扎克伯格成不了比尔•盖茨二世

    如果你是在微软公司（Microsoft）称霸IT业之后才长大成人的，那你可能只会看到比尔•盖茨的那些慈善义举，把他当成一个英雄。但对那些一直要和比尔•盖茨治下、早已成为真正垄断寡头的微软正面较量的人来说，他们眼中的盖茨就完全是另一种形象了——他就是一个吸吮软件创新鲜血的吸血鬼。

    不过还是有人充满怀念地管盖茨叫英雄，不是因为他现在的所作所为，而是因为他当年在微软的作为。或者说至少还有一个人是这么想的，那就是马克•扎克伯格。2013年9月，扎克伯格在一个会议上表示，在他成长的过程中，盖茨就是他心目中的英雄。当他的采访者迈克尔•阿灵顿将盖茨比作达斯•维德（《星球大战》中的黑武士——译注）时，扎克伯格表示难以苟同。他认为盖茨是“我们行业有史以来最伟大的、最富有远见的人物之一”。

    这就引发了一个问题：既然盖茨已经离开科技业了，那么扎克伯格能像盖茨那样成为我们这个时代的英豪吗？Facebook又算不算新一代的微软呢？

    我们不妨来做个比较。他俩的公司都率先在一个新兴科技行业中创造了大量用户。他俩都是刚愎自用且富于远见的人，有时候表现得比较腼腆，偶尔又会喋喋不休，不过在生意上都能做到冷血无情。他俩都是著名的哈佛退学生。此外，两人都认为商业成功不在于产品或服务有多好，而在于它们能在多大范围上推广普及。

    正如扎克伯格九月份阐释自己的话时所说：“据我所知，比尔•盖茨经营的这家公司是最有富使命感的企业之一。微软拥有非常了不起的使命，也就是要在每个家庭的每张桌子上都放上电脑。”他还说，正是微软的这种为世界带来实实在在变化的能力一直激励着自己。而扎克伯格的公司即使不能说更胜一筹，至少也让世界发生了同样翻天覆地的变化。

    但他俩同时也存在很大区别。Facebook和微软统治各自所在行业的方式不同。微软所统治的软件行业与社交网络不是一回事。用户必须掏钱买预装在电脑里的操作系统，要升级也代价不小。而Facebook的大量代码主要都存储在云端，用户可以免费使用。

    软件业在微软眼就是一种零和博弈，也就是对手如果实现了销售，这就成了微软的损失。而Facebook则一再表示，互联网不是零和博弈。这两种思路就导致了，微软一直致力于控制PC软件的分销，而Facebook的业务重心则是紧抓住用户的注意力以便获得更多广告收入。

    在如今这个互联网时代，一家公司想要在科技业获得垄断地位已经变得难上加难，因为开源软件和遍布全球的网络使对手要实现偷袭变得轻而易举。不过在某种程度上，如果微软早些触网的话，它今天的模样应该就是扎克伯格如今打造的Facebook。

    If you came of age after Microsoft (MSFT) dominated the technology industry, you might well look at Bill Gates' philanthropic efforts and call him a hero. Others who had to compete against the de facto monopoly that was Microsoft under Bill Gates might see things differently. To them, he was a vampiric force that fed on the lifeblood of software innovation.

    Then there are people who nostalgically call Gates a hero, not for what he's doing today, but for what he did back at Microsoft. Or at least there's one: Mark Zuckerberg.

    In September, Zuckerberg said at a conference that Gates was his hero when he was growing up. When his interviewer, Michael Arrington, compared Gates to Darth Vader, Zuckerberg disagreed, saying Gates is "one of the greatest visionaries that our industry has ever had."

    Which raises the question: Now that Gates has moved on from the tech industry, can Zuckerberg become to our era what Gates was in his? Is Facebook (FB) the new Microsoft?

    Let's compare them. Both of their companies were the first to build a large scale of users in an emerging tech industry. Both are headstrong visionaries who convey a sometimes bashful, intermittently garrulous public image yet who can be cold-blooded in business. Both, famously, are Harvard dropouts. And both see business success not in terms of how good a product or service is, but in how widely it can be disseminated.

    As Zuckerberg explained back in September: "Bill Gates ran one of the most mission-driven companies I can think of. Microsoft had a great mission. To put a computer on every desktop and in every home." Microsoft's ability to bring concrete change in the world was inspiring Zuckerberg, he said. And Zuckerberg's company has brought just as much change, if not more so.

    But there are important differences too. Facebook and Microsoft came to dominate their industries in different ways. The software industry Microsoft dominated was different from the social web. Every user had to pay for an operating software that was installed computer by computer and that was costly to upgrade. Facebook's extensive code exists largely in the cloud and is free to use.

    Microsoft viewed the software industry as a zero-sum game, where a sale to competitors was a loss to Microsoft. Facebook has repeatedly said the Internet isn't a zero-sum game. Consequently, Microsoft focused on controlling the distribution of PC software. Facebook focuses on capturing its users' attention so it can draw in more ad dollars.

    It's much harder for a company to come close to monopolizing a technology industry in the age of the Internet, where open-source software and globally distributed networks make it easy for rivals to come at you. And yet, in some ways, Zuckerberg has built Facebook to look like what Microsoft might have become if it had nailed the Internet early on.