近日，Google退华事件引来各方评论，有技术方面的，政治方面的，当然也有商业方面的，Havas Media Lab的主管Umair Haque也在哈佛商学院评论网站上发文表达了自己的看法。

以下为节选翻译：

一座丘陵，一个峡谷，和一个云雾缭绕的山峰。闭上你的眼睛，想象一个倾斜的字母“M”。那就是有利地位新的形状。而最近Google与中国的小冲突就是最好的例子。

一边是资本主义工业时代；另一边，则是下一代资本主义的有利地位。二十世纪和二十一世纪的鸿沟，将其明显的区别开来的。

对垄断和完全控制的追求那已经是上一时期的优势，但中国仍像激光束般盯着这些。中国的这些行为是商学院教科书上的经典黑色艺术。通过大量的分配，大量的诉讼，更强的排外性，廉价的快速消费品，庞大的现金储蓄，导致了优势的增加。

但是目前的优势所在已经改变了。道德优势成为了新的有利地位。这无关于是否获得更多，这关乎做的更好。这无关于出口保护策略，向消费者和生产者施加 压力，让他们买这买那。而这是关乎让人民，群众，社会真正的富裕起来。这无关于不关心他人，而是关乎关爱的更多。这无关于无情冷酷，而关乎真诚、可靠。

这才是Google不愿被中国的政策玩弄的原因。道德优势并不仅仅可以打造更强的品牌、让诚信度更高。还能为打造更好的组织，市场和经济立下基础：

更强的商业，更多没有被工作所麻木的热情的群众。
更强的目标，为了更高的需求而奋斗，而不是降低目标。
更强的战略，对二十世纪类的高压政策和边缘政策有更大的反弹力。
能创造更有意义的价值。
更强的管理，更着重于长远利益。
能选择更好的投资者——诚信的，忠诚的长期投资者，而不仅仅是为了快速赚钱的投机者。
更强的经济，而非使经济衰退，这可以让人们享受一个更诚信的繁荣的社会生活。
二十世纪的优势能让中国造就一些诸如微软、福特和Gaps这样的企业（一些工业时代的企业，生产一些工业时代的产品，并按工业时代的规则经营）。我们现在知道这些故事的结局了，因为我们现在生活在一个经济，政治，社会和自然世界停滞的年代。

Google的成功在于他的企业文化中道德占有优势。而对某些事物妥协对于Google伤害巨大：诸如品牌，战略，引起内讧，企业价值的降低。而更严重 的是，它让Google陷入竞争的恶性循环。Google应该更多的参与政府招标，还是做一个类似于百度那样的国家拥护的冠军？

道德方面的优势有可能是优势的最终成因。这是为什么更好的分配、产品、市场、定价形成的原因，而这些正是优势产生的直接原因。Jim Chanos的投资报告说到：离开道德优势，我们无法创造新的企业价值，而旧的企业价值不是长久之计。

是时候来改朝换代了。今日的挑战并非是盲目的创建一个国家、企业。这是为了一个高速连接的世界而重新构思的新体系。谋求一个道德优势是建设性的资本主义的测试。Google做到了。而中国就像迪拜，俄罗斯和以前的特大企业一样，并没有成功。

附上哈佛商业评论原文

Google, China, and the New High Ground of Advantage

A hill, a giant chasm, and a cloud-covered peak. Close your eyes and picture a lopsided "M" for a second. That's the new landscape of advantage. And the recent skirmish between Google and China is its best example yet.

On one side is the old high ground of the industrial era capitalism; on the other, the new high(er) ground of next-generation capitalism. The yawning chasm in between them is the gap between the 20th century and the 21st.

Currency intervention, breaking Copenhagen, crackdowns , collusion, corruption, coercion, and censorship: China's ongoing bad behavior as global citizen is, when we connect the dots, the gigantic elephant in the world's boardroom. What's driving it?

The quest for monopoly, monopsony, and control. That's yesterday's high ground, and China's focused like a laser beam on it. China's moves are the textbook stuff of b-school's blackest arts. Through larger distribution, fiercer litigation, greater exclusivity, cheaper and faster production, a bigger cash pile, advantage is gained.

But the high ground has shifted. The new high ground is an ethical edge. It's not about having more; it's about doing better. It's not about protecting exports, pressuring buyers and suppliers, price discriminating against the powerless, and programming consumers to buy, buy, buy — it's about making people, communities, and society authentically better off. It's not about caring less — but caring more. It's not about ruthlessness. It's about mindfulness.

That's the real lesson of Google's refusal to play by China's rules. An ethical edge doesn't just build stronger brands, though added cred is a certainly a benefit. Rather, it lays new foundations for better organizations, markets, and economies:

It builds stronger businesses, full of more passionate people, who aren't deadened by their work.
It builds stronger purpose, striving towards a higher calling — not just a lowest common denominator.
It builds stronger strategies, more resilient to 20th century-style coercion and brinksmanship.
It builds thicker, more meaningful value.
It builds stronger management, more focused on the long-run.
It selects better investors — engaged, committed, long-run investors, not just speculators looking for a quick buck.
And it builds stronger economies, that can, instead of stagnating, enjoy an authentic prosperity.
The 20th century high ground might let China build a few dozen Microsofts, Fords, and Gaps: industrial-era companies that make industrial-era stuff — and play by industrial-era rules. Yawn. We know how that story ends, because we're living it: an economy, polity, society, and natural world in stagnation and decline. Dear Wen Jiabao: want fries with that Zombieconomy?

The only way to step past the industrial era's zombified endgame is the new high ground, because only an ethical edge can do all the good stuff above. The old high ground was built for 20th century economics: sell more junk, earn more profit, "grow" — and then crash. An ethical edge operates at a higher economic level. It is concerned with what we sell, how profits are earned, and which authentic, human benefits "grow." It's a concept built for the economics of an interdependent world.

It's an ethical edge (no, not ethical perfection) that's always been at the heart of Google's disruptive success. Compromising its ethical edge cost Google in all the ways above, damaging its brand, diluting its purpose, causing internal strife, creating thinner value. Most damaging, compromising its ethical edge cost left Google trapped in an impossible, vicious cycle of competitive dynamics: to "compete," should it do the government's bidding even more than quasi-state-sponsored champions, like Baidu?

Wall Street, in typically myopic fashion, thinks Google's crazy — who doesn't want to make a buck? But the Street gets real economics less than my pet hamster does. Not every marginal dollar is created equal. The benefits from the effects above steeply outweigh the pennies Google was earning. Instead, a Google that doesn't play by China's rules is a better business, which creates more thicker, sustainable, meaningful value. And, increasingly, it's thick value that the smart money rewards — and reaps lasting rewards from. No wonder, then, that Wall Street legend Jim Chanos is betting against China's unsustainable, artificial growth.

An ethical edge just might be the ultimate cause of advantage. It's how better distribution, production, marketing, and pricing — all just proximate causes of advantage — ultimately happen. Jim Chanos's investment thesis says: without an ethical edge, new value cannot be created — old value can only be shuffled around (hi, Wall Street).

Ethical edge is advantage reconceived for the 21st century. It's an institutional innovation: the institution of "advantage" rebuilt for a threadbare, fraying, global economy. It's a radical new definition of "advantage" that blows past the stale, tired idea of competitive advantage.

It's time for a great reboot. Today's great challenge isn't blindly building countries, companies, or households on a broken set of institutions. It is reimagining new institutions for a hyperconnected world. Answering that challenge begins, from my tiny perspective, with an ethical edge as the cornerstone of every kind of organization. Seeking an ethical edge is the truest test of a Constructive Capitalist. Google just passed it. China — like Dubai, Russia, and yesterday's mega-corporations — is failing it spectacularly.

So here's the single question everyone should be asking. The old high ground is the new low ground. Yesterday's mountain is today's valley. Are you ascending to the new high ground?

Fire away in the comments with questions, thoughts, or examples.
 

http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2010/01/google_china_and_the_new_high.html

“幸福来得太快。”在谷歌尚未明确是否就此退出中国市场之际，百度员工已经赤??地趁火打劫：如今百度负责广告销售的员工一早来到公司后的第一件事，就是列出谷歌的广告客户名单，开始逐个联系，百度人得意的说，“我们内部调侃这是捡钱计划。”差不多同时，百度首席产品设计师孙云丰在博客上公开撰文辱骂：（关于谷歌退出中国）“整个事情给我的唯一感受，就是恶心”、“证明google是个市侩分子。”

姑且不论孙云丰的观点是非对错，如果孙云丰代表百度骂谷歌，那他就严重地缺乏职业道德，辱骂竞争对手显然不是一家公众上市公司高管之所为能事；如果孙云丰代表自己骂谷歌公司，那么就有义务接受谷歌用户的回应和批评。可惜的是孙云丰一方面宣称自己观点毫无错误，另一方面，他又赶紧删掉了自己的文章并且四处要求删贴。也有人说删贴未必是他自己的意愿。那么，作为宣称“有道德感”的百度员工，孙云丰不应该屈从别人的意见删掉自己认为正确的东西。作为百度高管，孙云丰更不应该允许百度公关去打电话要求别人删贴。

新浪微博上有网友评论说，“单从商业价值和经济利益方面考量，都可以看出Google的不作恶，并不是作秀的口号。对于一个靠信息有序化赚钱的公司，必须要不作恶才行。百度正好相反，必须要作恶才行。”这句话说到点子上，谷歌退就退吧，百度未必就能继续一股独大。即使暂时抢下更大份额，如果不改变或者提升哪怕是一个世侩也该有的道德底气，百度终有一天遭世人唾弃。

当然，曾经我也经常使用百度，享受其便利搜索的同时也关注其成长。我曾一直很期待百度能成为一家负有责任感的道德公司，就像他们新编《壹百度》里所鼓吹的那样。遗憾的是，从百度高管到员工，似乎都没和这家公司一样完成这种道德上的转变。不要武断地以为我是在挟公器而泄私愤。以我跑IT线的最近两年跟百度人打交道的直观感受就是，百度严重地缺乏公关沟通原则并且势利：为了掩盖其负面新闻，百度公关可以不惜千里飞来又是许诺又是找高层拉关系；一旦目的达到或者遭拒，其公关团队转瞬就变得傲慢十足。

从最近频频曝出网友投诉百度上充斥恶意诽谤攻击他人名誉的网页链接可见一斑。百度不仅没有履行道德公司所必须的制止不良信息散播责任，却是为了暖味眼球和暴利空间，选择最大限度地纵容和助长这类恶意传播扩大化，给被侵权人带来更大的伤害。可悲的是，百度不以为耻反以为荣，似有将此恶习死扛到底的趋势。

“百度搜索引擎的核心价值就在于在网络空间里自由地抓取信息，靠信息有序化进行商业运作。”百度公关高管们不止一次地辩称，技术上无法屏蔽掉恶意诽谤信息。但如果以此逃避散播诽谤网贴的责任，那么，累积起百度巨大财富将李彦宏推上首富的百度竞价排名又作何解？那些活跃在百度线上线下，以收钱删贴的公司又是如何的生存？更近的例子是，如今百度上搜索孙云丰骂谷歌的贴子，缘何毫无例外地全部显示“页面无法访问”？百度何必如此掩耳盗铃。

百度原本可以更幸福的，他完全可以把商业价值建立在一个正确的价值观之上。谷歌的退出，无疑让百度迎来商业搜索史上可遇不可求的机遇，很不幸，百度根本不愿这么做。

作者:戴远程

一，Google退出中国市场并非出于政治道德

http://news.qq.com/a/20100116/000960.htm

二，微软和惠普CEO不支持谷歌欲退出中国举动

http://news.qq.com/a/20100116/000679.htm

这两篇news,第一个已经开始为Google离开中国后的舆论造势了，第二个看得出谈判的结果，未来也许微软和hp会得到原Google.cn的市场份额，现实是残酷的，看来Google真的要离开了～一路走好Google！

此文作者是新教牧师Martin Niemoller，写于1945年。德语原文如下：

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

英语翻译之一：

When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; afterall, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

英语翻译之二：

First the Nazis came…
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

以上的原文和翻译，应该就是这段话的最初版本。此后，又有若干类似的变形版本，不过一般都认为这种由“共产党员”开始的版本是最原始的版本。此外，一种由“犹太人”开始的变形版本，可能比原始版本更加流行：

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

另外还有一种提到了天主教徒和新教徒的版本，和何士刚引用的这个版本比较接近：

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

最近对互联网来说最大的重磅炸弹消息就是12号的百度被黑和13号Google退出的news了，从得知百度被黑，因为本人对百度本身并不是很感冒，所以也不怎么关注！关于Google的退出决定还是比较吃惊的，紧接着的不断报料的内幕消息，从内容审查到spy门再到知识版权窃取和网络攻击事件；在这些消息铺天盖地的似乎忽略了个消息，那就是纳斯达克股市上百度股票的表现,看下图;

以下的仅仅是推测，俗话说是商人和资本家都是无利不起早，百度在12号被黑后股市表现下跌了4%左右，在13号Google退出消息后，百度股票应声上涨了13.71%；如果你在百度被黑股票利空低点的时候买入，在Google退出利好的时候卖出的话你就发财了；百度股票439美刀并不是所有人都能买的起的，Baidu公司注册于英属开曼群岛，现在美资在Baidu中占有51%以上的份额；回想下为什么是伊朗黑了百度呢？是嫁祸还是？假设下如果背后是资本的力量运作这一切呢，黑了百度嫁祸给伊朗然后在百度利空的时候买入，在Google退出的时候卖出，政治上不仅挑拨了中国和伊朗的关系，一个利空一个利好，背后的资本（也许是对冲基金）就发达了，连希拉里都站出来为Google说话了，还可以利用Google退出打击中国，一箭N雕啊!  到底是谁搞了谁呢？当老百姓在愤怒的时候，有人在笑着数钱呢。。。