One oft-repeated startup mantra is that "execution > ideas"; I think that's further evidence for the thesis that we should copy more - ideas are not protectable and easily copied, whereas execution is almost by definition not.
I do feel that copying exposes one of the more fundamental differences between Western and Eastern culture; in the latter it feels like success is celebrated for its own sake, so the path to getting there matters less. Put another way, I might say that Western culture is process-oriented while Eastern is results-oriented? Curious if others agree.
I agree with the general mantra with execution > ideas, though I do think good execution is made harder when you have a lot of copying competitors.
I think the process-oriented versus results oriented framing is a bit simplistic for a Western versus Eastern culture. Japan is notoriously bureacractic and process driven. Lots of firms in the US are very successful because they are results driven. I think process evolve out of acknowledged best practices. A developing country or a developing industry will not often not have acknowledged best practices in the local domain, so it's not like they are deliberately results driven, they have to experiment to make progress.
I also think developing countries / industries are more likely to be geared toward copying, because that's the closest to a best practice standard they would have. So I don't put this solely down to a culture difference but rather influenced by development phases
Having worked in Vietnam for some time, I think process-orientation vs results-orientation might be a useful frame here, so long as we put some thought into the underlying mechanisms. My generalization is that Vietnamese (and Chinese?) individuals are less casual in their reasoning about results (fate and luck play a role) while American individuals are very casual (I alone made this happen). This results in different valuations of hard work and success at the individual level.
At the collective level, I think this makes American companies more robust overall - worker protections, sustainability efforts and long-term strategy. Vietnamese companies, on the other hand, are very hierarchical, pay less attention to structural integrity and jump at the chance to sell (successfully). Highlands Coffee, a very profitable local startup, was recently sold to the Philippine Jollibee despite all indications of a bright future. Another factor here could be market perspective - Vietnam has little experience with sustained periods of growth while America has decades. This environment produces a number of short-term success stories - and many hollow products - but few long-term behemoths.
I would venture to guess that the most successful Chinese startups marry these perspectives - first having the hunger to succeed at any cost, including copying, then taking a more process-oriented approach to sustain themselves in the medium to long term. For a Vietnamese example, check out VinGroup.
So true that the west views copying as an affront, yet nearly everything we use day to day is an amalgamation of copying on top of copying. In some ways, China tech is more honest about this, but the question then becomes on what vectors are companies actually competing on?
I appreciate your combination of ideas here, though I see you've avoided the IP discussion - probably wise. Still, I'm curious about your perspective.
From my way of thinking, IP protection in the U.S. is probably a necessary condition to incentive innovation given American individualism and the strength of law, the unfortunate consequence being a highly litigious culture (music IP cases are especially wild). I feel that strongly enforced IP laws in Vietnam or China, though, would dampen innovation, provide the wrong incentives, and allow the haves to dominate the have-nots to an even greater extent.
In the case of IP protection in software (which this article is focused on), there isn't too much too say. I can't remember the last time I saw a US or European firm have defensibility through IP of their software, and the same in China. IP is a very broad topic and I am not an expert in it, any general statements I have will be largely meaningless.
One oft-repeated startup mantra is that "execution > ideas"; I think that's further evidence for the thesis that we should copy more - ideas are not protectable and easily copied, whereas execution is almost by definition not.
I do feel that copying exposes one of the more fundamental differences between Western and Eastern culture; in the latter it feels like success is celebrated for its own sake, so the path to getting there matters less. Put another way, I might say that Western culture is process-oriented while Eastern is results-oriented? Curious if others agree.
I agree with the general mantra with execution > ideas, though I do think good execution is made harder when you have a lot of copying competitors.
I think the process-oriented versus results oriented framing is a bit simplistic for a Western versus Eastern culture. Japan is notoriously bureacractic and process driven. Lots of firms in the US are very successful because they are results driven. I think process evolve out of acknowledged best practices. A developing country or a developing industry will not often not have acknowledged best practices in the local domain, so it's not like they are deliberately results driven, they have to experiment to make progress.
I also think developing countries / industries are more likely to be geared toward copying, because that's the closest to a best practice standard they would have. So I don't put this solely down to a culture difference but rather influenced by development phases
Having worked in Vietnam for some time, I think process-orientation vs results-orientation might be a useful frame here, so long as we put some thought into the underlying mechanisms. My generalization is that Vietnamese (and Chinese?) individuals are less casual in their reasoning about results (fate and luck play a role) while American individuals are very casual (I alone made this happen). This results in different valuations of hard work and success at the individual level.
At the collective level, I think this makes American companies more robust overall - worker protections, sustainability efforts and long-term strategy. Vietnamese companies, on the other hand, are very hierarchical, pay less attention to structural integrity and jump at the chance to sell (successfully). Highlands Coffee, a very profitable local startup, was recently sold to the Philippine Jollibee despite all indications of a bright future. Another factor here could be market perspective - Vietnam has little experience with sustained periods of growth while America has decades. This environment produces a number of short-term success stories - and many hollow products - but few long-term behemoths.
I would venture to guess that the most successful Chinese startups marry these perspectives - first having the hunger to succeed at any cost, including copying, then taking a more process-oriented approach to sustain themselves in the medium to long term. For a Vietnamese example, check out VinGroup.
Lol
So true that the west views copying as an affront, yet nearly everything we use day to day is an amalgamation of copying on top of copying. In some ways, China tech is more honest about this, but the question then becomes on what vectors are companies actually competing on?
'Could be that China-focused VCs prefer to commit type II errors over type I errors.'
Li, can you expand on what the above statement means with an example. I am curious to understand this in contrast to US VCs. Excellent article :)
I appreciate your combination of ideas here, though I see you've avoided the IP discussion - probably wise. Still, I'm curious about your perspective.
From my way of thinking, IP protection in the U.S. is probably a necessary condition to incentive innovation given American individualism and the strength of law, the unfortunate consequence being a highly litigious culture (music IP cases are especially wild). I feel that strongly enforced IP laws in Vietnam or China, though, would dampen innovation, provide the wrong incentives, and allow the haves to dominate the have-nots to an even greater extent.
In the case of IP protection in software (which this article is focused on), there isn't too much too say. I can't remember the last time I saw a US or European firm have defensibility through IP of their software, and the same in China. IP is a very broad topic and I am not an expert in it, any general statements I have will be largely meaningless.