1. Godfree Roberts, Ed.D. Education & Geopolitics, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst (1973)Answered Sep 8, 2016Originally Answered: Can China overtakeSilicon Valley in the next few years?China has already overtaken Silicon Valleyin several areas and will probably be dominant in all of them within 10 years.If you check the patents that are the Valley’s lifeblood you’ll see a Chinesename on more than half, and the engineers who stayed at home in China arebetter than those who left – and 100 times more numerous. This year Chinaovertook the Valley at the ‘heavy end’: Supercomputing (fastest, mostest,cheapest), network security, secure satellite communications, speech recognition,graphenics, metamaterials, hyperspectral imaging and nanotechnology.Their chipmakers have a billion-dollar war chest they’re using to buy smallersemiconductor makers with cutting-edge technology (as Intel has done fordecades). In July, Tsinghua Unigroup (China’s future Intel) acquired XMC, aleading domestic chipmaker, creating China's largest integrated circuitmanufacturer. Chen Lizhi, at CGP Investment in Beijing, explained: "Themainland's semiconductor industry has lagged behind in terms of design capacitybecause there were too many small players. The government’s capital injectionwill allow the industry to leapfrog the competition in a short
中國已經在好幾個領域超越硅谷了。在未來的十年裡，中國極有可能在幾乎所有領域佔據全面的競爭優勢。如果你們檢索硅谷的專利，你會發現其中有一半以上的專利上面都有
華裔的名字。留在中國的工程師的質量比那些離開中國的工程師的水平更高，而且留在中國的工程師的數量幾乎是那些離開中國的工程師的數量的100倍。今年（2016年），中國在“重大項目”上面超越了硅谷，項目如下：中國的超級計算機運行最快，性能最高，價格最便宜。其它的還有網絡安全，衛星加密通信，網絡安全，語音識別，石墨烯產業，超材料高光譜成像以及納米技術。中國的芯片製造商用數十億美元的金錢去購買小型半導體制造商。這種做法與英特爾最近幾十年所做的事情如出一轍。今年7月，清華紫光（中國未來的英特爾）收購了國內領先的芯片製造商XMC，通過這種手段創建了中國最大的集成電路製造商。北京CGP投資公司的陳立芝解釋說：“中國有太多的半導體行業的小公司，中國大陸的半導體行業在設計能力方面已經落後，政府的注資將使該行業在短時間內超越競爭對手。”The policies are laready bearing fruit.China's semiconductor market grew 6 percent YOY to 1.1 trillion RMB in 2015while imports of electronic components fell 7.3 percent. That’s a hugedifferential.In 2016, chips designed and made on the mainland will supplyone-third of domestic demand, the CSIA says.China aims to grow itssemiconductor industry at 20 percent, compounded annually, to $143 billion by2020, the US Commerce Department’s ITA data shows. "Mainland rivals arequickly capturing the market and becoming more competitive by buying foreigncompanies with advanced technologies," said an employee at ASE Group. Hetold Caixin that ASE, a major Taiwanese chipmaker, lost a recent bid (to supplyApple Inc.) to a mainland rival. The mainland company had better technologyafter acquiring a South Korean firm and was able to offer lower prices, thesource said.
這些政策都起到了一定的效果。2015年，中國的半導體市場增長了6%，達到1.1萬億人民幣，而電子元件的進口下降了7.3%。這件事情很不尋常，是一個很顯著的變化。中國半導體行業協會表示，2016年，在中國大陸設計和製造的芯片將滿足中國國內三分之一的需求。美國商務部工業與貿易管理局數據顯示，中國的目標是在2020年之前將半導體產業增長率維持在20%。最終期待到2020年的時候，中國半導體的規模達到1430億美元。ASE集團的一名
員工表示“中國內地的競爭對手正迅速佔領市場，通過收購擁有先進技術的外國公司變得更具競爭力，”。他告訴財新，臺灣主要芯片製造商ASE最近（向蘋果公司供貨）輸給了中國大陸的競爭對手。該消息人士稱，這家中國內地公司在收購一家韓國公司後擁有更好的技術，並能夠提供更低的價格。Remember back in 2007 when Chinamanufactured, but contributed only 0.6% to, the value of an iPhone? In 2016China will be the #1 source for iPhone components and its largest consumer,retaining the retail margin as well. The iPhone 7 will contain even moreChinese IP, as will the iPhone 8…. There is no dimension of the Valley’s marketin which China does not compete today and there is no dimension in which itintends to grow its share at less than 20 percent annually.Do the
回溯到2007年，中國製造了iPhone，但是中國只獲得了利潤的0.6%.在2016年的時候，中國成了iPhone的最大的零件供應商及最大的市場。與此同時，中國也保留了一部分的IPhone的利潤。在iPhone7當中將會採用更多的中國的專利，IPhone8也將延續這個趨勢。在硅谷所擅長的各個領域裡面，今天幾乎沒有哪一個領域是不面臨中國競爭的，而且硅谷看起來也沒有哪個領域是能夠做到環比年度增長20%的。所以，你自己掰著手指頭算算就知道結果了。
2. Greg Blandino, works at Beijing, ChinaAnswered Jan 18, 2016In the short- to mid- term I say no for thefollowing reasons:1) Silicon Valley has access to aninternational labor market. SV can attract the best and brightest from India,China, Russia, Israel, etc. Part of that has to do with the American society'sopenness to foreigners, assimilation, and immigrants. For cultural reasons,this is not the case for China and will make it harder to keep and retainlong-term top-notch foreign talent. English as the international lingua francacertainly helps.2) SV makes products for aninternational market, Chinese tech companies make them for the domestic market.Alibaba's success can not be replicated easily overseas without access to theubiquitous 快遞哥's that make it possible.Chinese UI and design is hampered by being in a protectionist market that keepsout foreign software, and results in bad design choices and UI beingperpetuated for longer. Use Didi Dache and Uber and tell me I'm wrong. A strolldown the Chinese internet reveals lots of respectable sites that look like 1997Ask Jeeves results.3) SV and the ZhongGuanCun sceneboth get government support. Despite libertarian protestations to the contrary,the US government and defense establishment funnels money and scientists intothis market. Chinese companies get the same thing. It's a wash on this count.
從短期或者是中期來看，我認為中國很難達到硅谷的水平。原因如下：1）硅谷已經參與到國際勞動力市場。硅谷可以從印度，中國以及俄國以色列等國家吸引最優秀的工程師。這有一部分要歸功於美國是一個
移民國家，移民政策相對比較開放有關係。從文化融合上面來看，中國長期聘任高層次的外國人才的優勢依然弱於美國。英語是國際語言，這對於美國吸引外國人才當然是很有幫助的。2)硅谷是在為全世界生產產品，而中國的技術公司主要都是為國內市場服務。阿里巴巴的成功經驗沒有那麼容易被複制，因為國外並沒有那麼多無處不在的“快遞哥”，沒有了無處不在的快遞哥。網購就很難發展起來。中國軟件市場是不對外開放的，這使得中國軟件的UI界面設計滯後於世界的發展。造成的結果就是設計非常糟糕，中國軟件界面所持續的時間通常都更長。但是，使用滴滴和uber的經歷使我對這一點有了不一樣的看法。漫步於中國的網站，你會覺得他們的界面設計都非常古典。3)硅谷和中關村都得到了政府的支持，儘管很多自由主義者不願意承認這一點，但是美國的政府和國防部都將資金和研發人才投入到這個市場裡面去。中國的企業得到了類似的資助。4) Capital funding and legal recourses arewell-established in SV. In China, they are emerging ad-hoc, but legallycompanies are still in very much the wild west, especially concerning IP issues,and this issues will certainly take more than a few years to sort out. Capitalis there, but it's harder to access and the dream of an IPO and mainstreamlegitimacy is currently in limbo for new companies due to uncertainty andshenanigans in the Shanghai stock market at the moment. It'll take at least acouple years to get that sorted out. Until then the "family hedgefunds" where all of the uncles and extended family pitch in will be ago-to for many start ups. It's hard to see such a mom-and-pop mode of financingscale up in the short to mid term.5)Brain drain.Lot's of Chinese you meet dream ofemigrating. Wages are higher, no pollution, houses are cheaper, food productsgenerally safer, societal competition is viewed as less cutthroat, and schoolsare better/cheaper/don't require a "gift" to the principal. TheChinese tech industry is centered around Beijing, and despite notions to thecontrary, Chinese people dislike 500+ PM 2.5 days as much as everyone else.Chinese people are often China's worse critics. These problems will always be afactor sucking talent out until they are solved, and exacerbating the culturalproblems enumerated in reason 1.All these being said, I don't think there isanything culturally precluding Chinese from being creative as is communlybandied about in the West. In 10 to 20 years this could easily be a
4)就硅谷而言，資本和法律資源都非常容易獲取。在中國，相應的資源都是非常態化的，法律依然非常不規範，尤其是涉及到知識產權的時候，這個問題肯定需要幾年的時間來進行解決。至少需要幾年的時間來解決這個問題。在那之前，“家族對稱基金”將會是主要的存在形式，所謂“家族對稱基金”就是一個大家族中有很多的親屬參股，這成為了很多中國創業公司初期啟動的主要模式。從短期和中期來看，很難看到這種“夫妻店”在短期內快速消失。5)人才流失有很多的中國的人才都有移民國外的想法。國外的
工資更高，沒有汙染，房價更低，食品更為安全。國外的競爭不像中國那麼的殘酷，國外的教育看起來更好，更便宜，不需要給老師或者校長紅包。中國的科技工業是以北京為中心的，儘管並非每個人都覺得難以忍受，但是北京的空氣汙染確實非常糟糕。中國人往往對自己本國批評得最為激烈。這些因素往往是導致中國人才外流的一些極其重要的原因，在這些問題被徹底解決之前，這些將一直都是導致中國人才外流的要素。我不認為在文化上有什麼要素能夠阻礙中國人的創新，中國人當然可以做到和西方人一樣具有創造性。當然，在10年至20年之後，歷史的發展將可能會朝著一個完全不同的脈絡3. Jeremy Arnold, Co-founder. Ex business analyst. Ex SME consultant.Updated Jun 28, 2016The Chinese have no national interest inreplicating Silicon Valley.That wouldn't play to their strengths, nor would itestablish the future they've long been working toward.Keep in mind the lessonof the Olympics. China picks the events it thinks it can win, then throwsunmatchable resources at them until they do. There's a reason they don't fielda competitive hockey team: it wouldn't build on an existing strength, and thereis no obvious ROI to justify building the competency from scratch. What doesChina want?It is in their interests to shift from traditional manufacturingclusters to those suited for global competition in high-margin sectors(advanced electronics, especially). But this is more in line with the 90’sversion of the Bay Area than today’s incarnation.Silicon Valley arose from theconfluence of brainpower and capital in a single geographic area. Startupsthere had unparalleled access to talent, research, private money, andcomplementary services. At the time, these resources were largely leveraged inthe service of sophisticated hardware production.
在複製硅谷方面，中國本身並沒有那麼大的興趣。這本身並不一定能夠給中國帶來多大的利益，更何況這與中國本身的發展方向也不符合。請記住奧林匹克的教訓。中國認為自己可以從裡面獲得很多的東西，然後把大量的資源投入其中，最終中國確實有了一些收穫。中國一直都沒有去建立一支曲棍球隊，這個道理非常簡單，因為中國認為自己根本就不可能贏得這項比賽的冠軍。中國究竟想要什麼呢？中國希望能夠從低端製造業轉向具有全球競爭優勢的高端製造業。這符合中國的利益。事實上，這個策略與上個世紀九十年代的舊金山灣區地區非常接近。硅谷之所以能夠興起是因為這個地區集聚了大量的智力和金融資源。那裡的創業公司擁有著無與倫比的人才，他們的研發非常出色，他們還有很多私人的資金投入以及其他的相關服務。在硅谷興起的那段時間裡面，這些資源主要投入到了硬件的生產當中。
As the region matured, it kept thoseadvantages as the core of its spine, but began applying them to more evolvedgoals. The word of this era is “scalable”. VCs there want exposure tohigh-upside experiments that can provide out-sized marginal profits.Manufacturing, while still present, is no longer as sexy a proposition. Everyregion, if smart, plays to its unfair advantages. For the Bay Area, that’stheir legacy positives multiplied by their present concentration of CS-focusedSTEM talent. This means software. The next Facebook simply isn't reachingterminal velocity anywhere else (apologies to Boston and Seattle).What’s keepingChina from taking that mantle over time?
隨著該地區不斷的成熟。這些優勢都成了硅谷競爭力的核心，相應的，這些資源也進入到了後續硅谷的升級當中。這裡風投喜歡去曝光他們最新的研究成果，這些研究成果往往可以帶來更高的預期收益。硅谷的整個運作模式開始發生改變，雖然硅谷依然有硬件製造企業的存在，但是這本身已經不再是一個讓人著迷的話題了。不管哪一個地區，如果他足夠智慧的話，他都會充分的去發揮自己的一些競爭優勢。對於灣區而言，這是他們的傳統優勢。現在他們專注於軟件及計算機方向的科學，技術，工程及數學人才。這些都是與軟件高度相關的領域。其他的任何地區都達不到這樣的一個發展速度。中國可以做到嗎？我非常懷疑。
As others have pointed out, China hassignificant barriers to attempting a copycat cluster. Their IP laws are lackingand poorly enforced; their business culture isn't readily compatible withradical originalism; their VC infrastructure is still nascent, and they have noability to will a Stanford or a Caltech into being.But that doesn't mean they don'thave their own advantages.They already have comparable competencies when itcomes to complex manufacturing and product logistics (at a much better laborcost).
正如其他人所指出的那樣。中國在嘗試去模仿集群創新方面存在著很大的障礙。中國的知識產權缺乏法律的保障。相關的產權方面的法律執行不到位。中國的商業文化相對比較保守，而一個產業在創始的初期往往非常激進而野蠻，這不太符合中國的習慣。中國的風險投資基礎設施還處於萌芽階段，目前他們還不能創造出斯坦福和加州理工這樣的學校。但是請注意，這並不意味著中國沒有自己的競爭優勢。當涉及到複雜的生產和物流的時候，中國已經具備了相當的實力。
They have a government willing and able topump obscene amounts of money into the system.Their local market is massive andwell-suited for rapid domestic scaling (with most customers being particularlyadoption-friendly).They have less bureaucracy to deal with when it comes togetting things done (especially when your project is a "governmentpriority"). So, if not Silicon Valley 2.0, what’s their endgame?If youfast forward to 2025, ask yourself where the next Amazon or Samsung is going tocome from.We already see the early waves of this shift in motion with Alibaba,Lenovo, and Huawei. Give them another decade and I'd suggest that they'll havean insurmountable lead for anything involving retail-level physical technology.
中國有一個強大的政府，他們可以向他們確定的方向投入大量的資源。中國市場已經非常龐大，非常適合國內企業的快速擴張。中國很多時候在面對特定的事件的時候往往可以特事特辦，這樣他們的官僚作風將會減少，特別的，當你的項目如果是政府優先推行的項目的時候，種效率上的差距將會尤其明顯。所以，如果中國產業集群不是硅谷2.0版本。那麼他們的結局將會如何。如果你進入到2025年, 然後問一下下一個亞馬遜或三星將從何而來, 這恐怕也不是一個好回答的問題。我們已經看到了中國科技興起的第一波浪潮, 我們已經看到了阿里巴巴，聯想和華為這種早期的科技公司。再給中國十年的時間，中國將會在非常多的領域都取得像他們在物流行業所取得那樣巨大的成就。
轉自西諾網
閱讀更多 天下美談 的文章
