Facebook、Meta与元宇宙

　　编者按：Facebook终于改名了。新的名字叫做meta，这跟它要做元宇宙（metaverse）的新愿景十分契合。有关新公司要做什么的文章已经不少，但这篇文章却从不同的角度去剖析了Facebook的这次重组，包括跟Alphabet、微软与苹果战略调整的对比，创始人对公司的作用等，值得我们参考。本文来自编译。

Editor: Facebook has finally changed its name. The new name is Meta, which is very much in line with its new vision of a metaverse. There are already a lot of articles about what the new company is going to do, but this article analyzes the restructuring of Facebook from different angles, including comparison with Alphabet, Microsoft and Apple Strategy, and the role of the founder vis-à-vis the company.

　　Facebook 宣布公司更名为 Meta ，并对公司进行财务重组，把“app家族”——Facebook、Messenger、Instagram 与 WhatsApp——与“Facebook Reality Labs”分开。很显然，最好的类比是谷歌 2015 年重组为 Alphabet，后者把包括搜索引擎、YouTube 与 Google Cloud在内的业务独立出来，组成新的“Google”，“其他赌注”则归于Alphabet旗下。投资者关注的焦点是 Facebook 在 Reality Labs 上面的支出——今年预算是 100 亿美元，而且预计这一数字还会增长——但下个季度的财务数据也将强调 Facebook 的核心业务到底有多好；如果接下来的剧本跟 Alphabet 一样的话，这对于这支股票来说也许是个福音。

Facebook announced the change of name to Meta and the financial reorganization of the company, separating “app family” — Facebook, Messenge, Instagram and WhatsApp — from “Facebook Reality Labs.” Clearly, the best analogy is Google 2015, reconfigured to Alphabet, which separates its operations, including search engines, YouTube and Google Cloud, into a new Google, and “other bets” under Alphabet. Investors focus on Facebook spending on Reality Labs — this year's budget is $100 billion, and this number is expected to grow — but next quarter's financial data will also highlight how good Facebook's core business is; if the next script is like Alphabet, it may be a gorge for the stock.

　　与此同时，虽然两者机制也许相似，但他们之间的差异则表明这种转变的隐含影响要深远得多。先从名字说起：“Alphabet”并没有什么特别的含义（编者注：其实还是有的，拉里·佩奇说：“我们很喜欢‘Alphabet’这个名字，Alphabet即字母表，代表着人类最重要的发明之一——语言，也是Google搜索索引的核心”），这就是重点；拉里·佩奇在新闻公告中指出：

At the same time, while the mechanisms may be similar, the difference between them suggests that the implications of this shift are far more profound. Starting with the name: “Alphabet” does not have any particular meaning (editor: yes, indeed, Larry Pec says: “We like the name `Alphabet', the alphabet, which represents one of the most important inventions of humankind — language, and the core of Google's search indexes”, which is the focus; Larry Pec states in his press release:

　　什么是Alphabet？Alphabet可以说是一系列公司的集合。最大的一家当然是Google。新的Google会更加苗条，跟主要互联网产品关系比较远的公司会纳入Alphabet。关系比较远是什么意思？我们的健康项目就是个很好的例子：生命科学(致力于感应葡萄糖的隐形眼镜)和Calico(专注于长寿)。从根本上说，我们相信这会让我们有更大的管理规模，因为我们可以独立运营那些关系不大的产品。

What's Alphabet? Alphabet can be said to be a collection of companies. The biggest one is, of course, Google. The new Google will be thinner, and companies that are more distant from major Internet products will be included in Alphabet. What do you mean? Our health projects are good examples: the life sciences (commiting glucose contact lenses) and the Calico (focusing on longevity). Basically, we believe that this will give us a larger size of governance, because we can independently run products that are not very relevant.

　　另一方面，“meta”的含义很明确：公司的首席执行官马克·扎克伯格说，Facebook 现在是一家元宇宙公司，新的公司名字体现了这一点。它还很聚焦：Alphabet 旗下有众多企业，其中很多跟并谷歌没有真正联系；Facebook Reality Labs 是从虚拟现实到增强现实再到肌电图系统的一系列努力，但所有这些都是为了同一个愿景，让我们生活在互联网里面，而不只是看着它。

On the other hand, the meaning of “meta” is clear: the CEO of the company, Mark Zuckerberg, says that Facebook is now a meta-cosm company, as reflected in the name of the new company. It is also very focused: Alphabet has many businesses, many of which have no real connection to Google; Facebook Reality Labs is a series of efforts from virtual reality to enhanced reality to mythography, but all this is about the same vision that allows us to live on the Internet and not just look at it.

　　不过，最大的不同在于扎克伯格：正如我当时所写那样，拉里·佩奇和谢尔盖·布林“可能会放弃谷歌的日常职责，但[他们] 无意放弃谷歌的利润”去追逐任何能吸引他们眼球的新行动计划，但很明显扎克伯格仍然坐在权力的宝座，全力接管着“app家族”与“Reality Labs”；不仅如此，就像扎克伯格在接受 Stratechery 采访时所说的那样，Meta 是 Facebook 同一个愿景的延续：

However, the biggest difference is in Zuckerberg: as I wrote at the time, Larry Page and Sergei Bryn “may give up Google's day-to-day duties, but [they] do not want to give up Google's profits” to pursue any new action plan that attracts their eyes, but it is clear that Zuckerberg is still sitting on the throne of power, taking over the app family and the Reality Labs”; not only that, as Zuckerberg said in his interview with Stratechery, Meta is a continuation of the same vision:

　　我在创立 Facebook 之前就设想过很多产品体验，我认为它会解锁其中的很多体验。从商业角度来看，我觉得这也会解锁大规模的数字商务，从战略上来讲，我认为我们有望得到塑造下一个平台发展的机会，让它更适应那些大家想要的互动方式。

I thought it would unlock a lot of experiences before I created Facebook. From a commercial point of view, I think it would unlock large-scale digital commerce, and from a strategic point of view, I think we can get a chance to shape the next platform and make it more responsive to the way you want to interact.

　　另一个比较对象是微软：雷德蒙德这家公司从来都没改过名字，但在前首席执行官史蒂夫·鲍尔默的治下，也许可以叫做Windows 公司； Windows Azure 之类的名称就是这么得来的，其实这个名字起得不对，但命名错误源自战略错误，想利用微软欣欣向荣的生产力业务以及发展迅速的云产品来支撑让公司变得有钱、变得出名和强大的产品。扎克伯格去年也犯过类似的错误，强迫 Oculus 用户用自己的 Facebook 帐户去登录，这不仅让 Oculus 用户感到不安，而且还给 Facebook 用于商务会议的 VR 解决方案 Horizon Workrooms 等产品戴上了镣铐。

Another comparison is with Microsoft: Redmond, a company that has never changed its name, but under the former CEO, Steve Balmer, may be called Windows. Windows Azure, a name that is not right, but that is a strategic mistake to use Microsoft’s booming productive business and rapidly developing cloud products to support products that make the company rich, famous and powerful. Zuckerberg made a similar mistake last year by forcing Oculus users to log in with their Facebook accounts, not only to annoy Oculus users, but also to tie up products such as Facebook’s VR solution for business meetings as Horizon Workrooms.

　　作为微软 CEO，萨蒂亚·纳德拉（Satya Nadella）的伟大之处在于打破了 Windows 对公司的控制，让公司不仅可以突出 Azure 的通用云产品，而且还得以开发以 Teams 为中心、以互联网为中心、与设备无关的新操作系统。事实上，这就是我不嘲笑纳德拉念叨企业元宇宙魔咒的原因；当然，微软也有 HoloLens，但这只是访问存在于某个地方的工作环境的一种手段，一个超越任一设备或任何应用之外的工作环境。

The great thing about being Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, is that it breaks Windows’ control over companies, allowing companies not only to highlight Azure’s universal cloud products, but also to develop new operating systems centred on Teams, on the Internet, and not on equipment. In fact, that is why I don’t laugh at Nadera’s talking about the corporate meta-cosm spell; and, of course, Microsoft has HolloLens, but it is just a means of accessing the work environment that exists somewhere, a work environment that transcends any equipment or any application.

　　Meta 似乎是扎克伯格实现同样突破的机会：Facebook 一开始只是一个app，并从中受益（直到被拖累），但直到今天 Facebook 同时也是公司，只要情况继续如此，元宇宙的愿景就会从根本上受到已存在的东西的束缚。

Meta seems to be an opportunity for Zuckerberg to make the same breakthrough: Facebook was initially an app and benefited (until it was dragged), but to this day Facebook is also a company, and as long as it continues, the vision of the meta-cosmos is fundamentally bound by what already exists.

　　不过，还有第三个比较对象，笼统地说是苹果公司，具体点可以是史蒂夫·乔布斯。从 Mac 到 iPhone，回顾乔布斯的任期，似乎接连不断推出了一系列创新产品，但从很多方面来看，后者才是乔布斯真正实现自己对前者的愿景的机会。Mac 是为最终用户打造的电脑，但却诞生在企业占主导地位的时代；这就是从商业角度来看一开始Mac被视为失败的原因所在，也导致了乔布斯被逐出自己创立的公司。时间快进到 23 年之后，iPhone在最终用户主导了市场的时代诞生；而这次手忙脚乱想要赶上但最终失败的变成了像微软这样的企业玩家。

However, there is a third comparative target, in general, Apple, which could be Steve Jobs. From Mac to iPhone, looking back at the tenure of Jobs, it seems to have been a succession of innovative products, but, in many ways, the latter is the opportunity for Jobs to truly realize his vision of the former. Mac is a computer for end-users, but it was born in an era of corporate dominance; that is, from a commercial point of view, what Mac was seen as a failure, which led to Jobs being expelled from the company that he created.

　　Facebook 的相似之处在于这家公司没能造出一款手机；这家公司最大的问题是进场的时间已经太晚——等到 2013 年Facebook推出 Facebook First 手机和 Facebook Home Android 启动程序时，iPhone 和 Android 已经站稳了脚跟——但还有一个原因，我认为扎克伯格关于手机是什么样的想法存在根本缺陷。扎克伯格认为，移动设备的组织原则应该是人，而不是app。我在早期曾写过《Apps, People, and Jobs to Be Done》，在文章中我对扎克伯格的看法提出了异议，并得出结论：

The resemblance to Facebook is that the company failed to produce a mobile phone; the biggest problem with this company is that it's too late to get in -- when Facebook first and Facebook Home Android started the program in 2013, iPhone and Android were already on their feet -- but for another reason, I think there's a fundamental flaw in Zuckerberg's idea of what a mobile phone is. Zuckerberg thought that the principle of organizing mobile devices should be people, not apps. I wrote "Apps, People, and Jobs to Be Done" at an early stage, and I disagreed with Zuckerberg in my post and concluded that:

　　app不是世界的中心。但人也不是。智能手机之所以能统治世界，是因为它们在更多地方为更多人做了更多的工作，比有史以来任何东西做的都要多。而Facebook Home 反而让工作更难做，实际上这导致它们被贬到我的第三屏的文件夹里面 [偏社交类]。

But not humans. Smart phones rule the world because they do more work for more people in more places than anything they've ever done before. And Facebook Home makes it harder to do work, which actually leads to their being reduced to my third screen folder.

　　我一直以来都认为增强现实的机会要比虚拟现实大，原因正是因为增强现实跟智能手机处于同一条赛道；我在《Facebook 与虚拟现实的问题》中写道：

I have always believed that the opportunity to enhance reality is greater than virtual reality, precisely because the enhancement reality is on the same track as smartphones; I wrote in Facebook and Virtual Reality Questions:

　　VR面临的第一个挑战是：无论是从你虚拟上要去的地方来看，而且关键是从你在现实世界的审慎行动的最终结果来看，VR都是目的地。一个人不会意外地去体验VR：体验VR是一种选择，而且是相当复杂的选择，就我对PlayStation VR的体验而言。

The first challenge facing VR is that it's a destination, whether it's where you're virtual, or where you're supposed to be, and the point is that it's the end result of your careful action in the real world. A person doesn't accidentally experience VR: Experience VR is an option, and it's a rather complex one, for my experience with PlayStation VR.

　　这未必就是问题：去看电影是一种选择，就像你在游戏主机或PC上玩电子游戏一样。这两种都是很合法的赚钱方式：2017年全球的票房收入为406亿美元，而且在一部电影的发行窗口期内，其他的发行渠道加起来还能再赚数十亿美元的收入；电子游戏早就已经变成规模更大的生意，去年全球市场规模已经达到1090亿美元。

It's not necessarily a problem: going to a movie is an option, like playing video games on a game host or on a PC. Both are legal ways of earning money: $40.6 billion in 2017 in ticket houses worldwide and billions of dollars in revenue from other distribution channels combined during a movie's distribution window; video games have long been a bigger business, and the global market has reached $10.9 billion last year.

　　尽管如此，跟智能手机等产品的市场规模相比它们还是小了一个数量级。比方说，苹果公司去年就卖出了价值1580亿美元的iPhone；2017年，整个智能手机行业的规模约为4787亿美元。这种差距应该不足为奇：跟电影或视频游戏不同，智能手机是你到达目的地的陪同，而不是“目的地”本身。

nevertheless, they're smaller than the size of the market for products like smartphones. Apple, for example, sold $158 billion in iPhones last year; in 2017, the size of the entire smartphone industry was approximately $47.87 billion. This gap is not surprising: unlike a movie or video game, smartphones are your escort to your destination, not the destination itself.

　　乍看之下，这似乎有悖直觉：成为大家关注的焦点难道不是好事吗？但是，这个中心只能被一件事情占据，而且会受到时间的限制。假设你一天睡8个小时，工作时间为8小时，然后还有2小时要处理生活相关的事务，这样下来一天你最多只剩下6个小时可以争取。这就是为什么以增强生活为目的的设备要比取代生活的更有吸引力的原因所在：人醒着的每一刻都值得争取。

At first glance, there seems to be a paradox: isn't it a good thing to be the focus of attention? But this center can only be occupied by one thing and is subject to time constraints. Assuming that you sleep eight hours a day, work eight hours, and then have two hours to deal with life-related matters, you will have six hours at the most. That's why the equipment for life is more attractive: every moment you wake up is worth fighting.

　　换句话说，VR市场从根本上受到自身本质的限制：VR要求用户暂时逃离现实生活，而不是叠加在现实生活之上，所以VR的市场根本就没有其他类型的科技产品市场规模那么大。

In other words, VR markets are fundamentally constrained by their very nature: VRs require users to flee from real life for a while, rather than superimposed on real life, so VR markets are not as large as those for other types of technology products.

　　要明确的是，Meta 的愿景是大家在任何地方应该都能够访问元宇宙，这些地方包括你的手机、计算机、AR 眼镜，当然还有 VR 头显。不过，值得考虑的是我昨天所写的技术革命对社会方式。比方说，我认为“在家上班”这个词又是一个用词不当：对于某些人来说，工作本身就是虚拟的，这意味着可以在任何地方做——家只是众多选择当中的一个。在那种情况下，逃离物理现实其实正是目标，而不是负担；为什么在一般的社交互动方面就不能存在同样的吸引力呢？尤其是考虑到越来越多的社区只有互联网这种存在形式的情况下。

To be clear, Meta's vision is that everyone should have access to the meta-cosmos anywhere, including your cell phones, computers, AR glasses, and, of course, VR headlines. But what is worth considering is that I wrote yesterday about the technological revolution in social ways. For example, I think that the word “work at home” is an inappropriate term: for some people, work is virtual in itself, which means that it can be done anywhere — home is just one of many choices. In that case, fleeing physical reality is the goal, not the burden; why is there no equal appeal in social interaction in general?

　　在这一点上，Facebook app再次变成了限制：这款产品把线下的关系数字化，它之所以增长如此之快，这就是原因所在；让扎克伯格惹上麻烦的众多挑战，很多都是源自把纯数字化的交互和关系嫁接到始终比竞争对手更植根于现实的产品上。然而，元宇宙的定义根植于数字世界，如果说它的主要驱动力是跟人进行虚拟互动，不管是为了工作还是为了娱乐的话，那扎克伯格当初以人为本的组织原则（就像苹果始终聚焦在最终用户上一样），也许只是生不逢时，然后现在是来得正好。

On this point, Facebook app has once again become a constraint: this product digitizes the relationship under the line, and that is why it has grown so fast; many of the challenges to getting Zuckerberg into trouble stem from the fact that pure digital interactions and relationships have always been more rooted in reality than rivals. However, the definition of the meta-cosm is rooted in the digital world, and if its main driving force is virtual interaction with people, whether for work or for entertainment, then Zuckerberg’s original organizational principle of focusing on people (like apples are always focused on end-users) may be just a surprise, and it is now the right one.

　　当然，关于meta你也可以尽量往好处解释；本周投资者对这些行动对 Facebook 利润率的影响有诸多抱怨，我之前也曾怀疑过扎克伯格只是想拥有一个平台，这跟 Facebook 目前对自己对苹果的依赖所带来的痛苦尤其一致。而且，更不用说Facebook 还要应付处理媒体和华盛顿抛出的其他各种问题，这不仅牵涉到它的“app家族” ，而且还会威胁到“Reality Labs”最终做出的任何东西的接受度。

Of course, with respect to Meta, you can try to explain the benefits: investors this week have a lot of complaints about the impact of these actions on Facebook’s profit margins, and I have previously suspected that Zuckerberg just wants to have a platform, especially in line with the pain that Facebook has caused by its current dependence on apples. And, let alone deal with other issues that the media and Washington have thrown out, not only about its “app family,” but also about threatening the acceptance of what “Reality Labs” eventually did.

　　但是扎克伯格是个创始人，这既意味着他决定（多亏了他手上有超级投票权）要拉投资者跟着他走，而且他也有这种可信性。不过，更重要的是扎克伯格给 Meta 带来的那种清晰的创始人精神。扎克伯格告诉我：

But Zuckerberg was a founder, which means both that he decided to drag investors with him, and that he had that credibility. But, more importantly, the clear spirit of founder that Zuckerberg brought to Meta. Zuckerberg told me:

　　创业这么久，我发现了一件事，那就是你没法预先将所有事情都简化成一个商业案例。我认为，很多时候，其实最大的机会在于，你只需要在乎，觉得某个东西一定很棒，并且对做出来有一点信心，然后去做就行。在我的职业生涯当中，有一件事情曾经多次让我感到惊讶，那就是在我看来某些东西似乎非常明显，按说应该有人会做的，但结果却没人做。我想有很多东西看起来显然应该会有人投的，但其实并没有。

One thing I've found in my career is that something seems so obvious to me that someone should do it, but nobody does it. I think there's a lot of things that seem to me to do, but it doesn't.

　　我关心这个存在，我在乎的不仅仅是虚拟现实和增强现实的存在，也在乎它的构建方式，看它是不是真正提高了人类联系的状态，是不是能让大家用不同的方式进行互动。这是我毕生的工作。如果我们在这方面投入不够的话，我不确定那会不会发生，或者会不会能实现得那么快，或者按照设想实现。我认为我们将改变那个的发展方向。

I care about this existence. I care not only about the existence of virtual reality and the enhancement of reality, but also about the way it is constructed, whether it really improves the state of human connections, and whether it allows you to interact in a different way. This is my life's work. If we don't invest enough in it, I'm not sure it will happen, or it will happen so quickly, or as envisaged. I think we're going to change the direction of that development.

　　之所以会有Meta是因为扎克伯格认为需要有它，他致力于让元宇宙变成现实；不管好坏，这都是他的决定。这让我想起了 FinTwit （Twitter上面的一个独立的金融社区）上面越来越火的一个词：扎克屋（编者注：House of Zuck，模仿纸牌屋）。一群总是看好 Facebook 的投资者已经接受了这个词，不是因为结局本身，而是因为他们相信这些结果来自扎克伯格的领导。这样一种信念是之前从没见过的。

It's because Zuckerberg thinks he needs it, and he's committed to making the meta-cosmos a reality; it's his decision, whether good or bad. This reminds me of the increasingly hot word on FinTwit: Zachary House: "House of Zuck, a card house." A group of investors who always look good at Facebook have accepted the word, not because of the end itself, but because they believe that these results come from the leadership of Zuckerberg.

*也有看好扎克伯格的投资者

　　Facebook 在五大巨头中一直都是独一无二的存在，因为这家公司在参与竞争的市场没有垄断性质的护城河；在今天它也是独一无二的，因为这是五家公司里面唯一一家仍然由创始人掌舵的公司。我不认为这是一种巧合。

Facebook has always been unique among the five big players, because it has no monopolistic moat in competing markets; it is unique today, because it is the only one of the five companies that still has its founders at the helm. I do not think it is a coincidence.

　　Facebook 对互联网引发的社会问题负有的责任也是独一无二的，我怀疑这一事实源自扎克伯格是个很明显的目标。比方说，关注反疫苗言论的人里面有多少甚至能说得出 YouTube这个更有效的载体的负责人名字呢？佩奇和布林很明智地在谷歌站稳脚跟后选择退出，让谷歌变成了不那么诱人的目标；杰夫·贝索斯也走了这条路。但Facebook 就没这种奢侈。Kara Swisher 直截了当地指出了一个显而易见的事实：Facebook 要想摆脱当前的困境，扎克伯格最好把公司交给别人掌管。然而，就像扎克伯格在 Facebook 最近的财报电话会议上所做的那样，只有创始人才能承认，该公司在年轻人当中正在失势，也只有创始人才能不仅让“app家族”转型，而且让整个公司都朝着把Meta本身建设成统治性的平台这一未来愿景迈进。

Facebook’s responsibility for the social problems that arise on the Internet is also unique, and I doubt that this fact stems from Zuckerberg’s obvious goal. For example, how many of those concerned with anti-vaccination rhetoric can even say the name of the head of YouTube, a more effective vehicle?

　　所以我曾经考虑把这篇文章的标题叫做 “扎克屋”；这就是Meta（Facebook）的实质，比以往任何时候都更接近。今天的 Facebook Connect 主旨演讲说的完全是一个尚不存在的未来；信不信这个未来会到来，要取决于你在多大程度上相信作为创始人的扎克伯格能比任何一位职业经理人取得更大的成就。

So I thought about the title of this article, "Zark House," which is the essence of Meta, which is closer than ever before. Today's Facebook Connect keynote speech speaks of a future that does not exist; it depends on the extent to which you believe that Zuckerberg, the founder, can achieve more than any career manager.

　　所以我才会又提到乔布斯：尽管现在已经很难想起，但这位苹果创始人曾经有过一段非常不顺的经历；他的离开对苹果来说十分糟糕，但对于乔布斯成长为一位具备创始人愿景和驱动力、可以把苹果推向前所未有的高度的高管却是有利的。扎克伯格没有那种在外面历练十年的奢侈，但他肯定经历了火之审判；Meta 最终成功与否，将会回答这样（有创始人掌舵）是不是就够了这个问题。

That's why I'm referring to Jobs: although it's hard to remember now, the founder of the apple has had a very bad experience; his departure is bad for the apple, but it's good for Jobs to grow into a top tube with the founder's vision and drive that can push the apple up to an unprecedented height. Zuckerberg does not have the luxury of a decade of practice out there, but he must have gone through a fire trial; Meta's ultimate success will answer whether that is enough.

　　译者：boxi。

This post is part of our special coverage Egypt Protests 2011.