[Domestic technology companies have missed the window period for chip development and artificial intelligence is about to become a new battlefield] Recently, the US Department of Commerce’s export ban on ZTE has caused many people to regain concerns about core technologies (especially chips), but in fact core technologies Development has its own built-in laws and there is an essential conflict with the maximization of economic benefits.
More difficult to do more profitable
Purely from a technical point of view, steelmaking must be more difficult than the Internet, but it is clear that steelmaking does not make money on the Internet. If this comparison makes people feel completely uncomparable, then it can be compared to hardware products and Internet products, the conclusion is still the same.
Do hardware to systematically control the supply chain, control product quality, control sales channels, maintain after-sales service to maintain a large staff team, and do software chain is much shorter than this, but if analogy to Dell and Microsoft, you will find that Microsoft's profit will be the same period It is more than three times that of Dell, and this gap is getting bigger and bigger.
If you put this comparison on chip companies and social networking companies, the result will be even more pronounced. According to the market value of US stocks, social network companies such as Momo (established in 2011) have a market capitalization of 40 billion yuan. The net profit in 2017 is approximately 23 billion yuan, and the market value of Quanzhi Technology (founded in 2007) is about 9.4 billion yuan. There is a difference of 4 times between the two market values, and the total net profit for 2017 is more than RMB 20 million. The key is the similar number of the two.
Things that social networking companies do are soft, more about products and operations. What chip companies do is harder and more systematic. They need to design and produce chips and maintain a long sales support chain. Purely in terms of difficulty and technical content, apparently the chips are harder and more complex, but the more profitable theories seem to be, the easier it is to make money.
At least from the appearance point of view, this is not an example, but a very common situation. Qualcomm is almost the leading chip company, but its 2017 net profit is about 2.5 billion US dollars, Google is about 28.5 billion US dollars, Facebook is 15.9 billion US dollars. The same is somewhat disappointing for Microsoft and Intel, where Intel’s net profit for 2017 was 9.6 billion U.S. dollars, and Microsoft was 21.2 billion U.S. dollars.
But things are not that simple. If you pull the perspective higher, you can see more:
For a long time, pure virtual areas have created wealth faster than industry. What used to be analogous to the past was finance and manufacturing, and more recently hardware and software. The consequence of the former is that developed countries such as the United Kingdom will eventually transfer many industries, leaving only finance and insurance. The latter's embodiment is that it is easier to achieve soft companies and harder companies are more difficult. From the point of view of making money, it must be money to make money is the most enjoyable way. As props chips and hardware to make money are too heavy, figures are obviously better carriers.
Economic value and non-economic value
This is generally the case in the development of the industry. In the early stages of the development of the industry, there are opportunities for growth in areas with high input and low efficiency, because profits can be maintained at relatively high levels at this time, and once they reach the latter stage, they will be dominant. Businesses will emerge. At this time, it will be very difficult to make an enterprise like Intel again. The difficulty is both in technology and in the market. Technically, because there are not so many opportunities for trial and error, the market is because others already have economies of scale and ecology. Latecomers will have a disadvantage in terms of price, performance, and ecology, and they will basically have no chance.
In other words, if it is purely from the economic value point of view, then we must pursue the small investment, quick effect, high profit industry, will not do the reverse in the industry later to do the chip infrastructure.
The core meaning of the ban on ZTE is that it reminds enterprises that the economy is not simply an economy but also reminds the enterprise that the digital economy is very fragile. Similar things can happen, such as Tencent breach of a ban, that WeChat must be on all iOS shelves.
This is a very interesting thing, because even if you know that there are risks, but most companies do not really be able to take action for this, and do not even know what action should be taken. Does a company like Tencent really have to do its own operating system? Most companies are more likely to attribute this risk to the need to resolve by luck. In other words, companies will naturally continue to intensify their main business or more profitable areas, continue to do games, continue to advertise advertising, this is the market economy. In other words, Internet companies can do financial affairs, but it will be more difficult to do television and it will be even more difficult to make chips. The former is in the direction of making money easier, while the latter is lost, contrary to the company's fundamental genes.
This will inevitably produce a result: local optimum, but the overall is not optimal.
Missing window compensation
As mentioned above, if the window period is missed, then an industry such as chip development will in fact have to have a certain role to compensate for, otherwise purely relying on the market considerations of making money and not making money, that sensible company will not really do it. Such areas.
The key to this is who will compensate such areas?
Huawei is a very special company. It has been very vicious for peace time and has continued to invest in chips. This is actually a good model, because it can avoid some of the core obstacles to starting such infrastructure-based products. For example, if you make a chip out of thin air, it will be a lack of landing scenes, and no one will be willing to invest in supporting groundless scenes.
In the case of Huawei, because the landing path is relatively clear (Huawei can sell things), the company can only solve the problems as long as it persists in its investment. But this matter essentially relies on the overall rebalancing of the corporate decision-making level. It has a great chance, and it also depends on whether large companies are really determined to do it. After all these years have passed, there are many product companies, but there are not many companies that really sink.
In other words, if you miss the window period, then you want to make up for ecological products such as chips and operating systems. The company alone has a very large chance.
The ideal situation is that in the early days of the industry, a company has already been involved in all aspects of the entire chain, so that no matter who wins in the end, the overall situation can solve the problems mentioned above. This is no longer possible in the Internet, mobile Internet, communications, and other industries, but the opportunities in such industries as artificial intelligence are just right.
Artificial intelligence tracks can be compared to the time when the Wintel Alliance has not yet formed. Obviously, new chips and systems are needed. At the same time, artificial intelligence companies have no essential differences at home and abroad. Instead, they are on the track of voice interaction. Local companies have a fundamental advantage. Against this background, in theory, it is true that you can make your own chips, your own systems, and create a fully independent ecosystem.
summary
This article describes some puzzling content. In summary, there are four points: the ratio of the first effort and return is different at different tracks; the second enterprise’s intrinsic property will only make more money for the Bank, or for more profitable tracks. Expansion; third purely from the economic dimension to see the significance of the infrastructure products did not do, but the results are not the same in the non-economic dimension; Fourth, in the later stage of the industry, make up the infrastructure is very dependent on large companies or mega-enterprises; The fifth most important opportunity to complete the entire chain is actually the artificial intelligence industry.
P03 Series Push Wire Connectors
Smaller size, space saving
Fast connection
111
Push-In Cable Connector,Dual Poles Quick Wire Connectors,fast connection cable connectors,cable managing connectors
Jiangmen Krealux Electrical Appliances Co.,Ltd. , https://www.krealux-online.com