互聯網新貴Uber會與谷歌產生競爭嗎

During the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last summer, I spent some time chatting with Uber CEO Travis Kalanick about who might make a serious acquisition run at his company. I suggested Hertz HTZ 0.42% , to which he smiled and said something along the lines of “too small” (that proved prescient, as Hertz is currently valued at only $9.75 billion). Then I mentioned Google GOOG 0.18% , to which he smiled a bit wider, and said “At least they could afford it.”

在去年夏天的《財富》科技頭腦風暴大會上（Fortune Brainstorm Tech），我與Uber的首席執行官特拉維斯o卡蘭尼克聊了聊誰會認真考慮收購他的公司。我認爲會是租車公司赫茲（Hertz），他笑着說這家公司“太小了”（很有先見之明，赫茲公司目前估值只有97.5億美元）。隨後我提到了谷歌（Google），他的嘴咧得更開了些，說：“至少他們買得起。”

Two days later, word came that Google, via its Google Ventures unit, had helped lead a massive investment in Uber at around a $3.5 billion valuation (a subsequent round, led by Fidelity Investments, valued Uber at $18 billion).

兩天後傳來消息，谷歌風投基金（Google Ventures）對Uber進行了一輪大規模投資，價值約爲35億美元。【在隨後的一輪融資中，富達投資集團（Fidelity Investments）對Uber的估值高達180億美元】。

The pairing made perfect sense. Google GOOG 0.18% got access to the country’s hottest data-driven consumer startup. Uber got hundreds of millions of dollars, an experienced big-company director and a tacit guarantee that rival Lyft wouldn’t be able to tap the Bank of Mountain View. Plus there’s the whole wildcard of self-driving cars.

這次合作意義深遠。谷歌得以利用這家美國最爲炙手可熱的數據驅動型消費公司。而Uber獲得了數億美元資金，擁有了一位來自大公司、經驗豐富的董事長，以及一個隱含的保證：其競爭對手Lyft無法得到谷歌的投資了。此外，Uber還能用上谷歌的自動駕駛汽車。

But here’s what I’m beginning to wonder: Are the two companies on an eventual collision course? Everyone seems to believe that Uber’s future is on-demand local delivery, with “rides” becoming a founding feature rather than a primary product. It already has built out much of the infrastructure, and has doing trial runs of other products in various markets (i.e., flu shots in Boston last week). Google, of course, also appears to have interest in on-demand delivery, given its recent Express roll-out.

但這就是讓我疑惑的地方：兩家公司最終是否會展開競爭？所有人似乎都認爲Uber未來方向是按需的同城快遞，而“打車”更像是公司創立時的特色，而非主要服務。Uber已經建立了許多基礎設施，並開始嘗試在不同市場運營其他產品（比如上週在波士頓提供流感疫苗遞送服務）。而考慮到谷歌最近推出了Express，他們無疑對按需送貨也很感興趣。

Let’s assume both companies continue moving forward with such plans, and envision a future where “same-day” delivery is about 23 hours too slow. The obvious solution would be for Google ($370b market cap, $60b in cash) to simply buy Uber. Only problem here is I can’t imagine Kalanick selling. Not the sort who wants a boss, even if that boss promises to be hands-off. Nor would any reasonable person want him as a powerful direct report.

我們假設兩家公司都按照這樣的計劃繼續發展，就能預想到在未來連耗時23小時的“當日”送達都會顯得太慢。最明顯的解決方案就是谷歌（市值3,700億美元，手握600億美元現金）直接收購Uber。這裏唯一的問題在於，很難想象卡蘭尼克會出售公司。沒有人想憑空多出一個上司，即便他保證不多加干涉。而任何一個有理性的人也不想擁有卡蘭尼克這樣強勢的直接下屬。

So that leads us to the two companies competing, despite the 2013 investment. And this is where it could get a bit ugly, particularly given that Google would still control the dominant search function for many of the goods Uber would be seeking to deliver (a battle Amazon already is fighting).

據此可以得出結論：儘管有過2013年的投資，然而兩家公司依然會展開競爭。但這一過程可能會有些醜陋，尤其是考慮到谷歌仍然控制着搜索領域的主導權，而Uber試圖快遞的許多商品都依賴於它【亞馬遜（Amazon）已然遭遇了這樣的競爭】。

Again, this is way down the road – and possibly mitigated by Google passing on the opportunity or the two sides forging some commercial deal – but it’s the sort of thing that can happen when a strategic investment works out too well for both sides.

這就是未來的情形。除非谷歌錯過了時機，或是雙方達成了某些商業協議，競爭纔可能有所緩和。但當戰略投資讓雙方都獲益頗豐時，這類競爭的確可能發生。