Did Luo Yonghao immigrate to Silicon Valley?

I don't know if Dr. Mo is still evaluating the quarrel, so please stop eating. Dr. walt mossberg joined the WSJ on 1970. From 1990, he turned to science and technology review and evaluation. This transformation has made Dr. Mo today. He is one of the most influential scientific and technological media people in American scientific and technological circles and the originator of master-level scientific and technological evaluation. He is Jobs' most trusted media person and Jobs' external think tank about products. Only he can be the first to see the real Apple outside the Apple team.

Most of the products of technology predators are proud of being evaluated by Dr. Mo. Even if what Dr. Mo said is not good, it has become a historical scene (cover picture) for Dr. Mo to interview Bill Gates and Jobs at the same time. What can better prove Dr. Mo's influence is that his evaluation of a product can affect the stock price of a company or an industry. In 2000, after he expressed his optimism about Cube, Apple's share price soared 10%. His views made technology giants make changes in products more than once, including arrogant Microsoft and Apple.

Dr. Mo's success in the "career" of scientific and technological evaluation is enough to overturn many people's misunderstanding of evaluation at present, especially after the "first domestic live broadcast quarrel" with Luo Yonghao, many people even evaluated Luo Yonghao or the scientific and technological evaluation industry, but I don't agree with many views.

One view is that scientific and technological evaluation should be objective. Wang Ziru's Zealer team flaunts itself as objective, independent and third-party, while Luo Yonghao grasps the "objectivity"-in fact, when Zealer put forward the "objective" evaluation, he has dug a hole for himself, because the real evaluation will never be objective. The "evaluation" of evaluation must have its own point of view. Although this view may be due to interest disputes, knowledge background or personal prejudice, if the evaluation has no subjective view, the evaluation is dead, which is no different from the factory draft of Zhongguancun Online or the data report customized by some institutions on demand.

Dr. Mo never flaunts himself as objective and independent. In his view, evaluation is not the same as objective and neutral news reports made by journalists. "For more than ten years, I personally tried every product. I don't read the introductions and press releases of those manufacturers. I just test and use them from a personal point of view. I don't care about objectivity, I only care about treating every product fairly, and then telling readers my personal feelings and telling them the differences between products. Readers pay to see my comments, just to see my point of view, not specious neutrality "(quoted from Sina Technology Silicon Valley reporter Zheng Jun 20 12).

He vividly compared writing film reviews to writing film reviews. Everyone can have a completely different experience with a movie, and so can the products. Dr. Mo just told everyone "what I like, what I don't like, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the product, so that users can decide whether to buy it or not". I have read many comments from Dr. Mo. In his fluent writing, there are no parameters and no professional knowledge. He's just conveying the experience. Although it is not a video, it can bring an impulse that he can't get right away. All this has nothing to do with objectivity.

There is also a view that it is wrong for a group of people who are "outside the industry" or "doing odd jobs in the industry" to make bad comments on the products made by people with deep industry accumulation (10,000 words are omitted here). In a WeChat group, I saw an industry person doing smart TV challenge a media person to say that you can never beat me about smart TV. The problem is that the evaluation itself is very diversified, including the data evaluation of the report, the bottom analysis evaluation of the disassembly, the popular science evaluation in progress, and of course the experiential evaluation from the user's point of view, such as Dr. Mo. Not long ago, the website "What is worth buying" also launched a public evaluation platform, trying to do product evaluation through crowdsourcing. Different evaluations have completely different business models for different audiences.

Obviously, not all evaluations need professional background, just like white box, gray box and black box tests in software engineering. If they are disturbed by data such as parameters, sales volume or product stock market (Xiaomi's usual trick), they may not be able to restore the real experience. Dr. Mo never read the instructions or press releases before the evaluation. His evaluation is directed at ordinary people. Based on this, those who think that non-professionals can't do the evaluation well are untenable. Dr. Mo is a political reporter.

Wang Ziru faces both users and professionals. Professional machine+data analysis+disassembly design+third-party laboratory report is doing "white box evaluation". However, as the evaluation soul of Zealer, he personally went into battle to do "black box evaluation" from the perspective of user experience, so it is naturally difficult to take into account different roles when switching. If he only does what Dr. Mo does, don't question the "things in the industry" such as hammer design, which may not be so miserable; If he only does data-driven "white box tests", it would be nice to make a lot of money like Ann Bunny. Wang Ziru wants to switch between different roles freely, and it is really difficult to balance different audiences. However, since English teachers can make mobile phones, why can't English learners make evaluations?

There is also a point of view that evaluating the business model is simple: receiving money to help enterprises speak well, or speak ill of their opponents, and acting as a mouthpiece; If you accept strategic investment without receiving money, you will also be suspected of endorsement of interests. This boring topic has been discussed since the first day of modern media, especially scientific and technological media. Facts have proved that enterprises and the media are not only "supporting", and the media is not the rumored "black and red" public relations model, so it will not be launched here. Back to the evaluation, corporate public relations is not clearly defined as saying that you are good or that your opponent is poor. When "attention" is scarce in the era of mobile Internet, some products are evaluated at a certain stage just for attention, or to find seed users or suggestions from opinion leaders. The tolerance of enterprises to evaluation has increased, and pre-sale, crowdfunding, public beta, e-commerce and community models have emerged one after another. There are still many new models to be explored and new markets to be opened-it is by no means a good word for money. Dr. Mo didn't take money from anyone. During decades of evaluation, Dr. Mo has never asked for any evaluated products, and many of them are bought by himself or sent back after evaluation. He never asks for hard work, nor does he ask for reimbursement of travel expenses. Although he is subjective, he is "purely independent". Almost no domestic evaluation circle can do this. Dr Mo is a master, so Wang Ziru won't reimburse the train tickets in Luo Yonghao.

One more thing, if there is no conflict of interest between third-party evaluation and enterprises, there will inevitably be conflicts of interest. In China, if your evaluation talks about the shortcomings of some manufacturers' products, it may be subjective. If you don't like it, you will be questioned about your motivation: did you take your opponent's money, or did you want to ask me for consulting fees? This view is more deeply rooted among science and technology critics. Luo Yonghao and Wang Ziru, from their mutual appreciation in the past to their swords and shadows today, vividly reflect the contradiction between enterprises and evaluators. However, we can look at Luo Yonghao's only admired master, Steve Jobs's "negative evaluation" of Dr. Mo.

"In 2008, Apple released MobileMe, and I criticized it mercilessly in the evaluation report. After the article was published, Jobs called me in a low voice. " Walter, I read your assessment. I'm sorry you said that, but I think you're right. Mobileme really needs to be remodeled, thank you. "Later, according to media reports, Jobs called the MobileMe team to his office and denounced them for" tarnishing Apple's reputation "and" disappointing our old friend Walter ". The angry Jobs then replaced the head of MobileMe on the spot. "(quoted from Sina Technology Silicon Valley reporter Zheng Jun 20 12).

I don't know how many hammer problems Luo Yonghao discovered through Zealer's evaluation, and how many will improve the hammer-there is no perfect product in the world, but judging from the killing last night, Luo Yonghao has regarded Wang Ziru, the "black" hammer, as an enemy, and hated it, even if he killed 10,000 enemies and injured 3,000 enemies. There are not a few entrepreneurs like Luo Yonghao who are biased against evaluation agencies.

I've always wondered why Dr. Mo didn't show up in China-our technology started late and has great stamina, domestic mobile phones kill overseas brands, Lenovo repeatedly buys overseas giants in reverse, Internet aborigines surround the local market, and the hat made in China can't be taken off tomorrow, so it will be "created in China". It seems that the technology is getting stronger and stronger, but Dr. Mo can't produce it. This is the loss of scientific and technological media, but also the loss of the entire scientific and technological community.

After that, I look forward to the appearance of Dr. China Mo.