我们看到孩子们使用者上世纪 50 年代的工具（书本）学习，我们也在经历新的数字变革，越来越多的人通过新科技体验更美好的生活。
苹果公司在 iPad 广告中告诉整个世界：
But how we do all these, will never be the same.
[注释1] 「赋予意义」 这个真的很重要，对于自己做的任何事情。 问一问自己，此时此刻为什么做这件事情。如 Benjamin Zander 在那场「音乐与热情」 TED Talk 里最后说的，“Who am I being when…” 任何事情，只有当你赋予其意义，做起来才会有意思，才会有力量。
37Signals 的内在工程师（inner engineer）Nick 总是对车间、工作台子背后的故事很感兴趣，不论是实体的工作面还是数码平台，都让他痴迷，他也因此特别喜爱观看探索频道的一档节目「How it’s Made」。这个节目所试图表达的是，那些最终成型的产品，绝不仅仅就是一个产品（There’s more than just the end product）：那些制作这样一个产品周围的工作空间（workspace）和程序（process）一样让人着迷，甚至更加有趣。
How it’s Made
例如 Tweetbot，这款 Twitter 客户端，它的每一个细节设计都是那么让人兴奋。同样我们也好奇，负责设计这款 app 的设计师 Mark 是用的什么工具设计出如此出色的产品呢？他的工作空间是怎样的呢？负责编程的 Paul 又是在怎样的平台下，使用哪些工具写的代码呢？
我们好奇 37 Signals 这样一个出色团队成员們的工作空间（Battlestations）都是什么样子；我们也窥探 Mark Zuckerberg 的 Macbook Air 是 11 寸还是 13 寸，然后我们从他的 Facebook Timeline 照片上发现直到 2009 年 8 月 10 日， Mark 还在用一台老款的 15 寸 Macbook Pro（中飞机），那么他的 Mac 的 Dock 上又装了哪些常用软件呢？
Happiness only real when shared.
How you gather all tools you need to do any work you want.
今天我们为你带：「新工具 | Xingongju.com」社区！
这个词最初是我在知乎一个问题回答里引用的 John Gruber 当时评论 Mark ZuckerBerg 持有 Facebook 大量股权和投票权的一句话。
Zuckerberg was able to hold onto so much stock and an astounding majority of the voting rights is proof that his success is no fluke. The guy must be a badass at the negotiating table.
扎克伯格可以在 Facebook 现在持有如此多的股权和绝大多数投票权，说明他的成功不是侥幸。这小子在谈判桌上一定是个十足的「Badass」。
(image credit: LATimes.com)
先来看一看 Facebook 未 IPO 前的融资情况（数据来源是 Crunchbase ）：
融资数据来看，从天使到四轮私募，然后风投的入场，经过至少 6 轮大的融资下来后，Mark Zuckerberg 还可以持有 28.4% 的股权，和 56.9% 的投票权。
Mark Zuckerberg 可以有 56.9% 的绝对控制权，那最直接的就是两个因素：
2. 投票协议（Voting agreement）
第一个因素很好理解，Sean Parker 给 Mark 当时提出的公司结构，$FB 的 S-1 表 127 页的股权信息注释里也有详细解释，Mark 所持有股权均为 B Class，Pre IPO 一共有 533,801,850 股。B class 的一股在投票权上相当于 10 个 A class。这也就让 Mark 有大于他 28.4% 股权的投票权，但也不过 28.2% 的投票权。
（这种结构其实很普遍，许多科技互联网公司都有类似安排，比如 Google 也是有 Dual Class Structure，B Class 也相当于10倍 的 A Class投票权，保证两个创始人和施密特当年对 Google 有绝对控制权。在这篇 Thoughts on Google 文章里有提到过。）
Adam Smith, such a genius and great man for the past few centuries, brought up a well known Hypothesis of Economic Man which states that rational man is selfish and driven by economic interests. His statement has been a very hot debating topic, ups and downs, but still widely recognized.
But remember, there are assumptions on his statement. People makes bullshit which apparently makes sense simply because he or she does not notice those assumptions. For example, google’s interest theory.
Why google’s theory on interest is not consistent with the rational economic man hypothesis? Let the economics theory answer this for us.
From Adam Smith to utilitarians, and then Keynes, people are considered to be selfish for their own interests, but none of them has denied that people are sometimes non-selfish for their choices from the other perspective. However, the exceptions under the hypothesis do not prevent us using the hypothesis explaining the social phenomenon driven by interest. This is because the the hypothesis of rational economic man is based on the overall national statistics. Someone quotes the example saying, then why Martin Luther King quitted his decent job as a lawyer and why Oskar Schindler saved those Jews on his own risk for almost nothing? Statistics tells you it just doesn’t matter since those people are outliers in the normal distribution.
In fact, it is understandably that most of the excellent individuals and organizations are among the statistical outliers.
Only swindler plays around the hypothesis in that way, strict economist does not.
There are people trying to make a convincing point that it’s for google’s benefit to pull out its service from China’s market.
“If Google has to lose its $600 million in revenues from China by pulling out of the country, then at the very least it’s won a lot in brand and integrity points by the public, English-language and scorched-earth way they did it.”
And you can’t believe there are also a bunch of Wall Street genius really bet on this with their money. They hold the same point of view that it’s good for google to do so. (Assuming the market efficiency, then why the price of google’s stock dropped when google made the decision if it was a good news?)
Let’s assume it’s a valid hypothesis, then the question is,”so what?”
Here is the logic: if A is true then B is true, but we can’t simply make a conclusion that if B is true then A is also true based on the first half statement.
So logically, we can’t draw the conclusion to prove that google is doing this for its benefits.
Analyzing with the most unfavorable data drawn from the market, google’s decision is for sure violating its commercial interests.
Last year, China’s search engine market was worth about ￥6.95 billion RMB ($1.02 billion US dollar). From the most pessimistic data, Google should have taken up one third of the market. If we are more optimistically about the data, Google occupied 43% market share in China, and with a 15% monthly increase over the past 5 months. The profit generated in China’s market is expected to count 2% out of google’s total profit.
You may or may not notice, Microsoft and Yahoo with less than 10% market share in China respectively, are fighting badly for the huge potential market in China. There is just not any commercial or interest reason for Google to leave this growing market where it has already established a dominant advantage.
Under the modern cooperate system, the company is representing the interests of its shareholders. However, Google has offered another option.
Dual Class Share:
Dual class shares might be the answer for the above question.
Goolge’s two founders, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, together with CEO Eric Schmidt hold 1/3 of the shares in the company. There is a share B, one counts for ten of the voting rights, comparing to share B issued in the market. In other words, Page, Brin and Schmidt have the 80% voting rights for the company’s decision. Google is highly centralized.
The system is supposed to prevent their intervention on the operation while they can still receive their dividends. The problem occurs when it comes to this case, Google has made such an important decision based on the opinions of the three persons. (WJS also had a report on this.)
(By the way, Baidu has the same system as Google in this point. The only person who holds more than 10% of the shares is Li Yanhong (CEO of Baidu, a Chinese). And the rest of shares in the company are almost venture capital. The largest shareholder is DFJ, the company also has invested in Hotmail before. Baidu is nothing different but like a typical US company as what you can observe from
the board structure. Similarly, Li Yanhong also holds the B stock and he make decisions for Baidu with his partners.
Don’t be Evil:
It’s not a simple matter to distinguish “do evil” or “do good”. And sometimes it is just meaningless to do such a distinguish. In psychology,it is believed that human’s behavior is often driven by mixed motives. Say a young man saves a drowning girl, he must be a good boy to do so. At the same time, god knows he might have a sexual fantasy on the girl. Additionaly, people who write the reviews are always being too extreme on the topic. Save the girl, you are a hero; but sleep with the girl afterward, you are just a beast with hero’s Burberry dustcoat.
It doesn’t make any sense to make up the boy’s story and the motives parts to explain.
However, we can take Google as a very good example for this. There may be few people remember the defense Google made in the U.S. Congress for its motivation to enter China’s market in 2006. Just google it and compared it with the recent statement Google post on its blog. You will realize that Google could do both “evil” and “good” at the same time and both time plausibly.
And the definition of “evil” does not make any sense either.
As what HanHan¹ says, Government always plays trick. It teaches you a word, but never explains to you the definition. Like, recently it tells you do not send dirty-joke messages, but it never explains to you what is dirty-joke message. Actually, it does explain to you indirectly that “the government defines the meaning of the word!”
Just like the British governor tells us in the movie “The Boat That Rocked“, if the government can’t find any law to ban the Pirate Radio, then just makes a new law! Simple.
This is exactly the same situation for Google’s “don’t be evil” where the staff of Google concludes,” Brin defines the word “EVIL”.
Last but not least:
Google’s decisions are made by a small minority. One of the guy’s (Brin) childhood was spent in a totalitarian Soviet period. The behavior of the minority group might also be driven by mixed motives.
So let’s think retrospectively on google’s decision, it is more likely to be a final deal with the government, for its own interest, for the hate of centralism, for the faith on internet freedom, and for the anger over the hacking issue.
People only care about money but with no moral, they are not worth of you trust.
However, the sincere people singing the song of “don’t be evil” are not always doing the right thing.
For me, I don’t really care about the dignity of Google, or if it is for its own benefits or not. No matter Google’s leaving China or not, I hope it continues with its faith of the internet freedom.
And I don’t care what Brin defines “Evil”, what I believe is it’s better to have an internet with less censorship.
1. China’s best-selling novelist, champion amateur race-car driver, wildly popular bloggerRead more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1931619,00.html
PS: 第一次尝试翻译，有些用词也不准确，有些地方只好打比喻，可是又找不到更为恰当的例子。比如男孩救人的地方，上 岸，就是舍身救人的雷锋。上床，就是乘人之危的禽兽。 我想找两个电影人物 一个英雄一个乘人之危的假英雄来直接取代里头的Hero名词都找不到。。。英语素材太匮乏。。。
原文因为 Windows LiveSpace迁移到 WordPress平台，地址更新为：