Google's recent announcement of pulling its business quarter out of China has stirred intensive discussions both in China and worldwide. I am not particularly interested in this issue itself, as the scarcity of information and complication of the matter may distort my judgments. What is interesting though, is the implication from this event. There are several aspects I would like to address here: censorship, monopoly, democracy, vulnerability of information, and some others.
Let us begin by recapitulate the issue first. The annual revenue of Google worldwide, according to New York Times, is over 22 billion USD, while the local revenue is China is about 300 million. That is to say, in a nation takes up almost one fifth of world population, third in GDP (2009), and over 338 million internet users, this number is evidently a proof of business failure. No matter what reason causes today’s situation, Google agreed with Chinese government for censorship when it began its business back in 2006. But 4 years later, with a failed business, taking a stance of freedom fighter, promoting the ideal of ‘Don’t be evil’, and pulling out its business out of China with the excuse of 20 or something email accounts of human rights activists were hacked, just seems to be somewhat absurd, if not self-contradictory. Maybe there are other critical issues that an outsider cannot fathom, but if Google want to pull its local branch out of China and blame it on the communist government, it got to do a better job. The feud between Google and Baidu, its major competitor in China, has been long and deeply-rooted, and they have countless criticizes on each other. You may think Baidu is a malicious company for its monetary page ranking system and other dirty hacks, but it’s working for the majority of Chinese who don’t speak very fluent English and who don’t give a f*** to what the human activists are doing. They just worry about stocks, markets, sports, online deals, movie and music downloads, just like lots of people doing everyday everywhere around the world. This phenomenon can also be seen in online discussions in China, also reported by CNN, that people are clearly divided when reacting to Google’s announcements. Some showed grief and support as expected, while others are disinterested or even want Google to get out of China. Nevertheless, Google made best by what is left in the bowl.
The reason why I personally think this series of events is premeditated, is because overall excuse is shady, and Google’s terms for Chinese government of non-censoring search content leave no room for the talk to maneuver. Under current circumstances, the Chinese government can by no means agree this term, which not only opens the first case of compromising national censorship, but also a disgrace for the government public image and even has the potential danger of arise nationalism, angry Chinese netizens discontent that the government compromised to an American company. It also left no room for itself to sustain in China right now for it just unleashed the rebellious claw. Even both sides can reach some sort of agreement after the talk, China definitely will keep watching on Google.cn and give it a hard time. No matter what, it’s just a perfect timing for Google to cut its failing business in China.
The reason I began this article by criticizing Google is I really don’t like the censorship card it’s playing here. Google is an innovative and great company, but I don’t think as a gigantic media cooperation running under any political system can run away without censorship. There was a funny comment on CNN, and I barely recall, was like ‘If I curse bible on this website my post got deleted fast, and that’s funny’. And another case I can recall was last year when the Olympic torch relay reached in San Francisco, some Chinese student posted a video on youtube criticizing Tibet freedom activists. This video reached around 2000 or more comments but was deleted by youtube suddenly. My point is that no matter where you are, censorship is always there. It’s only a matter of what the degree of censorship is, who is deciding it, and who’s executing it. I don’t think anyone can seriously believe Google is able to run an entirely censorship-free search engine, it’s just on certain issues, Google, or some other greater powers behind it, wants the Chinese to see, and China is explicitly censoring it. This censorship card is just like discrimination card and freedom card: you can always use it, but just got to use it wisely. To China, I think it’s undergoing a migration of explicit censorship to an inexplicit and unobtrusive form. There will be a day that Chinese suddenly discovered that they can search all the sensitive terms, but this change definitely will not happen as radical as Google’s terms to the Chinese government. Nevertheless, Google is only a company. No matter how extensive and influential it is, it cannot wrestle with a foreign government. And I think Google knows it very well.
This whole series of events, also stirred discussions everywhere. What is interesting is not joining into these discussions – as neither I think I have the capacity to understand the entire issue nor I think any of my perspectives would be influential – but to observe the mindsets of people when rapidly sharing their thoughts. The topic of Google easily extended to democracy, freedom of speech, censorship, internet regulations, sino-america relations, blah blah blah. Democracy is the ideal, but under this ideal freedom of speech is definitely not cursing each other with hatred and assertion. I have read some threads these days, but in majority of cases people are not discussing the issue, but merely speak out loud, identify those who think differently, then dump all variety of cursing on them. These discussions are paradigm of ‘with me or my enemy’. I even read things on a forum as one guys suggested ‘we should wipe all Chinese out of this planet’ or ‘set all Chinese back to where they were’. My point here is why people tend to impose rather than listen? Why people tend to reach a quick conclusion rather than careful observation and pondering? This also makes me realize how difficult job the government is doing. I am by no means praising any government, but when sometimes people criticize communist censorship, they probably are enjoying the free movies on tudou.com or music downloads from Asia which is otherwise banned in United States. We always want the policies in our own favor, thus criticize the unfavorable. The reality is, there’s no policy that will benefit everyone. Google’s loss is Baidu’s gain, or maybe China’s loss. This entire event is a multivariate power struggle, and probably we should learn more before we reach a conclusion.
What this whole event struck me, is how vulnerable our information is. There may be a day that suddenly my email got hacked, or certain website went down, then suddenly I lose all the contact there. There was a huge concern that if Google.cn bailed out of China, will Gmail still be available to Chinese? Twitter and facebook are both not accessible in China now, which means if I go back home I have the potential danger of losing contact to all my friends there. This could also happen anywhere, and when the world is getting smaller, the reliant we are on information technology, our bonds are getting weaker at the same time. There are some people I talk with online every day, but except their email address I don’t even know where they are. The sin of information technology is convenience, which also reduced redundancy. We are too lazy to back up files as things are readily accessible online; we are even too lazy to burn discs as the capacity of hard drives grow rapidly. And what I have learnt, where my capacity relies, are totally based on information technology. Imagine there’s a global blackout, what remains useful for myself is only I am bilingual, I can draw you some pictures on a street booth or I can dive a vehicle. Without computers my programming languages are useless. My career will ultimately be built on some others’ career, the higher I go up the pyramid, the more it becomes and the harder I fall. What I learned most from this event myself, is get out of the comfort zone always be prepared for a crisis like this.
BI job sample 1
A recent PhD and extensive practical research experience in the fields of bioinformatics or computational biology is required along with at least one research project as evidenced by a first author paper published or accepted in a well recognized peer-reviewed journal. Good programming skills in R as well as either C or Python are also essential. Familiarity with graph theory and algorithms.
Description: A programmer/analyst with strong computational skills is wanted to work on high throughput sequence data and data integration. Specifically this position will help process and develop analysis paradigms for data from The Cancer Genome Atlas project, the ENCODE
project and the modENCODE projects. These data will be integrated with other data to help provide better models for interpreting high throughput genomic data.
Requirements:
MS/PhD in computer science, statistics, bioinformatics or related field
Excellent working knowledge of R
Experience with C, Java or Python an asset
Experience with next-gen sequencing data an asset
Ability to work independently
Good oral and written communication skills
Description: A programmer/analyst with strong computational skills is wanted to work on high throughput sequence data and data integration. Specifically this position will help process and develop analysis paradigms for data from The Cancer Genome Atlas project, the ENCODE
project and the modENCODE projects. These data will be integrated with other data to help provide better models for interpreting high throughput genomic data.
Requirements:
MS/PhD in computer science, statistics, bioinformatics or related field
Excellent working knowledge of R
Experience with C, Java or Python an asset
Experience with next-gen sequencing data an asset
Ability to work independently
Good oral and written communication skills
How to acquire a company in emerging market
- Overview
This is from the notes taken from CEN's (China Entrepreneur Network @ Michigan) first SHARE (Study, Hunt/Exploe, Area of interest, Resource, Enlargement/Extend) meeting. The speaker successfully acquired a Chinese manufacturing company and put it public on Nasdaq. The scenario is not necessarily readily applicable to young starters, but it is definitely enlightening. Here I will give a brief summary of the whole picture. - Summary
Successfully acquired/merged a company from China and pushed it public on Nasdaq. - SWOC analysis
Strength: the person who brought up the idea had over thirty years of experience in the manufacturing field. This not only brought him profound insight into the market, but also solid network and rich resources even in the beginning phase. He also have worked in emerging markets himself for several years and nurtured local connections over time. This is what most of the young starters are lacking.
Weakness: the risk in emerging market is always high with a large number of unpredictable parameters. The insufficient familiarity with dynamics in emerging markets could be fatal in decision making. Also as a pioneer in the field also means there's a scarcity of working models to convince investors to spread capitals.
Opportunity: emerging market is definitely where the next boom will be on going. The gain could be well beyond expectations. There are numerous companies in Asia that are willing to be transformed as an international entity. This could easily turn out to be win-win.
Challenge: as everyone is gazing upon the emerging market, the number of competitors could be large, and they can easily beat a small team with resource advantages. The key is to find the right niche to fit in, to determine a balance of profit to risk. The continuous growth potential of emerging markets are still undetermined, many projections are rerquired to be made. - How they made it
First of all, come up with an idea. The idea is you can begin with a novel idea and manufacture it later, or take some existing business in Asia and put it public in New York. As at the end of the day many companies will become public anyway, and given their rich expertise and resources in the field, the choose the merger path. After the idea has been dafted, find a team of experts. This includes Tax, Legal, public relations, financing,etc. Again, the networks they built up over years paid back at this time: otherwise you will pay good money to higher people to do the job.
When the team has been finalized and everyone signed the confidential documents, they registered a shell company. This shell company has only a team of board members, and its objective is to encapsulate a REAL company in emerging market, and put it on Nasdaq. In this sense, it's only a matter of changing the company's name and management titles, the majority of operations will remain the same. They registered the company in British Virgin Islands (BVI) for tax benefits.
After this step is done, it's time to find the potential targets to fill in the shell. In their case, they targeted companies in China with capitals ranging from 40mil to 70mil. If the number goes higher then they meet the competitions from private equity funds. If the number goes lower then I guess the cost to profit will not be appealing. If no good targets are available, the shell can also take several companies and consolidate them into one, however the overhead could be a lot more. The target is also to acquire more than 50% of the shares, in their case, 100% shares. It will also take a lot of research and work there to make the final proposal more passable at the investors.
Finally, they bring all the researches and prelim proposals to an underwriter. There are many of them available, some a especially specialized in dealing with emerging market investments. Once the underwriter finishes the business plan, the chances of getting investors money is very high - in their case, the guess is 95%. The key is to find specialized team, experienced people, and be focused. If all the factors are satisfied, the chances of getting it work is very high. - Some other thoughts
This whole scenario will not be very applicable to young starters as many of them here don't have the resources to build up the team. Although they mentioned the young people in some of similar teams, in my opinion it is still very difficult for young people to pass their voices senior people up the hierarchy. The advantages of young people is they always stay on the frontier of development; they are rapid adapting at novel ideas and they are wiling for change. But there's a significant gap between "works at school" and "works in real life", young starters tend to be over optimistic and over idealistic.
A more applicable model for young people is to ride the tide, in my opinion. Our disadvantage is also our advantage: we are not trained by the market yet, so our perspectives could provide a unique view to a senior team. Some of the experienced people may not want to keep up with the dynamics anymore, they could just want us to summarize for them, or tell them what the latest changes are, or what we think about a certain change. Speak many languages is certainly a huge plus, also familiarity with multi disciplines. This boils down to my original thought of "always learn a transferable method, a generic technique, a system of problem-solving skills which can be applied on massive and distinct matters".