彭博终端机在某些企业家和风投家眼里可能有点另类，甚至可能是个已经落伍的东西。在如今这个网络年代，人人都能从互联网和开源大数据工具上获得免费的信息，而彭博终端这个基本上是由第三方数据和分析工具攒在一块儿的东西居然还好意思跟用户收钱。另外大家也经常能听见有人报怨它的界面像80年代的产物。现在包括金融服务业在内的许多行业都在加速“松绑”，但彭博终端机是个典型的“捆绑销售”产品：它只有一个产品，一个价格，但是它有3000多个功能，这就意味着普通用户顶多能用上其中的一小部分功能。但是全球有32万多人每年都花2万美金使用这个东西。

    如果你觉得彭博终端面向的市场对于那些有闯劲、有头脑的创业公司来说是个完美机会，那么你并不是唯一一个有这种想法的人。我曾在彭博创投（Bloomberg Ventures）工作过四年，在那期间以及我离开以后，我曾无数次听到过关于这个话题的讨论。尤其是最近《机构投资人》杂志（Institutional Investor ）上的一篇文章称，“打倒彭博的竞赛已经打响了”，还有一篇单独的文章特别提到了我在Estimize和Kensho公司的朋友们，称他们是“瞄准彭博”的创业公司。

    近年来，彭博终端已经见证了很多潜在竞争者的兴衰。不时有新的金融数据创业公司昙花一现，有的高调，有的低调，都试图挑战彭博终端的某些功能。不过这些公司最终都很快就消失了，有的关门大吉，有的转行，还有的被人收购。

    究竟是为什么？那些做金融数据的创业公司的出路究竟在哪？

    正面袭击：祝好运！

    首先，彭博并不是那种人浮于事的守成型公司。我可能是在彭博创投喝Kool-Aid饮料喝得太多了，但是彭博留给我的印象非常深刻。彭博不久前自己也是一家创业公司，它有一个强大的品牌，雄厚的财力，高度竞争的文化，而且它的这款产品也是花了几十亿美元的研发费用、耗时数年时间才开发出来的。它的技术平台基本上永远不会过时，也不会落后，而且背后还有出色的客服团队在提供支持。

    但现实中也不乏出色的守成公司被新进者颠覆的例子。因此，说不定有其它原因可以解释，为什么直到现在创业公司还无法对彭博终端形成威胁。

    （1）强大的网络效应的保护。首先，人们经常误解了彭博终端获得长期成功的一个重要原因。彭博终端除了数据和分析工具是卖点之外，更主要的是它本身基本上就是一个网络。实际上它可能还是世界上第一个社交网络，只不过当年这个词还没有诞生。虽然现在有些人认为彭博终端作为一种身份象征的地位已经开始削弱了，但过去几十年，“彭博机”一直是专业金融人士互相联络的利器（无论是工作上的还是非工作上的往来）。在它的目标市场上，可以说大家整天都在用它，通过它与同事、客户和合作伙伴进行沟通联络。而像Facebook、Dropbox、Gmail等基于网络的服务由于经常被金融服务公司封住，在这方面反而没有什么建树——起码在用电脑沟通方面是这样的。

    In the eye of some entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, the Bloomberg terminal is a bit of an anomaly, perhaps even an anachronism. In the era of free information on the Internet and open source Big Data tools, here's a business that charges its users to access data that it generally obtains from third parties, as well as the tools to analyze it. You'll hear the occasional jab at its interface as reminiscent of the 1980s. And at a time of accelerating "unbundling" across many industries, including financial services, the Bloomberg terminal is the ultimate "bundling" play: One product, one price, which means that that the average user uses only a small percentage of the terminal's 30,000+ functions. Yet, 320,000 people around the world pay about $20,000 a year to use it.

    If you think that this sounds like a perfect opportunity for disruption or "unbundling" at the hand of nimble, aggressive startups, you're not alone. I spent four years at Bloomberg Ventures, and this was a topic that I heard debated countless times before, during and after my tenure there. The most recent example is a recent Institutional Investor article that declared the start of "The Race to Topple Bloomberg," with a separate article highlighting my friends at Estimize and Kensho as startups that "Take Aim at Bloomberg."

    Yet, over the years, the terminal has seen its fair share of would be disruptors come and go. Every now and then, a new wave of financial data startups seems to be appearing, attempting to build businesses that, overtly or not, compete with some parts of the Bloomberg terminal. Soon enough, however, those companies seem to disappear, through failure, pivot or acquisition.

    What gives? And where are the opportunities for financial data startups?

    Frontal assault: good luck

    To start, Bloomberg is not exactly your run-of-the-mill, lazy incumbent. Perhaps I drank too much of the Kool-Aid, but I left the company very impressed. Bloomberg, which was itself a startup not that long ago, comes armed with a powerful brand, deep pockets, a fiercely competitive culture, a product that results from billions of dollars of R&D investment over the years and a technology platform that basically never goes down or even slows down, supported by generally excellent customer service.

    But great incumbents have been disrupted before. So there is perhaps another set of less immediately apparent reasons why the terminal has so far been very resilient to disruption by startups:

    1. It is protected by strong network effects. One surprisingly misunderstood reason to the long term success of the Bloomberg terminal is that, beyond the data and analytics, it is fundamentally a network. In fact, it was probably the first ever social network, long before the term was coined. Although some believe that its cachet as a status symbol is starting to erode, "the Bloomberg" (as it is often called) has been for decades the way you communicate with other finance professionals (for legitimate or not so legitimate reasons). In its relevant target market, everyone is on it and uses it all day to communicate with colleagues, clients and partners. Web-based services (Facebook, Dropbox, Gmail), often banned in financial services companies, haven't made much of a dent in that, at least for desktop communication.