In 1989, I was living in Tokyo. This was at the peak of Japan’s prosperity, when experts constantly warned that “Japan was Number One”, that it had developed a superior form of capitalism, and that it would soon destroy the American technology industry, just as it had wiped out consumer electronics firms such as RCA and Zenith. The paper value of Japan’s financial and real estate assets vastly exceeded those of the US, despite a population less than half the size.
During the 1990s, the Japanese giants were trounced in the marketplace by specialized upstarts.
Of course, we all know how that turned out: Japan’s Nikkei stock index is still less than half of what it was some 27 years ago.
Why were so many informed people so wrong? The conventional wisdom has mostly centred on economic and policy matters – inflated valuations, excessive debt and ‘zombie’ banks, combined with government denial and paralysis. But the simplest explanation has received much less attention. In the 1980s, most experts were convinced that huge Japanese conglomerates such as Sony, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Toshiba, NEC, Mitsubishi, Canon, Matsushita and others would soon dominate the global technology industry. If they had done so, the bubble would never have burst to such an extent. But during the 1990s, the Japanese giants were trounced in the marketplace by specialized upstarts such as Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, Apple, Oracle, Sun, Compaq and Seagate, to an extent that virtually no one foresaw.
This history has been in the front of our minds ever since the LEF’s Simon Wardley began his research into China’s technology industry a year or so ago. There are many obvious parallels, and China’s recent market turmoil has experts talking once again about various financial imbalances and a possible bubble. But while economists worry about growth rates, trade figures, debt and the like, to me, the biggest question is more straightforward: will Chinese companies such as Lenovo, Huawei, Alibaba, Xiaomi, Baidu, Tencent, Aliyun, Didi Kuaidi and others do what Japan could not? It’s an open question, but there are at least four reasons why China’s hi-tech challenge could prove more successful than Japan’s:
While these are all important factors, it is still impossible to say whether they will prove decisive, as both China and Silicon Valley have tremendous strengths and weaknesses that are almost mirror images of each other. For example, it’s easy to list the things that might block China’s progress – corruption, censorship, environmental degradation, an aging work force, bloated state enterprises, financial and legal opaqueness, language barriers, authoritarian control and more. Similarly, rattling off Silicon Valley’s strengths – powerful companies, great universities, access to global talent, a unique VC community, the free flow of ideas, the California lifestyle and the English language – is equally easy.
But amidst these counter-balancing forces, one thing seems certain. US/China competition will only intensify over the coming years.
But amidst these counter-balancing forces, one thing seems certain. US/China competition will only intensify over the coming years. As with Japan, we can expect seemingly endless debates about state support, intellectual property rights, tariffs, barriers to entry, joint ventures, currency manipulation and educational advances, in addition to China-specific issues such military competition, regional influence and human rights. The US/China relationship may well become difficult, and even ugly, at times.
But cutting through all of these complexities is a simple question: which companies will be the market leaders of the future? For the last 50 years, the great majority of hi-tech winners have been US firms. Over the next 50, this might well change considerably. Right now, the clash of the titans looks like a pretty equal fight, one that will only accelerate the global pace of technology innovation. Let’s hope the China/US rivalry stays contained within the marketplace, and doesn’t spill over into other, more worrisome, realms. Global hi-tech competition should be more about companies than countries.
PDF (189.7 KB)
LEADING EDGE FORUM |
---|
Contact Us |
About us |
Researchers |
Join |
DXC Employee |
Privacy Policy
|
Please enter your username OR email address below and we will send you a link to reset your account.
An email has been sent to: {{ email }}
With further instruction to complete the password reset process
For any other issue, please contact us Didn't receive an email? Click here to send again.
{{ alertMsg }}
Very interesting perspective and I agree for the most part. However, it is unclear to me as to whether just manufacturing prowess can carry them forward particularly with the advent of 3D-printing leading to highly customized manufacturing of both components and final products at prices that start to challenge the economics of mass manufacturing. Interesting times are ahead and it seems that economies that can sustain these types of disruptions seem more capable of thriving.
yes, 3DP definitely a wild card, although I think it will be a long time before it is competitive in large scale mass manufacturing.