行业英语 学英语,练听力,上听力课堂! 注册 登录
> 行业英语 > 金融英语 > 金融时报原文阅读 >  第158篇

现代垄断将为竞争下新定义

所属教程:金融时报原文阅读

浏览:

2020年03月22日

手机版
扫描二维码方便学习和分享

现代垄断将为竞争下新定义

互联网企业的“四巨头”:苹果、脸书、亚马逊和谷歌几乎垄断了整个行业。虽然这样的垄断让我们略感不安,但不可否认“四巨头”的存在使绝大多数人受益。

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识:

gouge凿;乱要价[gaʊdʒ]

stifling令人窒息的['staɪf(ə)lɪŋ]

incremental增加的,增值的[,ɪnkrɪ'mentəl]

adjacent邻近的,毗连的[ə'dʒeɪs(ə)nt]

aghast吓呆的,惊骇的[ə'gɑːst]

predatory pricing掠夺性订价;掠夺性价格

Modern monopolists are redefining competition(576 words)

By FT View

It is odd to accuse a company of price gouging when its product is free, or to allege that a company is unfairly stifling competitors when its products are obviously superior. So while the dominance of the “four horsemen” of internet technology — Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Google — can feel unsettling, it is not easy to pin down why.

It has been understood for decades that technology companies often enjoy increasing rather than diminishing returns over time. Initial investment requirements are high but incremental costs are minimal. Once a software company reaches scale, its product becomes a standard that adjacent products must build around. Even with better products, new competitors struggle.

Internet companies have another source of increasing returns: network effects. Search engines, social networks, and retail websites get better as their user bases grow. Customers want to be where the others customers are. One might argue, then, that the horsemen — and eventually aspirants from Netflix to Uber — are to varying degrees natural monopolies. The industrial-era response to this would be regulation of returns or even nationalisation. But who would benefit if Facebook or Google were treated this way?

Still, there are risks to competition. One is that the companies with the biggest customer networks can simply copy their rivals' ideas, and depend on their existing customer base to win the ensuing battle. This would decrease the incentive to innovate. At Facebook's developer conference this week, the company talked up camera-based products and strategies that were strikingly similar to those of upstart rival Snap. Many observers were aghast.

Next, it may be that suppliers or advertisers, rather than customers, are the ones getting gouged. This would decrease the incentive to invest in adjacent industries. As a producer of journalism that appears across social networks, this newspaper is of course one of those suppliers and is keen to capture as much of its content's value as possible. But a dominant social network like Facebook, or dominant mobile device/software maker such as Apple, could extract painful rents not just in journalism but in music, film, and elsewhere. That Amazon has arrived at an uneasy peace with book publishers, or that music streaming has helped music publishers to see past iTunes, does not resolve the issue.

Google is considering including an ad-blocker in its popular Chrome web browser. Depending on how it, it could tilt the field in favour of Google's own advertising efforts. Facebook often talks about limiting the advertisements that appear on its users' timelines. Could this turn into an effort to raise prices and profits by limiting supply — a standard monopolists' gambit?

Finally, there is the question of predatory pricing. Traditionally, undercutting less-capitalised rivals with price has been an unstable strategy because it harms profits. But investors in internet ventures care little for profit if growth is strong. Amazon, which flirts with losses two decades into its life, is just the most famous example of this. Amazon's low prices are great for customers. Those customers may be less happy if they are living in a retail monoculture a decade or two hence.

Keeping customers happy is how all of the big four got where they are. They will not stop trying to do so. It may be, however, that the identification of healthy markets with satisfied customers needs to be reconsidered. What we stand to lose is all the excellent products we will never enjoy, if trying to knock the four horsemen off their mounts becomes pointless.

1.Which company is not one of the “four horsemen” of Internet technology?

A.Apple

B.Uber

C.Google

D.Facebook

答案(1)

2.What is internet companies' another source of increasing returns?

A.Advanced technology

B.Network effects

C.Other investments

D.Human resources

答案(2)

3.Whose new camera-based products and strategies seem similar to snapchat?

A.Facebook

B.Instagram

C.Twitter

D.Weibo

答案(3)

4.What strategy did Amazon use in order to satisfy its customers?

A.Low-priced strategy

B.Customized service

C.Door-to-door delivery

D.24/7 complaint service

答案(4)

(1)答案:B.Uber

解释:网络科技行业的“四巨头”分别是脸书、谷歌、苹果和亚马逊。

(2)答案:B.Network effects

解释:网络集聚效应:搜索引擎、社会关系的复合效应使得科技企业的收入翻倍。

(3)答案:A.Facebook

解释:在最近一次的内部会议上,脸书新的照相功能和营销方法与其对手snapchat十分相似。

(4)答案:A.Low-priced strategy

解释:亚马逊的低价销售使其消费者感到非常满意,这些顾客觉得即使亚马逊成为行业垄断也无所谓。

用户搜索

疯狂英语 英语语法 新概念英语 走遍美国 四级听力 英语音标 英语入门 发音 美语 四级 新东方 七年级 赖世雄 zero是什么意思本溪市铁运小区英语学习交流群

网站推荐

英语翻译英语应急口语8000句听歌学英语英语学习方法

  • 频道推荐
  • |
  • 全站推荐
  • 推荐下载
  • 网站推荐