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.
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。
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."
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”。
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?
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？
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.
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。
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.
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。
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.
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。
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.
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。
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.
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。
Styles of dominance are different. Both companies blatantly copied successful features of others, but Microsoft would copy from partners, even if it meant putting them out of business. Facebook, in the age of the acqi-hire, used threats of copying as a cudgel to drive rivals into acquisition. So Gates at Microsoft was hated, while Zuckerberg really isn't. (Some don't want to work with Zuckerberg, however, as Twitter (TWTR) and Snapchat both rebuffed generous offers from Facebook.)
这两家公司的统治风格也不一样。它们都会公然拷贝其他公司的成功之处，但微软会复制合作伙伴的做法，哪怕这意味让这些伙伴在业内失去立足之地。而在这个“并购招才”（acqi-hire，通过并购直接把收购公司的人才招于麾下，而对其产品或服务置之不顾——译注）的时代，Facebook则挥舞着拷贝威胁这个大棒直接收购对手。因此微软时期的盖茨才那么招人嫉恨，而扎克伯格则不会这么惹人恨（不过有些人还是不想和扎克伯格共事，比如Twitter和Snapchat都断然拒绝了Facebook出手大方的收购条件）。
That may be because Gates didn't care whether anyone liked him or not. His brand of world domination is content to inspire fear, if not respect. By comparison, Zuckerberg's attempt to win the world feels more wishy-washy. He likes to talk publicly about how reluctant he was to generate revenue at Facebook (any such claim from the CEO of a public company is as credible as a shark swearing to a vegan diet). Or how, back at Harvard, he and his roommates used to have long, idealistic talks about how the Internet could add transparency to the world.
原因可能是因为盖茨根本不在乎人家对他有没有好感。他统御全球的盛名就算不能赢得别人的敬重，也足以让人敬畏了。相比之下，扎克伯格想赢得全世界的抱负就显得软弱无力得多了。他总喜欢在公开场合夸夸其谈，说什么他在Facebook是多么不想让公司赚钱（对一个公众公司的首席执行官来说，这番话简直就像鲨鱼发誓要吃素一样不靠谱）。或者什么想当年在哈佛时，他和室友曾做过充满理想主义色彩的长谈，讨论互联网如何能让这个世界增加透明度。
Maybe, but the early iterations of Facebook at Harvard suggest otherwise. There's the infamous Facemash, as well as an earlier site he created to entice students to share insights on a course he failed to attend. Both were primitive social networks that crudely exploited the contributions of their users – a template that would play out again and again in Facebook's privacy policies.
这番话可能是真的，不过当年在哈佛校园里Facebook的几个前身似乎并不是这么回事。其中既有名声不好听的Facemash，也有他更早时候创办的一个网站。这个网站就是要吸引学生来吐槽他翘的一门课。这两个社交网络雏形都粗暴地利用了用户所做的贡献——而这后来在Facebook的隐私政策里又一再重演。
So here's one difference between the hero and his follower: Bill Gates might plant a knife and watch you suffer. Mark Zuckerberg would make a thousand paper cuts and pretend you imagined them all.
所以这就是英雄和他的追随者之间的一大区别：比尔•盖茨可能是埋下一把刀看着你受伤流血，而扎克伯格则是做了一千张会割人的纸，却装得好像你早就知道它们的存在。
Both of these approaches can help build a technology colossus, and yet neither will be beloved by consumers. But something interesting happens when these two approaches are translated to the world of philanthropy. There is a familiar ruthlessness that Bill Gates has brought to the application of his wealth to solving problems that have historically proven tough to solve. And, so far, there is a practicality to Zuckerberg's donations that have a self-serving feel to them.
这两种方式都有助于打造科技巨头，不过却都得不到消费者的好感。但当它们用于慈善领域时，却出现了一些有意思的情况。当比尔•盖茨把自己的财富用于解决历史上一直被认为难以解决的问题时，他再次展现出那种世人所熟知的冷酷无情。同时，迄今为止，扎克伯格那些似乎是为他的私利服务的捐献也体现出了实际价值。
When it comes to giving money, both Gates and Zuckerberg have been, in their ways, both generous and (to borrow Zuckerberg's term) "mission-driven." The Gates Foundation has $40 billion in assets, and its work has taken the edge off a lot of bitter resentment Gates built up at Microsoft, if not silenced them completely.
说到捐钱，盖茨和扎克伯格都以自己的方式表现得慷慨大方，同时（借用扎克伯格的说法）“充满使命感”。盖茨基金会（Gates Foundation）的资产高达400亿美元，而且对盖茨在微软期间结下的许多怨恨来说，这个基金会的所作所为虽不能让它们完全平息，但已有所缓和。
Zuckerberg has moved aggressively into philanthropy much earlier in his career. He was one of the first to pledge to give the bulk of one's wealth to charity, a gesture prompting others to follow. He pledged $100 million to New Jersey public schools in 2012 and nearly a billion dollars worth of Facebook shares to a Silicon Valley non-profit last year. He's also worked with Gates to teach coding and improve broadband in schools.
而扎克伯格则在事业发展的很早期就开始高调进军慈善了。他是最早那批号称要把自己的绝大部分财富捐给慈善事业的人，这种表态也推动了其他有钱人纷纷跟进。2012年，他向新泽西的公立学校捐了一亿美元，去年又把价值近十亿美元的Facebook股票捐给了硅谷的非营利组织。他还和盖茨联手教授编程，同时改善学校的宽带设施。
So Gates and Zuckerberg are giving billions to charities in a period where such donations are sorely needed. They both deserve praise. Within the world of philanthropy -- itself a tight economy competing for scarce resources -- there has long been a debate over how to allocate resources efficiently. And it's here that a distinction again emerges between young Zuckerberg and old Gates.
所以，盖茨和扎克伯格是在慈善事业非常需要捐助的时期捐给它亿万财富的。他俩都值得褒扬。在慈善领域——这是个总得去争取稀缺资源的紧缺经济体，大家长期以来一直就如何有效分配资源这个问题争论不休。也正是在这个问题上，年轻的扎克伯格和盖茨再次出现了分歧。
Last year, Zuckerberg founded FWD.us, a lobbying group to push immigration and education reform. He claimed he was fighting to bring undocumented workers into the U.S., but never denied some would help make Facebook stronger. Zuckerberg actually said, "I can't really tell anyone how to legislate," even as FWD.us was lobbying for the immigration reform he was publicly seeking. Gates was listed as supporter of FWD.us in name, although he was less vocal about its goals.
去年扎克伯格创建了FWD.us，这是一个致力于推动移民和教育改革的游说团体。他宣称自己是在为让那些非法入境的工人融入美国社会而奋斗，但也从未否认过其中一些人可能会让Facebook变得更强大。就算FWD.us在为了他公开谋求的移民改革开展游说时，他也是这么表态的：“我真不能跟任何人明说怎么才能让这些人的身份合法化。”盖茨的大名也赫然出现在FWD.us的支持者名单里，不过他很少就这个组织的目标表态。
Last year, Zuckerberg also began to talk about how important it would be to bring 5 billion people online. Forget that mobile phones and the Internet would connect much of that population in time, with or without Zuckerberg. He wanted a personal stake in that process -- an investment that would make Facebook's ad-clogged news feed a rite of passage into the global middle class.
去年扎克伯格还开始大谈什么让50亿人都上网是何等重要，但他却忘了，不管有没有扎克伯格，手机和互联网都会让50亿人中的大多数保持联系。实际上他是自己想在这个过程中分一杯羹——有了这样的投资，Facebook塞满广告的新闻就能直达全世界的中产阶级。
And that's when the cynical, slick practicality of Mark Zuckerberg ran afoul of the let's-cut-through-this-shit directness of his stated hero. Bill Gates had no issue with Zuckerberg's philanthropy, but when it came to connectivity over his pet projects -- disease, poverty, educating the disenfranchised -- he drew the line.
正是在这个问题上，扎克伯格愤世嫉俗、聪明圆滑的实用主义与他鼓吹的英雄的“让我们干脆挑明”的直截了当发生了正面冲突。比尔•盖茨本来跟扎克伯格的慈善事业没什么矛盾，但如果说上网比他心爱的慈善项目——疾病、贫穷、培训被剥夺公民权的人——还重要时，他就要坚决跟扎克伯格划清界线了。
"As a priority? It's a joke," Gates said to the Financial Times when asked of Zuckerberg's plans to connect the world's population. "Hmm, which is more important, connectivity or malaria vaccine? If you think connectivity is the key thing, that's great. I don't."
《金融时报》（Financial Times）采访盖茨时，谈及扎克伯格让全球人口都上网的计划，他说：“这算头等大事？它只是个玩笑罢了。呃，到底哪个更重要，是上网还是疟疾疫苗？如果你觉得上网很重要，这也不错。但我不这么想。”
And there you have Bill Gates, and there you have his self-appointed acolyte Mark Zuckerberg. Gates is brutally direct. Zuck is insidiously, disingenuously, sugar-coatedly indirect. Gates will push his vision at any cost, even if that cost is extinguishing better technologies, or hacking around rigid social policies.
这就是比尔•盖茨，还有他自封的随从马克•扎克伯格。盖茨说话绝对口无遮拦。扎克呢？却是深藏不露、毫无诚意、粉饰做作的兜圈子。盖茨为了推动自己的理想会不惜代价，哪怕这个代价是要牺牲更好的技术，或是要迂回绕开僵化的社会政策。
Zuck, meanwhile, is still stuck in that executive mindset where you act and talk like you're helping the world, but you do it just to further the interests of your company. In 20 or so years, the philanthropy of Mark Zuckerberg may be so great that Bill Gates is just the footnote as the guy who inspired him. Or it could be that he's just another business leader who amassed a great fortune and was forgotten.
与此同时，扎克却还是一副公司高管的心态，好像自己的所作所为和高谈阔论都是为了帮助这个世界，但实际上只是为了进一步给自己的公司牟利。今后20多年里，扎克伯格的慈善事业要么可能会变得无比宏伟，以至于比尔•盖茨也只能沦为配角，作为当年曾启发过他的人出现；要么他可能也就是另一个曾敛财无数最后照样被世人遗忘的商业领袖。
The operating software Gates forced into hundreds of millions of homes and businesses may have been inferior in quality to what Zuckerberg enticed a billion-plus lives into. But much of what Zuckerberg won has to do with the fact that, thanks to the Internet, technology has scaled up to more of the world's population. What would Zuckerberg be in the age of Gates? Or Gates (as tech CEO) in the age of Zuckerberg?
盖茨让千家万户和无数企业用上的操作系统可能在品质上不如扎克伯格吸引十亿多芸芸众生使用的服务。但扎克伯格的成就很大程度上要归功于互联网，正因为有了网络，技术才能更大范围地惠及世界各地的人。如果置身于盖茨那个时代，扎克伯格会有什么作为呢？或者说盖茨（作为技术公司的首席执行官）处于扎克伯格这个时代他又能取得什么成就呢？
Put in political terms, Zuckerberg practices the realpolitik, while Gates is a die-hard ideologue. In the business world, pure practicality can carry you from quarter to quarter, while the ideologues can be the ones who engineer broadening and more lasting change. Zuckerberg's career is just getting started, but it may be Gates who has the bigger impact on the world, not just in business but in the philanthropy both men have pledged themselves to.
如果用政治术语来形容他俩，那么扎克伯格奉行的是现实政治，而盖茨则是地地道道的理论家。在商业领域中，纯粹的实用主义能让你稳妥地度过一个又一个财季，而理想主义则能推动更广阔、更持久的变革。扎克伯格的事业才刚开始，而盖茨可能对我们这个世界影响更大，不光是在商业领域，在这两位都自称全力以赴的慈善事业领域恐怕也是如此。
全文阅读>>>
|
