Can Silicon Dragon Really Rival Silicon Valley?

[ChinaToday]

China's tech entrepreneurial boom is already entering its second stage after only a decade.


Fueled by the world's largest mobile and internet markets, Chinese start-ups have developed into technology leaders in e-commerce, gaming, social networking and cloud computing. The tech giants Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent have cemented their lead in multiple market sectors, defeated western contenders in their local markets, and continue to gain power as they grab up more start-ups to house under their corporate roof.

Once copying ideas from the west and transplanting proven business models to the Middle Kingdom, founders of new businesses today in China are developing original concepts and commercializing new businesses. The copy-to-China phenomenon is dead. The scene has become much more local with fewer cues from Silicon Valley.

The story of China innovation today is micro-innovation, improving upon existing platforms and fine-tuning them for local tastes. Sina Weibo, China's Twitter, has more features than the original from Silicon Valley, for example.


Venture investors too have become more localized in their approach to funding new enterprises in China. Today, they invest with locally hired partners in the yuan currency from yuan funds. They look to exit their investment in portfolio companies through a trade sale or listing - outside the once well-traveled paths of Nasdaq and NYSE.

The start-up fever in China has spread from the hubs of Beijing and Shanghai to new turf away from the biggest cities, spreading inland as far as Chengdu and Chongqing. Tech parks that can match the impressive infrastructure in the major cities have sprung up in these heartland places of China.

Meanwhile, as the entrepreneurial boom has matured in China, Beijing and its Haidian district, near the top tier Tsinghua University, has emerged as the favored spot for young graduates and Mark Zuckerberg wanna-bees to set up shop – despite the tough climate and lingering pollution. Shanghai is no longer the only place for venture capitalists to call home. Increasingly, leading investors in start-ups are moving to Beijing to be closer to the entrepreneurs they fund.

Survival of the Fittest

But challenges remain. Intellectual property protection remains an issue. In mobile internet in particular, new businesses can be copied swiftly – and are. Censorship of internet content in China continues, and probably will for some time. Chinese companies can gain the upper hand over western multinationals in this censored environment, as the Baidu and Google rivalry showed with the U.S. search giant withdrawing from mainland China.

Meanwhile, too many businesses are being set up in the same sectors, and not all can survive. With the economic slowdown in China and a parallel decline in online advertising revenue that supports internet businesses, growth rates and profitability have diminished. For many, it is survival of the fittest time as they look to stretch more limited financial resources and ride out the downturn.


Venture capitalists that have funded these startups are also facing a shake-out. Just two years ago, the number of venture-backed Chinese start-ups listing on Nasdaq and the NYSE peaked. Now, very few Chinese companies are going public in the U.S. Accounting scandals among some listed Chinese businesses in the U.S. and a resulting stock price drop for many other public traded companies from China has put a lid on new listings. New regulations issued last fall in China have halted public offerings of Chinese companies within the domestic market. There's a backlog of nearly 800 companies waiting to go public in China.

The overall result is that start-ups have to preserve cash to keep going while waiting for the IPO (initial public offering) window to reopen. A trade sale is an alternative, but may not produce the big windfall. Venture capitalists are working with their existing portfolio companies to help keep them afloat. Funding of new start-ups is certainly not as active as two years – last year, venture capital investments declined by more than 40 percent.

On the positive side, angel investors are helping to fill the funding gap. Many of these new angel investors were founders of Chinese companies that went public or were acquired, giving the founders cash to invest in a new league of start-ups. Entrepreneur and start-up investor Lei Jun is behind several of the recent success stories from China start-ups such as smartphone Xiaomei and social communications player YY, which went public on Nasdaq last November. Fritz Demopolous, co-founder of travel search site Qunar, which Baidu bought into for $300 million-plus, is now angel investing too.


Also on the plus side, China's tech leaders are beginning to look to new geographic frontiers for expansion. Tencent's popular instant messaging service WeChat is an example of tech innovation that is spreading now from China to the west as the service catches on as a handy communications tool worldwide.

China's startup ecosystem has matured rapidly over the past decade. We're still only at the beginning of a whole new era of China establishing its market as Silicon Dragon, a force that has the potential to rival Silicon Valley.

 

[Psyops]

We will become the leaders of innovation within 20 years.

 

[navtrek]

We will become the leaders of innovation within 20 years.

No doubt about it.

 

[That Guy]

We will become the leaders of innovation within 20 years.

Eventually yes, but 20 years seems a bit soon. Maybe 30-50, but for the next 30 years, most of the innovation is going to come out of NA and EU nations.

 

[Kaniska]

It depends...China has a exellent start..I wish they will continue to do..But the challenge of any innovative society comes up when they have to maintain the same momentum at the middle stage of their growth...So as trends are been seen, if US and West economy starts recovering, then it will be a different ball game...And apart from that we have to see another important factor is that US is powerful in innovation because of their free and open society and best brains through out the world find itself a melting point to display their ideas....Where as in China,it is all of their own.....

Hence it is too early to wipe out the US and West to become a leader in next generation too...

 

[Speeder 2]

Silicon Valley was started, and developed to its peak in the 90's/00's, by some of the best of the whites (about 130 IQers on average), soom after joined by minorities partcularly smart ethnics Chinese(135-140IQers)from China mainland or overseas...

Yet since the last decade Silicon Valley has been increasingly jam-packed with massive H1b1 Indians (100-110 IQers, first introduced by politically correct Microsoft)and countless Indian call-centre grade basic code writers and snake oil "outscouce" defaulters, asylum seekers-turned "entepreneurs" under either Indian tribal or just family-based "startups" loaned by US Minority preferential Loan Schemes, with average IQ of about 80 to 90 max...

...while China's "valley" has been supposely consisted of 130 to 140 IQers consistently.

You do the maths!

 

[jhungary]

Silicon Valley was started, and developed to its peak in the 90's/00's, by some of the best of the whites (about 130 IQers on average), soom after joined by minorities partcularly smart ethnics Chinese(135-140IQers)from China mainland or overseas...

Yet since the last decade Silicon Valley has been increasingly jam-packed with massive H1b1 Indians (100-110 IQers, first introduced by politically correct Microsoft)and countless Indian call-centre grade basic code writers and snake oil "outscouce" defaulters, asylum seekers-turned "entepreneurs" under either Indian tribal or just family-based "startups" loaned by US Minority preferential Loan Schemes, with average IQ of about 80 to 90 max...

...while China's "valley" has been supposely consisted of 130 to 140 IQers consistently.

You do the maths!

Can you show me proof of any IQ to innovation Co-relation?

If there is a match, then Leonardo da Vinci must have an IQ of 400........
And how many innovation have the Smartest Man on earth, Kim Ung-Yong, had under his name??

 

[Speeder 2]

Can you show me proof of any IQ to innovation Co-relation?

If there is a match, then Leonardo da Vinci must have an IQ of 400........
And how many innovation have the Smartest Man on earth, Kim Ung-Yong, had under his name??

are you hungary?

it seems that you're way out of your depth here...

The proof of IQ to innovation corelation is by defintion of the each, as IQ is based on g-loaded capabilities which are the building blocks for innovation, else we don't need exams, bar tests, or patents from organisations such as WIPO any more, do we?

to make it easy for you, you can refute me by providing one exception from the river of the human history where an int'lly recognised scientist or mathematician or inventor has been proven with low IQ, but can you?

While da Vinci is smart with way >140 IQ, he is over-rated though...that's another topic...

and "smartest man on earth" Kim? well, he invented his awe-inspiring hairstyle to name one.

 

[jhungary]

are you hungary?

it seems that you're way out of your depth here...

The prrof of IQ to innovation corelation is by default of the very definition of the each, as IQ is based on g-loaded capabilities which are the building blocks for innovation, else we don't need exams or patents from organisations such WIPO any more, do we?

to make it east for you, you can refute me by providing one exception in the river of human history where an int'lly recognised scientist or mathematician or inventor has been proven with low IQ, but can you?

While da Vinci is smart with way >140 IQ, he is over-rated though...that's another topic...

and "smartest man on earth" Kim? well, he invented his awe-inspiring hairstyle to name one.

First of all, you need to define which Level of IQ is "Low"
Secondly, you need to define which standardized IQ test you are going after.
Thirdly, the whole IQ things actually does not give any merit to the actual invention level.
And finally, asking you to proof does not meant you can disproof my theory by simply asking me to proof my point.

[edit]So you are saying, a person had higher IQ can invent more and think faster than a person had lower IQ. How do you quantify the different than? A person had IQ of 210 think twice faster than a person with IQ of 105??

That's all

 

[eddieInUK]

I am a IT engineer, from what I have seen, China has a long way to exceed west in terms of innovation. What I have experienced in western company is that they encourage you to propose project, ideas, even directly to the senior level manager. But in Chinese company, I have never seen this. In the chinese company I have worked for, I can say the Chinese Engineer works almost twice of time compare to the engineer in UK. But they are working on repeat things, nothing innovative, the company does not spend money on new ideas, they prefer to do existing things and bid on project with a low price, also, its far harder for Chinese small innovative business to get a start-up investment. Many money goes into state-owned company, but they did nothing innovative. My family works in a research center in a state-owned company, the research there is just a joke.

 

[eddieInUK]

Lets try to be realistic, from what I have seen, consider EQ, especially communication with people, Indians are far better than Chinese. IQ I cant say who is higher. Indians are very good in talk, sale and service, somebody say Indians talk too much, but I would say you have to talk a lot when marketing and branding. There are a lot of manufacturing in China with good quality, but they can only sell them with a cheap price because of no brand. English is one reason but not major reason, a lot of Chinese in UK can speak fluently, but very rare of them become salesman. British are very good in marketing and management also.
I think in someway, Chinese should learn how to market and do business. A lot of Chinese student with business degree does not even know how to write a formal business letter.

 

[Speeder 2]

First of all, you need to define which Level of IQ is "Low"
Secondly, you need to define which standardized IQ test you are going after.
Thirdly, the whole IQ things actually does not give any merit to the actual invention level.
And finally, asking you to proof does not meant you can disproof my theory by simply asking me to proof my point.

[edit]So you are saying, a person had higher IQ can invent more and think faster than a person had lower IQ. How do you quantify the different than? A person had IQ of 210 think twice faster than a person with IQ of 105??

That's all

There’re countless threads in the web on the related Q&A. I don’t have time and patience to argue much with deniers who will use every logical fallacies in the book , tell every lies they come across, and repeat them over and over until the cow goes home…but a quickie:

1. 90 level is about the minimum to maintain a prosperous modern industrialised society.

2. almost ANY internationally recognised standardised IQ test can do. for one of the heavy g-loaded tests, e.g. look for Raven Matrix.

3. the whole IQ things are highly correlated with the actual invention level, throughout the entire human history, in every corner of the world.

Finally, wtf? Are you messing up things again? It is YOU who only need to raise a single counter example, as the simplest way like what I suggest, in order to disprove my point , saving both your time and mine. Yet you can’t.

Keep up lying.

Lets try to be realistic, from what I have seen, consider EQ, especially communication with people, Indians are far better than Chinese. IQ I cant say who is higher. Indians are very good in talk, sale and service, somebody say Indians talk too much, but I would say you have to talk a lot when marketing and branding. There are a lot of manufacturing in China with good quality, but they can only sell them with a cheap price because of no brand. English is one reason but not major reason, a lot of Chinese in UK can speak fluently, but very rare of them become salesman. British are very good in marketing and management also.
I think in someway, Chinese should learn how to market and do business. A lot of Chinese student with business degree does not even know how to write a formal business letter.

eddieInUK,

What you wrote, first appear being “true” stereotypes, represent some of the typical mis-information put forward by race-deniers, promoted heavily in the main stream media by the Marxists and Socialists. In a way you are, even though quite innocently, helping these Marxists spreading this mis-information and stereotypes on the overseas Chinese.


--IQ can be very accurately AND objectively measured, while the Marxist so-called "EQ" no, not even remotely.

-- there is no “EQ” thing. So called “EQ”, backed by the whole “EQ” industry consisted of some d@#khead sociologists and social workers of NGOs, was invented by the Marxists in order to draw even between higher IQers and lowers ones in some way, because it’s not PC to say that some people, on average, are better on whatever in public. For them the higher IQ people somehow magically must have low “EQ”. If one has low IQ, he must have high “EQ”, at least according to stereotypes. See? Everyone is the same? Yet by claiming some ppl having “lower” “EQ” than others, they themselves are using double standard they dispise when talking about ‘IQ”. But since they are Marxists, they’re always correct using any fallacy.

-- On this “India talk more Chinese talk less” claim, probably there are some truth in it, e.g. Chinese defence forum/threads here are much less “takative” than the Indian counterparts, but for drastically different reasons you propose. Some of the main reasons at different levels that I can immediately relate to are :

i) higher IQ people, on average and logically, need much less time and words to effectively convey the same ideas clearly amongst themselves than lower IQ people would do. To give a simple and a bit extreme example, there have been largely no words or grammars in African languages & tribal tones in pre-modern world having meanings of the concepts of “Tomorrow” or “doing sth at the exactly the same time tomorrow”. Hence it would take them lots of explanations to communicate that level of understandings, whereas in East Asia or Europe, for example, it’s matter of a few precise words. This is a stereotypical impression with some truth in it.

ii) it’s a question of natural self-defence mechanism in essence IMO. Talking more, or equivalently more socialised, gives weaker ones higher chance for survival. See, both higher IQers and lower IQers have survived natural selection by deploying different mechanisms: higher IQ ppl use brain and strategies more to survive, hence relying on group defence formed largely by more inter-person communications ( or “talking”, : Emotions – “EQ”) and physical traits (e.g.Western Afros are explosively faster runners) far less than the lower IQers. A good analogy on difference mechanisms here is in the animal world, for instance, lions relatively live on far fewer group numbers than Zebras do. And certainly tigers are much less “talkative” than birds, because surprise attack is important for the survival of tigers that hunt, while for the latter pre-warnings (“talkative”) and mutual-help ( “socialise”) are more important.

With time, the aforementioned different mechanisms of natural survival of both high IQers and low ones have evolved into different levels of things like average testosterone level, physical difference adapted to the local environment, group temperament, average number of offspring, group/tribal culture, identity etc, etc… certainly reinforce the IQ further.

So all in all:

“talk more” =//= “ more efficient talk”,

“more talk(more socialising)” =//= “higher so called ‘EQ’ ”,

and Higher IQ =//= lower so-called "EQ". In fact in the absolute term, Han Chinese average Verbal IQ (if that is some form of measurement of quality of "talk") is FAR HIGHER than that of Indians.

An advantage for Indians in teh Western world, though, is that Hindi , and other Indian languages, are closer to European language family than East Asian languages are, thus for them is more natural to pick up English, assisted by 300 yrs colonisation - this fascilitates communications.

( also, I suspect that Indian lying have profound genetic basis given aforementioned reasons, aself-protection machanism at work)


IQ deniers (Marxists) deny different IQ while magically admit different "EQ" and insist "low IQ" ppl must have high "EQ". They mix "EQ" with "talkative" and so-called "emotions" amd "music(read:gangster rap) talents" etc etc., using every trick in the book to deliberately confuse the mass.

 

[jhungary]

There’re countless threads in the web on the related Q&A. I don’t have time and patience to argue much with deniers who will use every logical fallacies in the book , tell every lies they come across, and repeat them over and over until the cow goes home…but a quickie:

1. 90 level is about the minimum to maintain a prosperous modern industrialised society.

2. almost ANY internationally recognised standardised IQ test can do. for one of the heavy g-loaded tests, e.g. look for Raven Matrix.

3. the whole IQ things are highly correlated with the actual invention level, throughout the entire human history, in every corner of the world.

Finally, wtf? Are you messing up things again? It is YOU who only need to raise a single counter example, as the simplest way like what I suggest, in order to disprove my point , saving both your time and mine. Yet you can’t.

Keep up lying.









eddieInUK,

What you wrote, first appear being “true” stereotypes, represent some of the typical mis-information put forward by race-deniers, promoted heavily in the main stream media by the Marxists and Socialists. In a way you are, even though quite innocently, helping these Marxists spreading this mis-information and stereotypes on the overseas Chinese.


--IQ can be very accurately AND objectively measured, while the Marxist so-called "EQ" no, not even remotely.

-- there is no “EQ” thing. So called “EQ”, backed by the whole “EQ” industry consisted of some d@#khead sociologists and social workers of NGOs, was invented by the Marxists in order to draw even between higher IQers and lowers ones in some way, because it’s not PC to say that some people, on average, are better on whatever in public. For them the higher IQ people somehow magically must have low “EQ”. If one has low IQ, he must have high “EQ”, at least according to stereotypes. See? Everyone is the same? Yet by claiming some ppl having “lower” “EQ” than others, they themselves are using double standard they dispise when talking about ‘IQ”. But since they are Marxists, they’re always correct using any fallacy.

-- On this “India talk more Chinese talk less” claim, probably there are some truth in it, e.g. Chinese defence forum/threads here are much less “takative” than the Indian counterparts, but for drastically different reasons you propose. Some of the main reasons at different levels that I can immediately relate to are :

i) higher IQ people, on average and logically, need much less time and words to effectively convey the same ideas clearly amongst themselves than lower IQ people would do. To give a simple and a bit extreme example, there have been largely no words or grammars in African languages & tribal tones in pre-modern world having meanings of the concepts of “Tomorrow” or “doing sth at the exactly the same time tomorrow”. Hence it would take them lots of explanations to communicate that level of understandings, whereas in East Asia or Europe, for example, it’s matter of a few precise words. This is a stereotypical impression with some truth in it.

ii) it’s a question of natural self-defence mechanism in essence IMO. Talking more, or equivalently more socialised, gives weaker ones higher chance for survival. See, both higher IQers and lower IQers have survived natural selection by deploying different mechanisms: higher IQ ppl use brain and strategies more to survive, hence relying on group defence formed largely by more inter-person communications ( or “talking”, : Emotions – “EQ&#8221 and physical traits (e.g.Western Afros are explosively faster runners) far less than the lower IQers. A good analogy on difference mechanisms here is in the animal world, for instance, lions relatively live on far fewer group numbers than Zebras do. And certainly tigers are much less “talkative” than birds, because surprise attack is important for the survival of tigers that hunt, while for the latter pre-warnings (“talkative&#8221 and mutual-help ( “socialise&#8221 are more important.

With time, the aforementioned different mechanisms of natural survival of both high IQers and low ones have evolved into different levels of things like average testosterone level, physical difference adapted to the local environment, group temperament, average number of offspring, group/tribal culture, identity etc, etc… certainly reinforce the IQ further.

So all in all:

“talk more” =//= “ more efficient talk”,

“more talk(more socialising)” =//= “higher so called ‘EQ’ ”,

and Higher IQ =//= lower so-called "EQ". In fact in the absolute term, Han Chinese average Verbal IQ (if that is some form of measurement of quality of "talk") is FAR HIGHER than that of Indians.

An advantage for Indians in teh Western world, though, is that Hindi , and other Indian languages, are closer to European language family than East Asian languages are, thus for them is more natural to pick up English, assisted by 300 yrs colonisation - this fascilitates communications.

( also, I suspect that Indian lying have profound genetic basis given aforementioned reasons, aself-protection machanism at work)


IQ deniers (Marxists) deny different IQ while magically admit different "EQ" and insist "low IQ" ppl must have high "EQ". They mix "EQ" with "talkative" and so-called "emotions" amd "music(read:gangster rap) talents" etc etc., using every trick in the book to deliberately confuse the mass.

I laugh so hard after I read your post.

Well, I will not stop you from believing a farce.

But 2 things I want to say before I part way

1.) a counter claim cannot be uses to disprove a claim. If you cannot claim something happen, it can still happens.

For example.

I believe you NEVER see a UFO in your life, so, by this logic, can you say UFO does not exist??

so, by saying I cannot show 1 example and my claim is baseless <---this statement is illogical.

2.) 100 IQ Is consider NORMAL in highly industrial society. 110 is considered near geniuses. 120 is considered geniuses. 140 or above is considered ultra geniuses. 90 is under the benchmark in highly industrial society

now, go on and believe your dream But then again, what do you expect from a Chinese member eh?

 

[kawaraj]

shut up trolling guys.
l just find WeChat quite cool ....and I am a UC browser user too, awesome feature...

 

[gambit]

I laugh so hard after I read your post.

Well, I will not stop you from believing a farce.

But 2 things I want to say before I part way

1.) a counter claim cannot be uses to disprove a claim. If you cannot claim something happen, it can still happens.

For example.

I believe you NEVER see a UFO in your life, so, by this logic, can you say UFO does not exist??

so, by saying I cannot show 1 example and my claim is baseless <---this statement is illogical.

2.) 100 IQ Is consider NORMAL in highly industrial society. 110 is considered near geniuses. 120 is considered geniuses. 140 or above is considered ultra geniuses. 90 is under the benchmark in highly industrial society

now, go on and believe your dream But then again, what do you expect from a Chinese member eh?

The way these guys illogically argue most things, initially it was surprising that they do not see how often they contradict themselves, but now we are used to it. Utterly destroyed their own 'high Chinese IQ' belief.