile. Henry Blodget, the former analyst, thinks it may.

“Once again, Apple is insisting on selling a tightly controlled, fully integrated hardware and software device while its major competitor – Google – is spraying low-cost (free) software across dozens of hardware manufacturers, driving for platform ubiquity,” he wrote this week.

Mr Blodget, however, does not acknowledge the extent to which Steve Jobs, Apple’s founder, has learned from past mistakes. Apple has not pursued a fully closed strategy with the iPhone, but has been tactically prgamatic.

The clearest example is the App Store, which Apple has opened up to rival software developers with great success. Apple disclosed on Tuesday that iPhone and iPod users have now downloaded 3bn applications.

Apple’s iPod revival was achieved with a mixture of closed technology – proprietary software such as iTunes – and open content. Mr Jobs turned the iPod into a must-have device by signing deals with music labels, a tactic he is repeating for the tablet with publishers.

One thing both Apple and Google have learned is that a solely proprietary strategy has flaws, just as one of pure openness does. They compete by openly expanding their reach while staying partly closed.

So take with a pinch of salt all manifestos about complete openness. Any company that is as valuable as Google is wilier than that.

我们刚刚步入新的一年，争夺移动网络主导权的战斗就打响了。

上周，谷歌(Google)发布了Nexus One，试图挑战苹果(Apple)的iPhone在这一重要消费科技增长领域的领先地位。而本月晚些时候，苹果将以其新平板电脑予以还击。这是一种介于iPhone和MacBook之间，规格更大、功能也更齐全的混合型产品。

苹果和谷歌过去曾和平共处，并曾共享两位董事。但随着两者在新互联网领域发生冲突，两家公司之间的竞争日益加剧。在美国最具价值企业排行榜上，苹果和谷歌分列第四和第五位，市值均接近2000亿美元。

这种竞争似乎不仅是两家企业之间的竞争，还是两种业务模式的竞争。一边是暗地里使劲儿的苹果，它似乎钟情于传统而封闭的竞争方式；另一边则是支持开放源代码软件（open source software，简称：开源软件）和开放系统的谷歌。

谷歌高管乔纳森?罗森伯格(Jonathan Rosenberg)表示： “一个管理良好的封闭系统在短期内可以……拿出设计良好的产品——iPod和iPhone就是明显的例证——但封闭系统的创新，最终充其量也只能是渐进式的增长。”

不过，苹果并不像谷歌所描述的那么封闭，而谷歌也不像自己形容的那么开放。相反，就像谚语中的“半空玻璃杯”一样，对谷歌最恰当的描述是半开放，而苹果则是半封闭。这一点意义重大，因为它说明了这两家公司在移动网络领域需要如何竞争。

与苹果一样，谷歌也在同样努力地为自身利益战斗。从某种意义上讲，这是显而易见的，因为它们都是上市公司，都试图实现收入最大化。只不过，它所坚称的“不做恶”，及其对苹果和微软(Microsoft)的鄙视，掩盖了这一点。

与苹果的OS X 或微软的Windows不同，谷歌Nexus One及其它“谷歌手机”所使用的Android操作系统，实际上是一个开源系统。但谷歌用以获取收入的搜索广告技术，却像可口可乐(Coca-Cola)的配方一样，受到严密的看护。

罗森伯格在有关“开放”的备忘录（大部分内容还是值得一读的）中，给出了一个可笑的理由。他写道，公开谷歌的专利搜索代码“不会有助于”开放，“事实上还将损害用户”。哦，请别这么搞笑。

我不认为谷歌保守一些秘密有什么不对——大多数企业都会这么干，而它们大多不会因此沦为“恶人”。问题的关键在于，为了扩大固定及移动网络用户群体，进而增加总收入，谷歌在有选择性地进行开放。

正如互联网企业家克里斯?迪克松(Chris Dixon)所指出的那样，谷歌正利用开源软件，对任何能够增加客户点击其广告——无论是通过电脑还是手机——的技术进行商品化，并降低消费者获取这些技术的成本。

Nexus One的意义不在于它是一部手机，而在于它的开源软件以及谷歌的直销模式。它希望使手机和软件变得更容易获取，从而提升广告的需求——这是它所主宰的领域。

“我们的模式是开放的，因为我们对Gmail和谷歌手机地图(Google Maps)等应用软件信心十足。如果有很多消费者想使用我们研发出来的好东西，那么，我们的广告模式就能够行得通，”负责Nexus One的高管安迪?鲁宾(Andy Rubin)表示。

其目的当然是为了对软件收费，就像微软在上世纪70年代和80年代对硬件进行商品化（在每张桌子上都放上一台电脑）一样。谷歌的一些策略给人一种奇怪的似曾相识感，比如在Android电话中置入免费的导航软件。

上世纪80年代，苹果在台式电脑上输给了微软，因为它没有领会开放的真正价值。苹果如今在很大程度上依然封闭——苹果电脑大多使用苹果的软件；而微软则通过促使别人使用Windows平台，确立了自身的地位。

这不禁给人们提出了一个问题：同样的故事是否会在手机领域重演——谷歌成为手机领域的微软，而苹果则重复自己的结局。曾担任分析师的亨利?布洛杰特(Henry Blodget)认为，可能性很大。

他上周写道：“苹果再次坚持出售一种受到严密控制、且整合充分的软硬件设备，而它的主要竞争对手谷歌则在向众多硬件制造商散播价格低廉（或免费）的软件，以便让所有人都使用其平台。”

不过，对于苹果创始人史蒂夫?乔布斯(Steve Jobs)从过去的错误中汲取到了多少教训，布洛杰特没有谈论。在iPhone上，苹果并没有采用完全封闭的策略，而是更加务实。

最明显的例子就是App Store。苹果向与之竞争的软件开发商开放了该项服务，并获得巨大成功。苹果于上周二披露称，到目前为止，iPhone和iPod用户已下载了30亿个应用软件。

苹果iPod的复兴，得益于封闭技术（iTunes等专利软件）与开放内容的结合。乔布斯通过与唱片公司签署协议，将iPod变成了一种必不可少的产品。这次他将故技重施，就平板电脑与出版商签署协议。

苹果和谷歌都学到了一个教训：单一的专利策略存在缺陷，完全开放的策略也是一样。它们的竞争方式是：公开拓展业务，但保持一定程度的封闭。

因此，对于任何有关完全开放的宣言，我们都要有所保留。任何一个像谷歌这种身家的公司，都不会如此单纯。

译者/董琴