the.world.is.flat-第23部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


how　much　of　a　flattener　open…source　becomes。　
Microsoft's　first　point　is；　How　do　you　push　innovation　forward　if　everyone　is　working　
for　free　and　giving　away　their　work？　Yes；　says　Microsoft；　it　all　sounds　nice　and　chummy　
that　we　all　just　get　together　online　and　write　free　software　by　the　people　and　for　


the　people。　But　if　innovators　are　not　going　to　be　rewarded　for　their　innovations；　
the　incentive　for　path…breaking　innovation　will　dry　up　and　so　will　the　money　for　the　
really　deep　R　&　D　that　is　required　to　drive　progress　in　this　increasingly　complex　
field。　The　fact　that　Microsoft　created　the　standard　PC　operating　system　that　won　out　
in　the　marketplace；　it　argues；　produced　the　bankroll　that　allowed　Microsoft　to　spend　
billions　of　dollars　on　R　&　D　to　develop　Microsoft　Office；　a　whole　suite　of　applications　
that　it　can　now　sell　for　a　little　over　100。　
〃Microsoft　would　admit　that　there　are　number　of　aspects　of　the　open…source　movement　
that　are　intriguing；　particularly　around　the　scale；　community　collaboration；　and　
communication　aspects；〃　said　Craig　Mundie；　the　Microsoft　chief　technology　officer。　
〃But　we　fundamentally　believe　in　a　commercial　software　industry；　and　some　variants　
of　the　open…source　model　attack　the　economic　model　that　allows　companies　to　build　
businesses　in　software。　The　virtuous　cycle　of　innovation；　reward；　reinvestment；　and　
more　innovation　is　what　has　driven　all　big　breakthroughs　in　our　industry。　The　software　
business　as　we　have　known　it　is　a　scale　economic　busi…　

ness。　You　spend　a　ton　of　money　up　front　to　develop　a　software　product；　and　then　the　
marginal　cost　of　producing　each　one　is　very　small；　but　if　you　sell　a　lot　of　them；　
you　make　back　your　investment　and　then　plow　profits　back　into　developing　the　next　
generation。　But　when　you　insist　that　you　cannot　charge　for　software；　you　can　only　
give　it　away；　you　take　the　software　business　away　from　being　a　scale　economic　
business。〃　
Added　Bill　Gates；　〃You　need　capitalism　＇to　drive　innovation。＇　To　have　＇a　movement＇　
that　says　innovation　does　not　deserve　an　economic　reward　is　contrary　to　where　the　
world　is　going。　When　I　talk　to　the　Chinese；　they　dream　of　starting　a　company。　They　
are　not　thinking；　'I　will　be　a　barber　during　the　day　and　do　free　software　at　night。'。　。　。　
When　you　have　a　security　crisis　in　your　＇software＇　system；　you　don't　want　to　say；　
'Where　is　the　guy　at　the　barbershop？'〃　
As　wemove　into　this　flat　world；　and　you　have　this　massive　Web…enabled　global　workforce；　
with　all　these　collaborative　tools；there　will　be　no　project　too　small　for　some　members　
of　this　workforce　to　take　on；　or　copy；　or　modify…for　free。　Someone　out　there　will　
be　trying　to　produce　the　free　versions　of　every　kind　of　software　or　drug　or　music。　
〃So　how　will　products　retain　their　value？〃　asked　Mundie。　〃And　if　companies　cannot　
derive　fair　value　from　their　products；　will　innovation　move　forward　in　this　area；　
or　others；　at　the　speed　that　it　could　or　should？〃　Can　we　always　count　on　a　
self…organizing　open…source　movement　to　come　together　to　drive　things　forward　for　
free？　
It　seems　to　me　that　we　are　too　early　in　the　history　of　the　flattening　of　the　world　
to　answer　these　questions。　But　they　will　need　answers；　and　not　just　for　Microsoft。　
So　far…and　maybe　this　is　part　of　the　long…term　answer…Microsoft　has　been　able　to　count　
on　the　fact　that　the　only　thing　more　expensive　than　commercial　software　is　free　
software。　Few　big　companies　can　simply　download　Linux　off　the　Web　and　expect　it　to　
work　for　all　their　tasks。　A　lot　of　design　and　systems　engineering　needs　to　go　around　
it　and　on　top　of　it　to　tailor　it　to　a　company's　specific　needs；　especially　for　


sophisticated；　large…scale；　mission…critical　operations。　So　when　you　add　up　all　the　
costs　of　adapting　the　Linux　operating　system　to　the　needs　of　your　company　and　its　
specific　hardware　platform　and　applica102　
tions；　Microsoft　argues；　it　can　end　up　costing　as　much　as　or　more　than　Windows。　
The　second　issue　Microsoft　raises　about　this　whole　open…source　movement　has　to　do　
with　how　we　keep　track　of　who　owns　which　piece　of　any　innovation　in　a　flat　world；　
where　some　is　generated　for　free　and　others　build　on　it　for　profit。　Will　Chinese　
programmers　really　respect　the　rules　of　the　Free　Software　Foundation？　Who　will　govern　
all　this？　
〃Once　you　start　to　socialize　the　global　population　on　the　idea　that　software　or　any　
other　innovation　is　supposed　to　be　free；　a　lot　of　people　will　not　distinguish　between　
free　software；　free　pharmaceuticals；　free　music；　or　free　patents　on　car　designs；〃　
argued　Mundie。　There　is　some　truth　to　this。　I　work　for　a　newspaper；　that　is　where　
my　paycheck　comes　from。　But　I　believe　that　all　online　newspapers　should　be　free；　and　
on　principle　I　refuse　to　pay　for　an　online　subscription　to　The　Wall　Street　Journal。　
I　have　not　read　the　paper　copy　of　The　New　York　Times　regularly　for　two　years。　I　read　
it　only　online。　But　what　if　my　daughters'　generation；　which　is　being　raised　to　think　
that　newspapers　are　something　to　be　accessed　online　for　free；　grows　up　and　refuses　
to　pay　for　the　paper　editions？　Hmmm。　I　loved　Amazon。com　until　it　started　providing　
a　global　platform　that　wasn't　selling　only　my　new　books　but　also　used　versions。　And　
I　am　still　not　sure　how　I　feel　about　Amazon　offering　sections　of　this　book　to　be　browsed　
online　for　free　Mundie　noted　that　a　major　American　auto　company　recently　discovered　
that　some　Chinese　firms　were　using　new　digital…scanning　technology　to　scan　an　entire　
car　and　churn　out　computer…aided　design　models　of　every　part　within　a　very　short　period　
of　time。　They　can　then　feed　those　designs　to　industrial　robots　and　in　short　order　
produce　a　perfect　copy　of　a　GM　car…without　having　to　spend　any　money　on　R　&　D。　American　
automakers　never　thought　they　had　anything　to　worry　about　from　wholesale　cloning　of　
their　cars；　but　in　the　flat　world；　given　the　technologies　that　are　out　there；　that　
is　no　longer　the　case。　
My　bottom　line　is　this：　Open…source　is　an　important　flattener　because　it　makes　
available　for　free　many　tools；　from　software　to　encyclopedias；　that　millions　of　people　
around　the　world　would　have　had　to　buy　in　order　to　use；　and　because　open…source　network　
associations…with　their　
103　
open　borders　and　come…one…come…all　approach…can　challenge　hierarchical　structures　
with　a　horizontal　model　of　innovation　that　is　clearly　working　in　a　growing　number　
of　areas。　Apache　and　Linux　have　each　helped　to　drive　down　costs　of　computing　and　
Internet　usage　in　ways　that　are　profoundly　flattening。　This　movement　is　not　going　
away。　Indeed；　it　may　just　be　getting　started…with　a　huge；　growing　appetite　that　could　
apply　to　many　industries。　As　The　Economist　mused　（June　10；　2004）；　〃some　zealots　even　
argue　that　the　open…source　approach　represents　a　new；　post…capitalist　model　of　
production。〃　
That　may　prove　true。　But　if　it　does；　then　we　have　some　huge　global　governance　issues　


to　sort　out　over　who　owns　what　and　how　individuals　and　companies　will　profit　from　
their　creations。　

Flattener　#5　
Outsourcing　
Y2K　
India　has　had　its　ups　and　down　since　it　achieved　independence　on　August　15；　1947；　
but　in　some　ways　it　might　be　remembered　as　the　luckiest　country　in　the　history　of　
the　late　twentieth　century。　
Until　recently；　India　was　what　is　known　in　the　banking　world　as　〃the　second　buyer。〃　
You　always　want　to　be　the　second　buyer　in　business…the　person　who　buys　the　hotel　or　
the　golf　course　or　the　shopping　mall　after　the　first　owner　has　gone　bankrupt　and　its　
assets　are　being　sold　by　the　bank　at　ten　cents　on　the　dollar。　Well；　the　first　buyers　
of　all　the　cable　laid　by　all　those　fiber…optic　cable　companies…which　thought　they　
were　going　to　get　endlessly　rich　in　an　endlessly　expanding　digital　universe…were　their　
American　shareholders。　When　the　bubble　burst；　they　were　left　holding　either　worthless　
or　much　diminished　stock。　The　Indians；　in　effect；　got　to　be　the　second　buyers　of　the　
fiber…optics　companies。　
They　didn't　actually　purchase　the　shares；　they　just　benefited　from　the　

overcapacity　in　fiber　optics；　which　meant　that　they　and　their　American　clients　got　
to　use　all　that　cable　practically　for　free。　This　was　a　huge　stroke　of　luck　for　India　
（and　to　a　lesser　degree　for　China；　the　former　Soviet　Union；　and　Eastern　Europe）；　
because　what　is　the　history　of　modern　India？　In　short；　India　is　a　country　with　
virtually　no　natural　resources　that　got　very　good　at　doing　one　thing…mining　the　brains　
of　its　own　people　by　educating　a　relatively　large　slice　of　its　elites　in　the　sciences；　
engineering；　and　medicine。　In　1951；　to　his　enduring　credit；　Jawaharlal　Nehru；　India's　
first　prime　minister；　set　up　the　first　of　India's　seven　Indian　Institutes　of　
Technology　（IIT）　in　the　eastern　city　of　Kharagpur。　In　the　fifty　years　since　then；　
hundreds　of　thousands　of　Indians　have　competed　to　gain　entry　and　then　graduate　from　
these　IITs　and　their　private…sector　equivalents　（as　well　as　the　six　Indian　Institutes　
of　Management；　which　teach　business　administration）。　Given　India's　1　billion…plus　
population；　this　competition　produces　a　phenomenal　knowledge　meritocracy。　It's　like　
a　factory；　churning　out　and　exporting　some　of　the　most　gifted　engineering；　computer　
science；　and　software　talent　on　the　globe。　
This；　alas；　was　one　of　the　few　things　India　did　right。　Because　its　often　dysfunctional　
political　system；　coupled　with　Nehru's　preference　for　pro…Soviet；　Socialist　
economics；　ensured　that　up　until　the　mid…1990s　India　could　not　provide　good　jobs　for　
most　of　those　talented　engineers。　So　America　got　to　be　the　second　buyer　of　India's　
brainpower！　If　you　were　a　smart；　educated　Indian；　the　only　way　you　could　fulfill　your　
potential　was　by　leaving　the　country　and；　ideally；　going　to　America；　where　some　
twenty…five　thousand　graduates　of　India's　top　engineering　schools　have　settled　since　
1953；　greatly　enriching　America's　knowledge　pool　thanks　to　their　education；　which　
was　subsidized　by　Indian　taxpayers。　


〃The　IITs　became　islands　of　excellence　by　not　allowing　the　general　debasement　of　the　
Indian　system　to　lower　their　exactingstandards；〃　noted　The　Wall　StreetJournal　（April　
16；　2003）。　〃You　couldn't　bribe　your　way