Have you ever been in the position of watching Silicon Valley take off and wish that you had known what was about to happen?
你是否曾經有過這樣的經驗: 看到矽谷的起飛, 心裡希望著,要是早點知道就好了?
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So, I'm here to talk about what I think is going to be the most intense disruption of the technology world that's occurred in the last 15 years. And I believe the end product of it will be entirely about engagement. In fact, I think it is possibly a transformational change in the way we're going to think about engagement.
我來這裡要和各位談的, 是我認為近十五年來, 在科技界即將發生史上 最強烈的分崩離析。 而我相信其最終結果 將取決於我們的參與度。 事實上,我認為這可能是 我們看待參與的方式的轉變。
So what would you do if you knew today that there was going to be a major technology cycle beginning in the next couple years, and that you could participate in it? What would you do?
你會怎麼做, 如果今天你知道了 科技界在接下來幾年 即將出現一個重大的循環, 而且你能夠參與其中, 你會怎麼做?
(Audience) Jump in!
(觀眾)跳進去!
So, this is the situation in which I find myself: I'm a professional investor about half the day, the daylight half. I was paying close attention earlier, and I now know I need to have 10 hours sleep at night, which is tricky, because last night the show ended about 12:30, and so I was, I got -- and that was in Santa Rosa, so I got home a little late. I want you to understand, I've been studying the technology world, and things have already begun to change. But they're changing in ways that I see literally no commentator referring to today.
我現在處於這樣的情況當中: 一天中有半天的時間, 我是位專業投資者, 白天的那半天。 早期我非常投入, 現在我知道我晚上 需要有十小時的睡眠, 這很棘手,因為昨天 晚上節目結束的時間 是 12:30 左右,所以我—— 且地點是在聖羅莎, 所以我回到家就有點晚了。 我希望各位能了解, 我一直在研究科技世界, 而改變已經開始了。 但這些改變, 我幾乎沒看到任何評論 在探討這些現象。
There are six things going on that I'm going to focus on. I want you to understand, each one of these is a hypothesis; it is subject to revision. It may even be subject to elimination. But I want you to understand I've been working with this group of hypotheses now for about 10 months, and what's really interesting is that I've been exposing them to a lot of people in the industry, and people have been finding it very hard to debunk them. So I'm going to share them with you today, because I think collectively, we have a chance of figuring this out.
我會聚焦在六件正在發生的事情上。 我希望你們知道, 它們通通都只是假設; 有可能會再修正。 也有可能會消失。 但我希望你們知道, 我研究這些假設有十個月了, 真正有趣的是 我與許多科技人探討這些假設, 他們覺得很難反駁。 所以今天我要來與各位分享, 因我認為只要齊心協力 我們就有機會弄清楚。
The first thing -- and I think this is fairly obvious -- is: Windows is dying. And --
第一點,我認為很明顯, Windows 快不行了。 而且,
(Applause)
(掌聲)
I mean no disrespect to Microsoft, because I think, in fact, Microsoft as a company has many things it can do to maintain growth, but desktops would not be one of them. And the key indicator here, and the only one you need to know to understand what's going on here, is that smartphones have basically taken Windows from 96% of internet-connected devices 3 or 4 years ago, to under 50% now. And it is falling precipitously; they'll be under 30 percent, probably about a year and a half from now.
我沒有對微軟不敬的意思, 因為我認為,事實上 微軟這間公司能做很多事 來維持它的成長, 但桌上型電腦並不是其中選項之一。 這裡的關鍵指標, 你們只需要了解這個指標 就能了解發生了什麼事, 這個指標就是:基本上 智慧手機已經取代了 Windows, 三 、四年前,連上網路的裝置 有 96% 是 Windows 的, 現在不到 50% 了。 這個數字還在猛跌; 可能在一年半內, 就會落到 30% 以下。
Microsoft has lots of things it can do. It can retreat to Exchange and crank the price there. But the reason this is so significant is that Windows and Enterprise software, which is related to it -- think SAP and people like that -- those businesses account for hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. And I'm suggesting we're going to have a jump ball for that revenue. And in a world where the US economy is not growing that rapidly, having somebody go away is the simplest way to create room for new industries. And this is where the revenues are going to come from. But guess what? Like a Ginsu knife commercial, there's more!
微軟能做的事很多。 他們可以退回去做 Exchange,並調高價格。 但,這意義如此重大的原因, 是因為 Windows 和 與其相關的企業版軟體—— 想想類似 SAP 這樣的公司—— 這些企業每年的收益 有數千億美元。 我建議我們要重新 訂定市場的遊戲規則。 在美國經濟沒有成長 那麼快速的情況下, 若要為新產業創造獲利空間, 最簡單的方法就是淘汰某些公司。 這樣就會有收益的來源。 但你們猜猜怎樣?就像 Ginsu 刀具廣告說的一樣,還不只如此!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
It turns out Microsoft is not the only company whose body is lying across the railroad tracks today. Another one is Google. Now, you may not have focused on this, but index search accounted for 90% of all search volume about 4 years ago. But an interesting thing happened. Google got to be so successful that the index became full of garbage. In fact, the entire Web has become full of garbage. If you think about it, the Web has become almost a digital Detroit.
結果發現,現今微軟並不是 唯一一間橫躺在鐵軌上的公司。 另一間是 Google。 你們可能沒聚焦這點, 但,所有搜尋量當中 有 90% 是索引搜尋, 這是四年前的數據。 但發生了一件有趣的事, Google 可能太成功了, 結果讓索引出來的東西 充滿了垃圾。 事實上,整個 Web 生態到處都是垃圾。 你仔細想想,整個 Web 生態 幾乎變成了數位的底特律。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
If you look hard enough, you can find really compelling things there. But if you aren't really careful, you can get mugged.
如果你用心找, 你可能還能找到很棒的東西。 但如果不小心, 你可能也會被洗劫一番。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And it is no shock that each one of us and everyone else out there have looked for other ways to find the things we want to find. We started with Wikipedia, but then Facebook came along for matters of taste and money; Twitter came along for real-time news; LinkedIn, for professional things; Match.com, for less professional things; TripAdvisor for travel, Yelp for restaurants, Realtor.com for finding a home, Dictionary.com for words, Wordnik for the whole language. So the thing has really changed.
這並不意外, 我們在場的每個人 以及外面的所有人, 都曾尋求其他方式 來找我們要找的東西。 我們從維基百科開始, 接著出現臉書做品味和錢的事; 推特出現了,做即時新聞; 領英出現了,做專業的事; Match.com 出現了, 做比較不專業的事; TripAdvisor 處理旅行, Yelp 處理餐廳, Realtor.com 找房子, Dictionary.com 查單字, Wordnik 則包了所有的語言。 一切真的改變了。
And here's what's interesting: like Microsoft, Google has plenty of ways to respond in terms of growing its business. But what it cannot do is recover its position as the dominant player on the internet. It is my belief that when Google came along in 1998, the internet was an open-source, long-tail world with no leader. And Google stepped into this void, provided leadership and implemented a strategy that systematically commoditized all forms of content. And the simplest way to look at it is to look at a Google results page: the only logo on that page is Google's; everything else is in the same font. That form of commoditization has been tremendous for Google and horrible for almost everyone else. And I believe, to a first order, it is over -- not because index search is going away, but because, like word processing, it's gone from the most important application we all had, to just another thing we do. And you see this in mobile in particular. Because in mobile, people have found other ways to find what they want. Index search is too disruptive on a cell phone, so the rate of index search is a small fraction on cell phones to what it is on desktops. And that is the leading indicator that Google's recovery, if you will, will be in something other than search.
有趣的是: 和微軟一樣,Google 在事業成長方面 也有很多方式可以應對。 但它做不到的就是 重新取得它在網際網路上的龍頭地位。 我確信 Google 在 1998 年出現時 網際網路是個原始碼開放, 有眾多小量產品(長尾 long-tail) 而無人主導的世界。 Google 踏入這空間,成了領導, 導入了一項策略, 就是,系統性地將各種 形式的內容給商品化。 最簡單的觀察方法,就是去看 Google 的搜尋結果頁: Google 是網頁上唯一的 logo; 所有其它資訊都使用同樣的字體。 這種形式的商品化 使 Google 佔有巨大的優勢, 幾乎所有其他的人卻很糟糕。 我相信基本上這情勢已然不再, 並不因為索引搜尋消失了, 而是就像過去的文字處理一樣, 它從我們最重要的應用 變成只是一種應用。 這情況在行動裝置上特別明顯, 因為人們已經在行動裝置上 找到得其所需的其他方式。 在手機上做索引搜尋太煩人了, 所以,相較於桌上型電腦, 在手機上做索引搜尋的 比率只有一點點。 可以說 Google 想要再次奪回 領導位置的重要指標 必然是搜尋以外的東西。
The third hypothesis I have is no longer controversial, but it's important to understand what happened. If the left-hand side of this equation is the open-source World Wide Web, with its belief in the long tail, its belief in an absence of regulation, of an absence of security and control, it's really a frontier. Apple came along with a different vision. They said, "We think the Web is dead. We're going to go on the internet, because that's the big data store, and we're going to provide you with branded, thoughtful, value-added, copyright-protected content." And people have overwhelmingly chosen that over Google's vision. Over the last three years, Apple's gone from being an also-ran in computers to this year they will ship approximately 100 million internet-enabled devices. One hundred million. They'll probably be just short of that. The point here is, it's Apple's world. We're lucky to be part of it, because Steve is quite intolerant about who he lets in.
我的第三項假設已經沒什麼爭議, 但了解發生了什麼事是很重要的, 如果這個等式的左邊 是開放原始碼的全球資訊網, 有著長尾的信念, 相信不需要規範, 沒有監管、控制, 實際上是個邊陲疆界。 但 Apple 帶來不一樣的視野, 說:「我們認為 Web 已死。 我們要站上網路, 那裡有巨型數位商店, 我們要為您提供 有品牌的、貼心的、加值的、 版權受到保護的內容。」 人們壓倒性地轉換跑道 離 Google 而去了。 在過去三年, Apple 在電腦界 已從後段班脫胎換骨, 今年他們的上網裝置出貨量 將會達到近一億台。 一億台。 可能會稍微少一點。 我要強調那是 Apple 的世界。 我們很幸運能參與, 因為賈伯斯不隨便讓人進來的。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)但,想想這一點:
But think about this: imagine Georgia in the Civil War. OK? Apple is Sherman, World Wide Web is Joe Johnston. And the point is, they've lost. So the Web is looking at this and going, "My God, we've got to come back." And the cost in order to do this is they have to sacrifice Google. So Google has pushed the pendulum of technology to the absolute limit of commoditization, to the point where people who spent their whole lives developing really valuable, compelling entertainment and really valuable, compelling journalism and really valuable, compelling novels, can't make money doing it anymore. So the Web said, "OK, if Google's over here, and Apple's here, HTML 5, the next generation, is going to be on the other side of Apple." So the new battle, instead of being commoditization versus the App Store, is going to be between the App Store and highly differentiated content.
想像一下內戰時的喬治亞州,好嗎? Apple 是謝爾曼將軍, Web 是蔣斯頓將軍。 重點是,蔣斯頓他們輸了。 所以,Web 看著這個情勢,說: 「老天,我們得重返。」 重返就必須犧牲 Google。 Google 已經把科技業的 商業利潤頂到極限, 其誇張的程度已經讓那些 一生投入開發真正有價值、 有娛樂性質節目的人, 寫出真正有價值、好看的 報章雜誌的人, 寫出真正有價值、 引人入勝小說的人, 已經無法賴以為生。 所以,Web 生態說:「好,如果 Google 在這裡,Apple 在這裡, 那麼下世代的網頁標準 HTML 5 將會與 Apple 抗衡。」 所以,新的戰役將不會是 商品化對抗 App Store, 而會是 App Store 對抗 高度差異化的內容網頁。
If you don't know what HTML 5 is, let me help you understand. It is a programming language. But it's a profound one. Because for the first time, you're going to be able to construct a web page where the entire thing can have embedded interactivity, can have video, audio, whatever it is that you want. But no more Flash boxes. And it's a huge, huge change, because it essentially opens up a new canvas. And it doesn't just open it up for The New York Times, it opens it up for everybody on WordPress, it opens it up for every band ... Because suddenly, the ability to produce a differentiated, highly compelling, value-added -- maybe even monetizable -- product will be there. And what's really interesting is, thanks to Apple, there's nothing that commoditizers can do about you. Apple may try to stop us, but I don't think they will. I think they're smarter than that. So the key point is, I don't know where we're going to stop as the pendulum swings back. But I think the days of hypercommoditization are behind us. And we can all play in this. In a moment I'm going to tell you how I'm doing it personally.
若各位不知道 HTML 5 是什麼, 讓我協助各位了解一下, 它是一種程式語言。 但它所帶來的衝擊是很大的。 因為,這是第一次, 你所建立的網頁, 上面的所有東西 都有內建的互動性功能, 可以有影片、聲音, 你要什麼就有什麼。 但不再需要 Flash 窗格。 這是一項很大很大的改變, 因為它基本上開啟了新的畫布。 它不只是為《紐約時報》開啟, 還為 WorldPress 的每個人開啟, 為每一個樂團開啟。 因為,突然間,能夠產生出 差異化、誘人的、加值的, 甚至可獲利的產品的能力 即將在那裏出現。 有趣的是,多虧了 Apple, 商品化業者將對你束手無策。 Apple 可能會試圖阻止我們, 但我不認為他們會。 我認為他們沒那麼笨。 重點是我不知道當鐘擺擺回來時 我們會停在哪裡。 但我認為,高度商品化的 日子已經過去了。 我們都可以參一腳。 等一下我會告訴各位我自己怎麼做。
Tablets. This is the other side of why Windows is dead. If any of you does not own an iPad -- Look, I don't own any Apple stock, so I have no axe in this, but seriously, if you don't own an iPad, you cannot possibly understand the most important things going on now.
平板電腦。 這是為什麼 Windows 沒戲唱的另一個原因。 如果在座有任何人沒有 iPad —— 我並未持有 Apple 的股票, 所以我舉這例子沒有個人因素, 但,說真的, 如果你沒有 iPad 就不可能了解 現在正在發生的重要事情。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)不,我是非常認真的。
No, I'm really serious about this. And I think the most important point is that the other players on this thing, at the moment, have made no impact. And keep in mind, it was our investment that built Palm's webOS that HP's shipping soon, eventually, someday.
我認為最重要的一點 是在這個市場的其他玩家 在此刻沒有任何影響力。 別忘了是我們的投資 致使有了 HP 發售的 Palm WebOS 裝置; 那產品很快、瞬間就消失了。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
I think it's highly probable Apple wins this thing with market share closer to what they have on the iPod than to what they have on the iPhone. That would be 70 or 80%. If that's right, Apple's going to be 50 to 100 billion dollars bigger in a few years than they are today. And I literally don't see anybody else even challenging them. It's really important to understand that Apple's cost structure is so favorable relative to everybody else, it's almost impossible to imagine any of the cell phone guys, particularly Android guys, catching up. Because Apple's gross margins exceed the retail price of almost every Android phone.
我認為 Apple 非常有可能贏這場仗, 市佔率會接近 iPod 的市佔率, 而不是 iPhone 的市佔率。 也就是約 70% 或 80%。 如果沒錯的話,幾年內, Apple 將比現在 再成長 500~1000 億美金。 我真的看不出來 有任何人能挑戰他們。 很重要的是,要了解 Apple 的成本結構 相對於其他人,是很有優勢的, 幾乎是不可能想像 有任何手機業者, 特別是安卓業者,能追上來。 因為 Apple 的毛利 幾乎超過了所有安卓手機的零售價。
Here is the one that I want to leave you with as an investment idea, first and foremost. The mania on Wall Street is about social. Social is a sideshow. And I say this as somebody whose fund has most of its money in Facebook. It is a one-off. This is not ... To borrow a phrase from Star Wars: this is not the mania you are looking for. The one we're talking about will be so much bigger than this. Facebook has won. It is the new Windows. OK? A few other guys -- Twitter, Yelp, Skype, LinkedIn -- are building successful platforms that are much smaller than what Facebook has. And they'll be successful. But everybody else coming along is going to have to follow the Zynga model. They're going to have to make themselves subordinate to the platform of Facebook. And Zynga's inability to build anything successful off of Facebook, I think, is the key indicator of why this platform is so powerful. So if you do a start-up today in the social world, build it on top of Facebook. It's the only piece of advice I can give you. But the most important piece of advice is: forget social. Social is now a feature, it's not a platform. So embed social, the same way that Catherine said, "Embed gamification into everything." It's all about engagement. The future is going to be different. And the core question is: What are we all going to do about it?
最後我要跟各位分享, 也是最重要的一個投資想法。 華爾街的狂熱與社交有關。 社交就是餘興節目。 我說這句話的身分, 是個資金大部分都投入臉書的人。 就只發生一次。 這不是…… 借用《星際大戰》的說法: 這不是你在找尋的狂熱。 我們在談的狂熱, 比這還要大很多。 臉書已經獲勝。 它是新的 Windows。 其它少數幾家——推特、 Yelp、Skype、領英—— 建立了成功的平台, 但比臉書的平台小很多。 他們會成功。 但其他想要湊一腳的人 都得要循著 Zynga 的模式, 他們得要讓自己 成為臉書平台的附屬品。 Zynga 沒有能力在臉書以外 建立任何成功的產品, 我認為這就點出這個平台 為何如此強大的關鍵指標。 所以,若你今天要在社交世界裡 建立新創公司,就把它建在臉書上, 這是我能給你的唯一建議。 但最重要的建議是:忘掉社交。 如今社交是一種特色,不是一個平台。 所以要嵌入社交,就像凱瑟琳說的: 「把每件事遊戲化。」 因為一切與參與度有關。 未來會變得不一樣。 而核心問題是: 我們所有人打算怎麼做?
What I do is very simple: I believe in full-contact investing. So I looked at HTML 5 about a year ago, and I said, "This thing could be really important. How do I find out?" So my band, Moonalice, which, a couple years ago, did an album with T Bone Burnett, that we thought was going to be a huge hit and blah, blah, blah ... Well, we learned that nobody cared about hippie music done by old folks, so --
我的做法非常簡單: 我相信全參與式的投資。 所以我在一年前 看了 HTML 5 之後說: 「這東西將來會非常重要。 我如何知道的?」 我的樂團,Moonalice, 在幾年前和 T 本恩本內特 合作灌了一張專輯, 我們認為會大賣之類的…… 我們學到的是:沒有人在乎 老人做的嬉皮音樂,所以——
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So we put it all onto the net, went on Facebook and Twitter. We started doing things called "Twittercasts," the first live concerts and then prerecorded concerts, distributed over Twitter. Then we started using live stream, the same thing we're using here today, to do internet-based live video of our shows. And then recently, we bought a satellite network. Why? 'Cause it cost less than three months of what our manager used to cost.
所以我們把整張專輯放上網, 放上臉書和推特。 我們開始做所謂的「推特轉播」, 在推特上先散播現場轉播音樂會, 接著再播預先錄好的, 接著我們開始用現場直播, 就像我們今天在這裡做的, 將我們的演出做成 以網路為基礎的現場影片。 接著,我們最近買了個衛星網路。 為什麼?因為它的花費少於 我們雇用一個經理三個月。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And right now, we broadcast every one of our shows -- other than the U2 show -- live, in HTML 5, via satellite, in a system we totally control. We have an app that's about to ship within the next month. It's -- "app" is the wrong term; our website is being upgraded to HTML 5. And in it, you will be able, from any phone, anywhere, to play any song we've ever played live and view any live video that we have, which is 150, 200 shows.
現在,我們的每一場 演出都會做轉播—— 除了 U2 的演出—— 是實況的,用 HTML 5, 透過衛星, 使用我們能完全控制的系統。 我們有一個應用程式, 即將於下個月推出。 「應用程式」是個錯誤的用詞; 我們的網站已經升級為 HTML 5。 你可以從任何手機、任何地方, 播放任何我們曾經 實況轉播過的歌曲, 也可以觀看我們的任何實況影片, 有 150 或 200 場。
Now, it cost practically nothing to do this. And we're this teeny-weeny little band. Now, I know more about technology than most people, but that's just because I know more than most people who are 55. But people who are 18 to 20, who live in this world, are going to be able to use these platforms in music and everywhere else in a fundamentally different way. I think creativity is coming back. Moonalice is something that's built around that. We have poster artists for every single show. We have photographers who work every show, we have painters. And the notion is, I believe that creativity has been stifled, not so much by technology, but by the general deterioration of American culture -- you know, people's unwillingness to be educated, this notion that we have to fall back on ritual and beliefs, instead of facts. But I think technology is finally going to do us a favor.
實際上,我們做這些 幾乎是不用成本的。 且我們是個小小的樂團。 我比大部分的人更懂科技, 但,我只是比大部分 55 歲的人知道更多。 但這個世界中 18 到 20 歲的人, 將會應用這些平台,以不同的方式, 從根本上呈現音樂和其它東西。 我認為創意回來了。 Moonalice 的建立 是以創意為中心的。 我們每一場演出都有海報藝術家。 我們有攝影師拍攝 每一場演出,我們有畫家。 概念是,我相信 創意已經被扼殺一陣子了, 主兇不是科技, 而是普遍的美國文化的墮落現象—— 各位應該知道,很多人不願被教育, 認為我們必須依靠儀式和信仰, 而不依靠事實的那種墮落現象。 但我認為科技終於幫得上忙了。
I think it's finally going to give us the tools to make us independent. And there's little glimmers, right? We see the Arab Spring and the impact that Twitter and Facebook had. Pretty exciting. But imagine a world in which everything is an app. In HTML 5, digital Detroit gets replaced by this thing where every tweet is an app, every advertisement is an instance of a store. Think about what that means. So instead of seeing an Amazon display ad, you see the store, say, on the New York Times Book Review. You can both create demand and satisfy it in the same place. Why? Because that's better for everybody. Saves time, increases engagement, because it keeps you on the page. We're going from a web of elevators, where you go to different places, and you go off sites and you lose people, to a control panel model. And guess who's going to make it? You are.
我認為科技終將給我們工具, 讓我們獨立。 終於有點希望了,對吧? 我們看見了阿拉伯之春, 以及推特和臉書的影響。 很讓人興奮。 但,想像一個世界, 在這個世界中, 什麼都是應用程式。 在 HTML 5 中, 數位底特律被取代掉了, 變成每則推特推文都是個應用程式, 每則廣告都是個商店的事例。 想想看那有什麼意涵。 因此,不是看到亞馬遜的展示, 而是看到該商店在 像是《紐約時報書評》上。 你可以在同一個地方 創造需求並滿足客戶。 為什麼? 因為那樣對每個人都比較好。 省時間,增加參與度, 因為它能讓你一直留在網頁上。 我們正在從 Web 生態的電梯, ——電梯把你帶到目的地, 踏出電梯,人就不見了—— 轉變成主播台的模式。 猜猜這次的主角是誰? 就是你。
Thank you very much.
非常謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)