美国的消费互联网公司能否在中国做大？这个长期困扰硅谷的问题正开始变成一项紧迫的战略任务。
中国市场本身并非一个诱人的目标。风险在于，美国公司的市场份额可能被中国蓬勃发展的国内市场上的新兴本土竞争对手夺走，后者刚开始迈出走向全球的尝试性步伐。美国公司本身习惯于利用巨大国内市场的主导地位作为走向世界的跳板，他们应理解其中的利害。
打车应用优步(Uber)和空中食宿(Airbnb)是共享经济的“阴阳”两面，它们是最新两家想碰碰运气的公司。喜欢直接破门而入的Uber正与中国一家本土竞争对手较劲，后者得到中国两家志向远大的全球竞争者腾讯(Tencent)和阿里巴巴(Alibaba)的支持。而喜欢采用对抗性不那么强的策略的Airbnb最近拉到一些颇具影响力的盟友，希望用自己的方式进军中国。
这两家公司的通盘计划都把“本地化”放在突出位置。具备合适的管理层和本地后台及支持者，肯定会有所帮助。知道何时修改全球成功方程式也很关键。eBay在中国的失利，仍是说明适应性强的本地竞争对手能够胜出的典型案例。阿里巴巴让买家免费展示商品，并引入支付服务以降低欺诈风险，这些都比eBay高明一些。
Uber和Airbnb至少具备一个相对于谷歌(Google)和雅虎(Yahoo)等公司的优势，后两者已在中国折戟：Uber和Airbnb不直接涉足在线媒体和通信业务，这让它们不那么容易成为威权政府瞄准的目标。
然而，任何成功的互联网公司在一定程度上都是对现状的挑战。中国控制网络的最新姿态（警察进驻互联网公司办公地点）表明，成功的互联网公司可能会具备过大的影响力，无论它们处于哪个市场缝隙。
一个原因是它们持有的数据的规模和范围。有关一国公民活动的巨大数据库是一项关键资产。随着各个胜出的平台把触角伸入更多在线（以及越来越多的线下）生活领域，这可能还只是一个开始。
在本土保管这些数据，可能会让当局更有信心认为，他们能够在需要时利用这些数据：Uber在华业务设有境内数据中心。但仍有一个问题：能否相信一家外国公司像本土竞争对手那样依从？
另一个不利于外国公司的因素是互联网市场的竞争演变方式。很多竞争搞到最后成了“赢者通吃”，拔得头筹的公司变成实力中心。
Uber这种怀有巨大雄心的公司突显了其中的风险。它渴望成为所有大城市不可或缺的基础设施的一部分，不仅提供个人交通，还要染指物流。中国地方政府可能反对外国公司控制如此关键的基础设施，即便Uber承诺帮助中国污染严重且交通拥堵的城市解决私人汽车保有量增加所带来的一些问题。
现在的一个关键问题在于，最新一批有志进军中国市场的美国公司，准备在多大程度上变得真正“本地化”，以消除中国方面的疑虑。Uber在中国的融资安排最耐人寻味。该公司已拥有中方投资者，现在正试图为另一家在华公司搞定一轮融资，让外部投资者直接投资Uber的这块在华业务。
Uber发言人表示，该公司还在考虑未来将其在华业务在中国国内上市，尽管目前还没有这方面的计划。
鉴于巨大的资本需求以及中国打车应用大战尤为激烈，引入本土投资者将是有帮助的。这种结构还将赋予Uber更大灵活性，便于以后调整，例如引入本土合作伙伴，或者甚至（在被迫的情况下）减持在华业务的股权。
但对于任何一家美国互联网公司而言，保持控制权将是优先任务。雅虎10年前决定将其步履维艰的中国业务并入阿里巴巴，而那个决定结果成为史上最成功的互联网投资之一。但如今，在雅虎准备脱手这部分少数股权的剩余股权之际，雅虎的地位下降表露无遗。这是后来者要努力避免的命运。
Can a US consumer internet company ever make it big in China? That question, which has longdogged Silicon Valley, is starting to take on the urgency of a strategic imperative.
It isn’t just that China is a juicy target in its own right. There is a risk to ceding ground toemerging Chinese rivals in their booming home market at a time when those companies aretaking their first, tentative steps towards going global. US companies, themselvesaccustomed to using dominance of a massive domestic market as a launch pad to take onthe world, should understand what’s at stake.
Uber and Airbnb, the yin and yang of the sharing economy, are the latest to try their luck. Theride-hailing app that likes to batter down doors is in a pitched battle with a Chinese localcompetitor backed by two of those aspiring global players, Tencent and Alibaba. Airbnb, whichprefers a less confrontational approach, this week lined upsome influential allies as it seeksits own way in.
“Localisation” figures prominently in both companies’ game plans. Having the rightmanagement and local backers and supporters certainly helps. Knowing when to adapt asuccessful global formula will also be key. The failure in China of eBay, which was outflankedby Alibaba’s free listings for buyers and its introduction of a payment service to reduce fraudrisks, is still a case study in how an adaptable local rival can come out on top.
Uber and Airbnb at least have one advantage over companies like Google and Yahoo, whichfailed before them: they aren’t directly involved in the online media and communicationsbusinesses, making them less obviously targets of an authoritarian state.
But any successful internet business is to some extent a challenge to the status quo. China’slatest gesture towards online control — to station police officers physically inside internetcompanies — is an indication of the outsized influence that the successful internet companiescan have, whatever corner of the market they are in.
One reason is the amount and range of the data they hold. Amassing a giant database aboutthe movements of a nation’s citizens is a key asset. And that is likely to be only a startingpoint, as the winning platforms reach into more areas of online (and, increasingly, offline) life.
Holding the data locally might give authorities greater confidence that they can tap into it whenthey need: Uber has data centres for its operations inside China. But there is still a questionabout whether a foreign company could ever be trusted to be as compliant as a localcompetitor.
Another factor that weighs on foreign players is the way that competition tends to evolve ininternet markets. Many turn into winner-takes-all affairs, with the companies that come out ontop ending up as centres of power in their own right.
The immodest ambitions of a company like Uber highlight what is at stake. It aspires tobecome an essential part of the infrastructure of any big city, not only supplying personaltransport but also handling logistics. Local governments in China may resist foreign controlof something so essential, even if Uber promises to help solve some of the problems causedby swelling personal car ownership for China’s polluted and traffic-clogged cities.
A key question now will be how far the latest US aspirants are prepared to go to become truly“local” to overcome reservations like these. Uber’s funding arrangements for China are themost intriguing. It already has Chinese investors and is now trying to close a funding roundfor a separate Chinese unit, bringing outside investors directly into the business.
An Uber spokesperson says the company is also contemplating a local initial public offering,some time in the future, for its Chinese arm, though there are no plans for a one at themoment.
Given its huge need for capital and the particularly cut-throat nature of the Chinese taxi appwars, local investors will be useful. A structure like this would also give Uber more flexibility toadapt later — for instance by bringing in local partners or even, if forced, to reduce its stake inthe Chinese venture.
But for any US internet company, staying in the driving seat will be a priority. Yahoo’sdecision to fold its struggling Chinese business into Alibaba a decade ago turned into one ofthe most successful internet investments ever made. But now, as it gets ready to spin outwhat’s left of that minority stake, Yahoo’s diminished role is all too obvious. That is a fate itssuccessors will be working hard to avoid.
