Sequoia Capital是中国2017年第四季度第二活跃的风投基金，其在中国的团队名望颇高且极具慧眼。 上个月为《金融时报》撰写的一篇特稿中，红杉资本主席Mile Mortiz说中国企业家精神要比硅谷更出色，硅谷应该向中国学习。这一言论令人惊讶并引发不少争议，多数人认为硅谷的工作生活平衡更好，并不满Moritz批评硅谷员工奖金。作为一名自05年就断断续续在中国工作和生活的人，我认为Moritz在比较中国和硅谷时还有许多重大错误。
中国40年来一直是增长神话，国内总体呈乐观倾向并且相信现代化是有益的。在中国，关于自动驾驶汽车风险的争论没那么多，而且中国政府提供资金发展机器人技术以促进工厂现代化，而不是（像美国那样）试图保护制造业工作。同时中国有着14亿人口是个超级大市场，美国仅有3.2亿人；中国智能手机用户达6.6亿，美国2.2亿；中国人才储备也更大，每年大学毕业人数是美国的两倍（800万 vs 400万），理工科人数是后者8倍。
Moritz在特稿中说，中国企业家十分节省，一个茶袋反复泡几次。这个做法如果硅谷愿意完全可以照做。但中国一些最大的优势很难在美国复制，比如中国一些区域得益于监管少。香港一个自动驾驶汽车发明人无法在当地测试，因此就将车带到了深圳测试。Sinovation Ventures 合伙人Chris Evdemon和我说："美国对于自动驾驶汽车和所有与AI相关东西的抗拒与中国热烈欢迎的态度形成鲜明对比。中国Crisper上最近的文章也是个例子。"
SOSV的William Bao Bean说，在基层管理层面"中国公司在没有中层管理的情况下组织良好，因为他们创新发明了一种分布式管理模式，和西方等级制不同。腾讯这样的公司并不是至上而下管理，他们是由几百个公司内的"小公司"组成，每一个"小公司"都有一个像CEO一样的产品经理。西方公司是一个巨大的金字塔型结构，中国公司则是许多小金字塔堆在一起组成一个大金字塔。"
GGV Capital的Hans Tung说："这不是文明之间的冲撞，而是文明战线内各自竞争，让人想起16世纪西班牙和葡萄牙两分天下。"
Sequoia Capital was the second most active VC in China in Q4 2017. Its local team is well respected and has good insights. Yet, in an op-ed for the Financial Times last month, Sequoia Chairman Mike Moritz surprisingly argued that the Chinese entrepreneurial ethic is outshining Silicon Valley’s and that Silicon Valley would be wise to follow China’s lead. The story drew strong reactions, mostly defending the Silicon Valley work-life balance and employee perks that Moritz derided. But as someone who’s lived and worked in China on and off since 2005, I think there are many more important things Moritz gets wrong with his China/Silicon Valley comparison.
1. China and the U.S. are on different paths
The idea that the U.S. should blindly follow China’s lead completely misses the fact that the two startup ecosystems are on different paths. China is where it is due to specific circumstances. Let’s look at a few key examples:
China has been a growth story for 40 years. There is a general sense of optimism and belief that modernization is beneficial. There is much less debate in China about the risks of automation or self-driving cars, and ?the Chinese government is funding robots to modernize factories rather than trying to protect manufacturing jobs.
Also, China is a large market of close to 1.4 billion people (vs. 320 million in the U.S.), including about 660 million smartphone users (vs. 220 million in the U.S.), with widespread talent (China graduates twice as many students per year as the U.S. – 8 million, vs. 4 million – and eight times more STEM students).
China’s tech ecosystem — including its offline and online infrastructures — trailed behind the U.S. for a long time. As a result, the current opportunities in China are much larger than in the U.S. and attract many startups and investors. That’s the oft-touted benefit of emerging markets: They not only fill gaps but also leapfrog.
In the words of Dr. Song Li, an investment banker turned entrepreneur who sold his startups to Sina, Monster.com, and founded Zhenai, the largest online matchmaking company in China (invested by Match.com): “Every ambitious young man and woman in China feels that the nation’s time has come and is highly motivated to play a part in what they perceive to be ‘China’s Century’.”
As a result, competition is brutal, and speed is key. Being first is not enough, you also need to out-execute others.
But a fast-growing economy also creates problems: With high inflation and rising housing costs, many people in China feel the financial pressure and “status anxiety” from peers getting ahead. They also feel more responsible, as the decades-long one-child policy put children partly in charge for their parents. For Chinese founders, startups are not fun things where you play around with technology or loftily plan to “change the world.” They are pragmatic affairs that have to turn into hard cash at some point.
The time to work hard to get ahead is now, and some founders end up paying the ultimate price for this urgency, their hard work and anxiety, in a society that does not deal well with issues of mental health.
All of these elements, unique to China, define the country’s startup mindset. Urging Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, who deal with an entirely different landscape of experience, expectations, and motivations, just doesn’t make sense. The two ecosystems are on different trajectories.
Still, those trajectories do intersect at times. More on that below.
2. China has several advantages, most of which the U.S. can’t copy
Moritz noted in his op-ed that Chinese entrepreneurs are so frugal, they will reuse their teabags multiple times. That’s certainly a practice Silicon Valley could adopt if it wanted to. But some of China’s biggest advantages would be hard to replicate in the U.S.
Some parts of China benefit from fewer regulations, for example. The inventors of a self-driving car in Hong Kong could not test it locally and so are taking it to Shenzhen. As Chris Evdemon, Partner at Sinovation Ventures, told me: “The resistance expected in the U.S. for self-driving trucks contrasts sharply with the red carpet attitude of the Chinese government in this sector, and for everything related to AI. Recent articles on Crispr in China are also an example.”
As Sinovation’s Evdemon summarized for me, China’s government-led top-down push for innovation means a lot of obstacles are removed for startups. For example, the country is currently investing $2.1 billion in an AI research park. The country also has huge, more readily available data sets and “acute business and social problems that need solutions with some of these technologies. Add the abundance of capital that now focuses on all this and you have an explosive mix.” Evdemon also points out that “China may be temporarily lacking in top tier talent (their best people are still in the U.S.), but that gap will also close in the next 5–10 years.”
The massive domestic market also brings economies of scale when going global?. China’s Ofo has already deployed over 20 millions bikes, and Mobike, Ofo, oBike and Gobee have all launched their service in places as far away as Paris.
Returnees and the Chinese diaspora are also important assets. The former brings back knowledge, skills and connections; the latter is a valuable resource when expanding overseas, particularly in emerging markets. China might have little immigration, but those two populations help companies level up.
Easing skilled immigration in the U.S. would avoid the brain exodus of foreign graduates – who already contributed large fees to the U.S. economy – and foreign workers who pay taxes and fill many skilled labor gaps. For example: Where to find the 200,000 cyber-security specialists the U.S. needs?
On the ground level of management, according to SOSV’s William Bao Bean, “China has performed well without middle management because they have innovated a distributed management model within a company as opposed to the hierarchical western model. Companies like Tencent aren’t run top-down: they are made of hundreds of ‘small companies’ within a large platform, each with its on product manager that acts as a CEO. Western companies are a giant pyramid while Chinese companies are many pyramids grouped together to make a larger one.”
On the money front, Chinese investors bet early and bet big – seed and late-stage median rounds in China are 2-3x larger. Why? Because scaling fast matters, and mega-mergers help mitigate risks at scale.
3. China isn’t interested in competing for the U.S. market (yet)
An unspoken concern in Moritz’s op-ed is that the Chinese brand of entrepreneurship is a threat to U.S. startups. It might surprise you, but most Chinese startups don’t care about the U.S. market. The opportunity in China is large enough and the competition harsh enough to require all of a team’s efforts to win.
Beyond domestic borders, battles are taking place in emerging markets where the similarity with China is an asset for expansion. The digital civilization of the West (which includes North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand and sometimes places like Singapore, Hong Kong and a few others) rarely collides directly with the Chinese one.
“It is not a clash of civilizations, but rather an organizing along civilization lines, reminiscent of when Spain and Portugal split the world in half in the 16th century,” Hans Tung of GGV Capital told me.
The fight for domination takes place in South-East Asia, India, Africa, and Latin America. (So far, Russia seems to be mostly doing its own thing.)
China’s emphasis on the One Belt One Road initiative is a good guide for where we can expect to see expansion — and where we can expect future startups to grow. And guess what? This Eurasian road, which would surely irk famed geopolitician Zbigniew Brzezinski, does not involve the U.S.
That doesn’t mean Chinese startups are completely steering clear of America.
Some companies that have reached critical mass in China have entered the market already via distribution, partnerships, investments, or acquisitions. To name a few: DJI is the global leader in consumer drones; Baidu opened a second research center in Silicon Valley; Didi invested in Lyft; Bytedance is going global; Alibaba and Tencent have invested in over 240 startups, including many in the U.S., and acquisitions are multiplying (e.g. Tencent bought both League of Legends and Clash of Clans, and Ninebot bought Segway). Most recently, Shanghai-based lip-synching app Musical.ly had most of its users overseas, and was acquired in November for $800 million.
Chinese investors and buyers have become a force in the U.S. and often pay more than their U.S. counterparts. How can they afford it? Because they can help unlock an additional market and often benefit from the high P/E ratios of domestic stock exchanges. This means an acquisition can improve their stock price by much more than they paid for it. You can call it “stock exchange arbitrage.” It is also one reason some Chinese companies de-list from U.S. exchanges to re-list at home.
So what we’re seeing is that, when Chinese companies do make a move on the U.S. market, they’re not launching products there in an effort to compete directly with U.S. companies but rather are making investments, doing research and development, or making discreet acquisitions in the U.S.
The ones that do launch in the U.S. generally do so with entirely original services, some of which are already massive successes back home.
4. The U.S. *is* interested in the Chinese market, but it’s having trouble getting in
Language, ecosystem differences, and regulations all put foreign entrepreneurs at a big disadvantage in China. They can’t operate at full capacity, which makes a first mover advantage insufficient. The speed often lost with reporting lines if the China branch is not fully autonomous (like a new startup) adds to the handicap.
Aside from rare companies like Qunar (a travel search engine acquired by Baidu) or Beijing-born AppAnnie (the world leader in mobile analytics), very few foreign-led startups have succeeded at scale in China. The classic exception, as often, is Apple.
The most successful tech companies in China so far have been Softbank and Yahoo with Alibaba and Naspers with Tencent. As Yahoo’s Jerry Yang said in the recent “996” podcast interview by GGV, Yahoo failed for years in China, and that’s why it succeeded with Alibaba. Learning by doing in China helped them identify a unique opportunity (Disclosure: I still own the Yahoo shares I bought years ago as a proxy to Alibaba, after finding them undervalued. Altaba proved me right). Maybe even Uber will eventually do well after its retreat from China thanks to its shares in Didi.
More recently, many cross-border VCs have bets on the next wave of Chinese unicorns, which now represent 96 of the world’s 276 total, and many have already either merged or gotten wings to IPO (becoming … ‘“alicorns”?).
Anyone can study Silicon Valley, while studying China requires overcoming the language barrier and building enough understanding of the ecosystem. It can take years, and makes cross-border investors and experts a rare and valuable resource. No wonder Facebook hired Hugo Barra after his experience at Xiaomi … which directly lead to the recent Oculus/Xiaomi deal.
If the U.S. is not sending enough people to study or work in other countries compared to China, it could adjust its immigration policies to attract and retain talent. Such a change might help the U.S. hold onto the many U.S.-trained Chinese who are finding China more attractive today.
Today, an estimated 300 to 400 million Chinese learn English. In 2015, Obama suggested that one million Americans learn Mandarin to prepare a new generation of China-savvy U.S. leaders. Where are we today? Some of Silicon Valley’s elite are already hiring Chinese nannies or putting their kids through Chinese school. Time will tell if the West be able to bridge the gap.