Archive for Behind Story

新工具 | Xingongju.com

前言

「没有一只猿手曾经制造过一把即使是最粗笨的石刀。」

— 恩格斯

 

远古时代,工具使用改变了人们类的生活,有许多古老的工具流传至今依然在各个角落发挥它们的价值。

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:

我们分享美好的记忆,沉浸于读书的乐趣,学习做一道新的菜肴,看我们喜爱的球队比赛,召开重要的会议,制作家庭视频,学习新的东西。

But how we do all these, will never be the same.

现在和未来,工具将被富于更多的意义。我们相信工具的使用可以改变生活,我们也对不同行业不同人物的各种工具组合充满了好奇。

 

赋予意义

[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。

这些工作空间会不会对我们的工作有着某些启发呢?是整齐有序还是乱糟糟,哪个状态会让想法流通更顺畅呢?

How it’s Made

小时候很多朋友都像我一样,喜欢拆拆装装一些玩具或任何东西。总想弄清楚是怎么一样会事。

现在,我们的世界不在单纯的是一些具体的看得见、摸得着的东西,充满了各种看得见摸不着的,但依旧让人着迷的产品。

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?

当我們看到朋友的一张好看的照片,我们总想问「你是用哪款相机拍摄的呢?后期用什么软件处理的吗?」

好奇心

对于上面的情景我们总是有着十足的好奇心。

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?

分享、探索

在 Twitter、微博,还是在博客分享、邮件分享,也常常会听到朋友说到「某某设备/软件真是太好用了。」

许多朋友花费许多时间,寻找、测试、比较各种工具。

这个过程是纠结的,有时令人抓狂;但它也可以是快乐的。

因为分享,你的体验、你的发现、你的推荐可以为更多人节省许多烦恼。

Happiness only real when shared.

相互分享,这样每个人都可以在此之外,将更多的精力和时间用于专注地完成工作。

How you gather all tools you need to do any work you want.

跨越了一个领域,或许你会一头雾水。在各个领域人们的分享中,探索你需要的工具。

去分享,去讨论,去探索,去发现好奇心。

 

新工具

你不可能在眺望未来时把生活中的每个点连接起来,只有回顾时能才连点成线。所以你必须相信今日所做的会影响你的未来。

乔布斯说道。

Well,我想今天是点连成线的时候了。

今天我们为你带:「新工具 | Xingongju.com」社区!

我们相信工具的组合对生活、工作、学习有着重要的作用。

你在生活中都使用什么工具呢?有哪些小工具,让你的生活有趣、简单,有哪些工具使你工作的更轻松、舒适?

欢迎和新工具的朋友们一同分享、讨论、探索!我们都有一颗好奇心! 

 

别忘记关注我们

Twitter:@Xingongju

微博: @新工具

马克·扎克伯格这个混球

其实原词不应该是「混球」。

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」。

这个「Badass」,翻译成混球当然不妥,我比较词穷,也没想到什么好词儿。

实事上,英文里「badass」这个词有点意思是指一个人我行我素,按照自己的方式做事,有点点酷的感觉,甚至还带点褒义。

Mark 自己不也常说:「保持酷的状态很重要」嘛。

(image credit: LATimes.com)

后来知乎的回答下有一个网友留言问:

保留了这么多的投票权和混球之间是什么关系呢?强势?无赖?请指教。

(一)

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。

很多情况下,互联网公司在完成第一轮或第二轮融资后,公司创始人基本上就不再能够完全拥有公司的控制权了(50% 以上投票权)。

Mark Zuckerberg 可以有 56.9% 的绝对控制权,那最直接的就是两个因素:

1. 股权(Shareholding)

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。)

Read More

Instagram 背后的故事

April 23, 2012 |  by  |  Behind Story, Entrepreneur, Linked, Venture Capital  |  No Comments

风险投资机构 Andreessen Horowitz,在 Instagram 初创时投资了 $250,000,在被 Facebook 收购后获利 $78,000,000,312 倍的投资回报。

可是,这远远不够,因为他们在 $25,000 之后没有继续追加投资,而是转而投资了竞争对手 PicPlz。

Andreessen Horowitz 的投资人 Ben Horowitz 在一篇名为「Instagram」的文章对整个过程进行了回忆:

当时他们有三个选择,投资PicPlz、谁都不投和投资 Instagram(但是这样会违反与 PicPlz 的 Dalton 的协议)。最后他们选择了第一个,因为这样不会违反当初和 PicPlz 签订的“不投资竞争对手”的协议。这样的选择就是他们也不能继续追加对 Instagram 的投资。

Ben Horowitz 表示:

不能因为 Dalton 的 PicPlz 没有卖 10 亿美元就认为我们对这笔投资非常后悔。Kevin 和他的 Instagram 团队是非常特别和唯一的,但是我们对投资了 Dalton 还是非常满意的。[via]

读到这个背后的故事,使我联想到几天前那个「泰坦尼克号」上最后时刻的一些事迹

[Behind Story] Facebook 以 10 亿美元收购照片分享应用 Instagram

CityIndex

Facebook週一宣佈,該公司已與照片共享服務商 Instagram 達成協議,將以 10 億美元的價格收購後者,支付方式為現金加股票。業界人士指出,這項交易意味著,雖然 Facebook 尚未 IPO(首次公開募股)上市,但已開始利用其市場財富來實現增長。

华尔街见闻

在 Twitter上有一些有意思的比较,如:

「柯达公司走向了破产,而 Instagram 却价值 10 亿美元。」

诞生 551 天的 Instagram 价值 10 亿美元,已经有 116 年历史的纽约时报只值 9.67 亿美元。

 

有分析人士说,这笔交易标志 Facebook 已经正式作为并购市场上的主要竞争者登台亮相,准备与谷歌和其他对手一争高低。

但是 Facebook 创始人扎克伯格则试图淡化这次巨额并购的意义。

他在自己的 Facebook 网页上写道: 「对 Facebook,这是一个里程碑,因为这是我们第一次收购一个产品和一家公司,他们拥有如此多的用户。但是,我们并不计划进行更多的收购,可能我们不再收购了。」

i美股

1、13个员工与$10亿:这是有史以来第一家估值达到 1 0亿美元而员工数不到 20 人的公司

2、便捷、跨平台与社交

3、基于移动互联网的创业者带来了前所未有的机遇,他们的产品可以在极短时间内接触到几千万甚至上亿的用户

4、Facebook 主动防御

专注社交媒体的博客《Social Media Insider》如此点评这笔交易:「Facebook 不是为了收购机遇,他们只是想拿下对 Facebook 图片功能威胁最大的竞争对手 Instagram。

美国科技博客 BI 撰稿人尼古拉斯·卡森(Nicholas Carlson)在 2 月初就评价说:「Instagram 是 Facebook 不可忽视的竞争对手,这款应用极大简化了用户社交分享的操作,而 Facebook 自己的图片分享功能相比而言要繁琐很多,要知道便捷分享是 Facebook 当初从社交网站混战中脱颖而出的主要原因。」

今年 Pinterest 一举超过 Tumblr、LinkedIn 和 Google+,成了继 Facebook 和 Twitter 后全美第三大最受欢迎社交网站。

Facebook 收购 Instagram 或许是传统社交网站和基于功能的社交网站整合的开始。一方面 Instagram 不断增长的图片社区可以扩大 Facebook 的社交版图,另一方面 Instagram 将帮助 Facebook 改善自己的图片分享功能。

另外提到社交网络,引用一条张亮的微薄:

如果想一想 Facebook 的 CTO 和 COO、Twitter 的 CEO、Pinterest 和 Foursquare 的创始人都出自同一家公司—— Google ——我都不好意思说 Google 不懂社交了。那天跟王兴聊天,我说,Google 错过 Quora 和 Pinterest,未来某天绝对被视作不可饶恕的错误。

Google + 你是不是很脸红?

但我还觉得,Google 并不是真心要在社交领域如何施展身手。

Project Glass 里看到视频演示里出现过的东西:Android、Google+、Maps、Gmail、Gcal、Latitude、Weather,这一切都不是独立存在的。为了让这些服务真的成为你生活的一个部分,真正进入一个数字化、电子化的世界,它们需要一个载体,这就是 Google 一直不断跌倒继续探寻的 Google + 社交平台。

Thoughts on Google (tr)

Statistics:

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.

Logic:

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.

 

Market:

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

文章在翻译过程中与作者考究后一些地方做出了修改。作者最新更新的原文在这里:
http://newkhonsou.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!675308C8A0B112DE!487.entry

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。。。

望各位读者多多赐教。

update: 30/11/2011

原文因为 Windows LiveSpace迁移到 WordPress平台,地址更新为:

http://realkhonsou.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/google-,统计,逻辑和股权/