Why Facebook defying imitate Snapchat

Why does Facebook defying imitate Snapchat, Ban wonder, and Synga? Why does Apple know it's not as good as Google on the map, but eager to replace it? When will Google change its image of selflessness on Android? The answer will be soon.

The difficulty of identifying incumbents as a result of industry upheaval, the short-term earnings pressures of traditional business slowdown, the incumbent oligarchs in capital markets, technology, users and ecosystems, will open a new page in the Internet-a dark page for ambitious entrepreneurs.

From Netscape and Yahoo, the open tide has dominated the development of the global Internet, but over the next few years, through the open strategy to become more powerful internet giants, may go to the reactionary. Needless to say, the Giants I'm talking about here are Google, Facebook's open Internet advocates, or Apple-controlled, open-minded advocates.

In particular, they will be more explicit and firm in their use of resources than in the past, openly competing with past collaborators, defending and even blocking potential stocks of those who are open to the strategy, and becoming more aggressive in promoting their own commercialization strategies.

Take Facebook, for example, its success is directly related to the open strategy of "the Internet infrastructure", which means that Facebook simply attracts more users and stays and gathers more Third-party app developers to bring more real or virtual behavior here, and Facebook can benefit from it, including advertising, application partitioning, intermediary fees or virtual currency.

But the evaluation of this strategy needs to be phased in: Initially, it was a purely challenger strategy aimed at defusing a powerful bastion of incumbents built by Google search, but when Facebook became a incumbent on nearly 1 billion active users, it needed to be reconsidered, Unless it helps defend Facebook's position.

So is open strategy the most effective strategy for Facebook now? It depends on two prerequisites: one is that third-party application developers are also very receptive to this positioning, without compromising or even challenging Facebook's central location, and Facebook itself believes that Its position as the center of Internet traffic is no longer challenging.

For example, when it feels the Snapchat of a short picture-sharing site might pose a threat, and attempts to acquire and be rejected, Zuckerberg himself takes 12 days to replicate it completely and takes pride in it. Another example was the Instagram between the previous and Twitter, and the visit of Wonder, a mobile social aide who blocked the Russian internet giant Yandex in recent days.

Next, Google. It initially played the role of neutral information diggers and matching actors (essentially an open strategy) by using technology, and the Yahoo old generation of content portal subversion, it through the search engine to lay the Internet Information Center is so strong that it has enough self-confidence to continue to "do not evil" as the core concept, For as long as information is free and open to flow, it maximizes benefits.

When Facebook emerged, Google's counterattack, which was more like a defender of the incumbents, did not get much done. But when Apple ripped a huge hole in the mobile end of iOS that could threaten its central location, it reinforced its open strategy, which was to try to disrupt Apple's fortress through Android, and this time it worked.

But who can guarantee that in the future Google will not become more preoccupied or even closed? Well, it's been pretty generous on Android so far, but who's to say it's not because it needs it--it's the urgency of gaining a dominant position on the mobile side, The urgency has been reinforced by Facebook's damage to its social networks. According to a recent quarterly financial report, its traditional business has matured, and the mobile Internet is becoming the new growth engine.

In my opinion, at least in one of the following three cases, Google is likely to run counter to the open strategy: If Google is not sure its dominant position on the mobile internet (such as Samsung and other manufacturers start to push their own system), or the traditional business further down, The natural growth of the mobile internet business cannot keep pace, or the value of advertising has stalled.

Apple represents the opening of another model-though many people prefer it as a representative of a closed business system. Apple has launched more Third-party application developers, who used to be the internal members of a company. Since Apple has ensured its control of the system platform and users from the outset, it has been able to keep open enough to the third party.

But future generosity could be a history, as the value of Apple will shift to the mobile internet as its values decline, growth slows and competition intensifies, and it is likely to be suspicious of its dominance, prompting it to remain vigilant about possible harm.

For example, Google's map is good, but it will be eager to replace it, because it is afraid of users to Google. For example, in the social network, even e-commerce and other value sites, it may intervene in person, as a company with a market value of nearly 400 billion dollars, it must obtain sufficient value source. For new third-party applications, it will remain vigilant because it is concerned about user churn, and the user will be the last bastion of its value after the hardware value drops.

Obviously, these two points are not available now. It has already broken with Zynga, and Zynga is unwilling to just be a screw and profit contributor on Facebook, and Facebook is afraid Zynga will use it as a position to elope with a large number of users. At the same time, the progress of the commercialization strategy, the pressure of capital markets, the lesson of Zynga, and the pressure on the mobile side, have made it suspect that its status is at risk of being subverted.

So, when Facebook is working with third party developers in the future, will be more sensitive to control, more mercenary, and more alert to any new Internet innovation, and all of this revolves around a center: defending its powerful incumbents and maximizing commercialization to meet the capital market's profit requirements.

That is to say, before the new incumbents establish their strong position in the global Internet arena, there will be a battle between all incumbents and between them and the new challenger, and as an instinctive reaction, the existing giants will have more stringent protections for the resources that they consider to be dominant, As a cost to win a new position.

Yes, according to KK, in the user, technology and so on, the future of the Internet is open, but specifically to the commercial micro level, I think that only when the leadership of a small number of oligarchs is confirmed, they will be fully committed to opening up, because at that time the open is controllable, is the most advantageous strategy for them.

And in individual stages, the reverse opening will occupy a short-lived dominant position, this is because today's internet has formed some of the dominant oligarchs in capital markets, technology, users and ecosystems, and the power of users and technology will be small in front of them, especially when they become more reactionary.

How is the situation in a relatively closed Internet environment in China (where a handful of companies claim to be open as a major strategy)? I think China's big internet giants have shifted from an open attacker to a closed conservative a few years ago: The Chinese market is all, diversified rather than professional, becoming the most profitable strategic choice.

This means that companies lack the basis for cooperation, because they are pursuing horizontal expansion and occupation of the business, and in order to meet the needs of scale growth, they must be a major player in every major area of value growth, rather than just a piece of the pie by cooperation.

Only when the last major giants have identified their strengths and areas of dominance, while the industrial landscape is stable and the major companies are based on open business strategies, real openness and cooperation are likely to emerge, but that could also mean the end of the era of upheaval, with only a small number of opportunities.