蘋果要不要買下匈牙利大綱

Yesterday was Apple's shareholder meeting and, as many of you know, there's been healthy debate about what they should do with its $137 billion in cash. I had read somewhere that Apple's cash pile was equivalent to Hungary's GDP so perhaps an activist shareholder should push an acquisition of Hungary rather than thinking small (e.g., increasing dividends or issuing preferred stock).
上週，蘋果公司（Apple）召開了股東大會。正如大家所知，大會對蘋果如何使用所持的1,370億現金展開了積極的討論。我看到有篇文章說，蘋果的現金儲備差不多等於整個匈牙利的GDP，所以也許某個激進主義的股東應該推動蘋果收購匈牙利，而不是幹些小打小鬧的事情（比如增加股息，或者發行優先股）。

Hungary probably wouldn't sell its sovereignty and entire economy for 1x sales, but Apple (AAPL) has no debt so they could probably lever the deal and borrow money on top of $137 billion in equity. For some reason, the notion of Apple hiking the taxes of Hungary to fund a dividend recap just amuses me…
匈牙利可能不願意把主權和整個經濟體拱手賣出，不過由於蘋果沒有債務，匈牙利或許能將這筆交易作爲槓桿，在1,370億美元資本的基礎上借貸到更多錢。想到蘋果將使匈牙利的稅收提高，從而爲股息資本重組籌集資金，我就覺得很搞笑……

More seriously, what should Apple do with a massive and growing pile of cash? The three obvious buckets are to invest heavily in new products (the Apple TV or iWatch or whatever), return cash to shareholders (via dividends, buybacks, new class of preferred shares, etc) or acquire stuff. Besides Hungary, what M&A strategies actually make sense?
嚴肅一點說，蘋果應該如何處理一大筆不斷增加的現金呢？三個顯而易見的方案分別是：大量投資新產品（Apple TV、iWatch或者其他產品）、向股東返還現金（通過股息、回購、發佈新型優先股等方式）以及招募員工。除去匈牙利之外，還有什麼併購方案真的有意義呢？

For starters, Apple isn't Cisco (CSCO) or Oracle (ORCL). Instead, it's an incredible organization because of its long history of internal innovation rather than excellence in acquiring, integrating and growing other businesses. Over the long arc of time (by tech standards) Apple has done very few acquisitions above$100 million and has never done a billion dollar+ deal. Buying NeXT provided the foundation of what is now the desktop Mac OS, plus brought Steve Jobs back to the Apple fold. More recently, acquiring Quattro Wireless created the iAds mobile ad network and Siri was a technology acquired from SRI. Less auspiciously Apple bought a Swedish mapping technology company (C3) to form the basis of Apple Maps. Lastly Apple has bought several component companies (chip companies Intrinsity and P.A. Semi, flash memory company Anobit, and security hardware – Authentec) to be integrated in various iStuff.
首先，蘋果不是思科（Cisco）或者甲骨文（Oracle）。相反，這家公司之所以不可思議，是得益於它內部創新的悠久歷史，而並不是因爲它在收購、整合和培養其他業務方面有出色表現。很長的時間內（按照技術標準），蘋果1億美元以上的收購案例屈指可數，10億美元以上的收購更是從來沒有出現過。通過收購NeXT，蘋果建立了如今臺式機系統Mac OS的基礎，還把史蒂夫?喬布斯請回了蘋果。更近一些，蘋果收購Quattro Wireless，創造了iAds手機廣告網絡；而收購SIRI公司則獲取了智能語音助手Siri技術。比較不走運的是對一家瑞典地圖技術公司（C3）的收購，蘋果在此基礎上創立了Apple Maps。最後，蘋果兼併了幾家組件公司（芯片公司Intrinsity和P.A. Semi，閃存公司Anobit，還有安全設備廠商Authentec），將它們整合進了豐富多彩的“i”字輩產品中。

Apple is fundamentally great at creating innovative new platforms that consumers love because they're easy to use and rationalize digital fragmentation. It wasn't the first in PCs, MP3 players, smartphones or even tablets -- yet Apple revolutionized each of those categories. Apple doesn't really make money by selling software or even digital content, but it seamlessly integrates software and content to support a high margin hardware business.
蘋果在本質上非常擅長打造具有創造力的新平臺。它們因爲易於使用，讓數字生活變得合理，而廣受消費者青睞。它並不是第一家跨入PC機、MP3、智能手機甚至平板電腦領域的公司，但它卻徹底革新了這些領域。蘋果並不真正通過出售軟件或數字內容賺錢，但是它無縫集成了軟件和數字內容，從而支撐了高利潤的硬件業務。

But Apple's DNA is about quantum leaps, not incremental ones. So if they were to become an acquisitive company, I'd argue is has to be as big and bold in buying as it is in product innovation. The three main vectors Apple might pursue are:
但是蘋果骨子裏追求的是巨大突破，而不是循序漸進。所以如果他們想要成爲一家雄心勃勃的公司，我認爲在他們在收購上需要同產品創新一樣高瞻遠矚，勇往直前。蘋果需要追求的三大主要推動力分別是：1. Buy Content. Content is strategically important to Apple's platforms, but in the grand scheme of Apple it's a pretty meaningless part of their business. If you add up all the content, software and services (e.g., iCloud subscriptions), it's only about 6% of Apple's revenue. To put that in perspective, all the chargers and other accessory stuff amounts to about 50% of the revenue Apple generates from content + software + services.
1. 收購內容。內容對於蘋果的平臺而言，具有戰略上的重大意義。但在蘋果宏大的計劃中，這只是業務裏幾乎沒有意義的一部分。把蘋果所有的內容、軟件和服務（比如iCloud訂閱服務）加起來，也只佔蘋果收入的6%。但客觀地來說，蘋果從所有充電器和其他配件上獲取的收入也僅佔內容、軟件、服務三者創造的總收入的50%。

Some people think Apple should buy Netflix (NFLX). On paper it makes sense: $10 billion market cap, deals with lots of content owners, a nascent library of Netflix developed content and a happy/loyal consumer base. But it makes less sense to me. Consumers love Netflix because they can get it on all kinds of hardware devices (TVs from many makers, game consoles, tablets, etc.) and content owners deal with Netflix because they don't want iTunes to dominate digital video as it has digital music. Apple could buy Walt Disney Co. (DIS) instead (~$98B mkt cap) and own a vast library of content and the "infrastructure" to develop more (ABC/ESPN, movie studios, etc.). It would probably divest theme parks, but the rest of Disney would give Apple an incredible platform to rethink video at home in an on-demand world. It also would transform the company by making meaningful profits on content in addition to hardware. Time Warner (TWX) would be the other logical choice in this vector.
一些人認爲蘋果應該收購網飛（Netflix）。理論上看這很合理：網飛的市值達到100億美元，與大量內容所有者有業務來往，擁有一個存有已開發內容的數據庫，還有令人愉快且忠心的顧客基礎。但這個設想在我看來則不是那麼合理。顧客喜愛網飛的原因是他們可以將它應用於所有硬件設備上（多家制造商的電視機、遊戲機和平板電腦等），而內容所有者願意與網飛合作，是因爲他們不希望iTunes在統治數字音樂之後再統治數字視頻領域。蘋果可以轉而收購迪斯尼（Walt Disney Co.，市值980億美元），並擁有內容豐富的巨大數據庫和“基礎設施”以開發更多產品（ABC/ESPN頻道、電影製片廠等）。迪斯尼主題公園可能需要出讓，但是迪斯尼的其餘部分能夠給蘋果提供難以置信的平臺，以重新思考如何在這個隨需應變的世界發展家庭視頻業務。它還可以在硬件之外，從內容上獲取有意義的利潤，促使公司轉型。根據這個思路，時代華納（Time Warner）也是這個領域不錯的收購對象。

2. Buy Pipes. Many have thought that communications infrastructure would become "dumb pipes" and the content and/or hardware companies would win home "infotainment." Pipes companies are still pretty valuable it turns out, and on-demand video hasn't really eroded that. You still need cable or fiber to your home to watch Netflix, and it's not like total revenue to the "cable" companies (Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon Fios, etc.) has really declined. Plus, building out a telecom network to the home is pretty hard and costly… there's a reason Google Fiber is available in precisely 1 of the top 100 US cities. The satellite TV guys (DirecTV, Dish Network) have good pay TV businesses and nationwide coverage but lack true broadband Internet offerings, so they wouldn't be a fit.
2、收購管道。許多人認爲通訊的基礎設施將成爲“啞管道”，而內容和/或硬件公司將會贏取家庭的“資訊娛樂”項目。現在看來，管道公司仍然頗有價值，而即時點播的視頻並沒有淘汰管道。大家仍然需要電纜或光纖接入家中，以觀看網飛上的節目，而“有線電纜”公司【康卡斯特（Comcast）、時代華納有線（Time Warner Cable）、威瑞森（Verizon Fios）等等】的總收入也沒有真正減少的跡象。此外，建設通往家中的電信網絡難度很大，而且價格不菲……Google Fiber僅在美國前100座城市中的1座提供這種服務是有原因的。衛星電視公司（DirectTV、Dish Network）有着利潤頗豐的電視業務和覆蓋全國的網絡系統，但是缺少真正的寬帶網絡服務，所以他們並不適合。

Owning pipes and the content deals that go with them could strategically aid Apple in a couple ways. First, the iPhone was such a profitable success for Apple because it got to double dip -- consumers paid Apple and wireless carriers paid Apple (in the form of subsidies) for each device. No matter how awesome an Apple TV might be, it's difficult to envision a similar scenario where cable companies subsidized the cost. By the time the iPhone came out, there were three or four wireless carriers with national scale so it made sense for AT&T (T) to do an exclusive with Apple, but cable still tends to be a local duopoly or even monopoly so less incentive to try to shift consumer share.
擁有管道和與之匹配的內容業務可以在戰略上助蘋果一臂之力。首先，iPhone的成功帶來了大量利潤，因爲它獲取了雙份收入——顧客要付給蘋果錢，而無線運營商也要爲每臺設備向蘋果付費（以補貼的形式）。不過無論Apple TV有多好，都很難再現這種盛況，讓有線電視公司補貼成本。iPhone問世時，大概有三到四家全國性的無線運營商，因此可以理解爲什麼美國電話電報公司（AT&T）獨家同蘋果合作。但是有線市場基本由地方雙頭壟斷，甚至獨家壟斷，所以他們沒有動機來改變消費份額。

But if Apple owned one of the big cable companies, it essentially could boost the profitability of TVs by internally subsidizing with monthly subscription revenue. Apple also would instantly get access to a huge swath of TV and movie content. Plus if they bought Comcast ($106B mkt cap) it's essentially a twofer of #1 (content production) and #2 (pipes) now that Comcast (CMCSA) has fully acquired NBC Universal.
但是如果蘋果坐擁其中某家大型有線公司，就可以通過每月的訂購收入進行內部補貼，從而增加電視的利潤。蘋果還可以立刻獲得大量電視和電影內容。此外，如果他們收購了康卡斯特（Comcast，市值1,060億美元），就能得到買一贈一的優惠。其一是內容生產，其二是管道。如今康卡斯特已經完全收購了美國國家廣播環球公司（NBC Universal）。

3. Vertically Integrate. Apple also could vertically integrate in more radical ways. I don't mean buying Hon Hai (aka Foxconn) to control vast labor and production of Apple's hardware. I mean component suppliers like Marvell ($5B mkt cap) or STMicroelectronics ($7B mkt cap) for chips, or Sharp ($3B mkt cap) or Toshiba for LCD displays, etc. Companies like Samsung and LG also supply Apple with displays, but since they compete in end-user devices trying to buy either of them probably wouldn't make sense. The display components are super low margin so Apple is unlikely to do that, but the semi companies conceivably could be a better fit. But at the end of the day vertically integrating wouldn't really transform Apple's business in the way #1 or #2 would.
3、垂直整合。蘋果還能以更徹底的方式進行垂直整合。我不是指收購鴻海集團（Hon Hai，又名富士康），以控制大量勞動力和蘋果硬件的生產。我指的是收購零部件供應商，比如美滿（Marvell，市值50億美元）或意法半導體（STMicroelectronics，市值70億美元）以提供芯片，或者夏普（Sharp，市值30億美元）或東芝（Toshiba）以提供液晶顯示屏等等。三星（Samsung）和LG這類公司也向蘋果供應顯示屏，但是由於它們在終端用戶設備上存在一定的競爭，因此收購其中的任何一家可能都沒有意義。顯示器配件利潤超低，因此蘋果不太可能做這個，不過可以想見，收購一半股權是個更好的選擇。但是說到底，垂直整合並不會像第一條和第二條方案那樣真正改變蘋果的業務。

4. Buy A Social Platform. Facebook ($63B mkt cap) is the only one that makes sense to me from a strategic standpoint. Twitter doesn't really give the same depth of strategic synergy and LinkedIn (LNKD) is ruled out because Apple is a consumer company rather than business-centric. But even though Apple could offer Facebook (FB) shareholders a 100% premium over the current stock price, obviously this one is never going to happen given Mark Zuckerberg's voting control of the bet, of course, is that Apple does none of these things. Maybe Hungary is starting to look more plausible…
4、收購社交平臺。從我的戰略觀點來看，Facebook（市值630億美元）是唯一有意義的收購對象。Twitter的戰略協作意義不夠深遠，而由於蘋果是一家消費公司，而不以商務爲中心，因此商務社交網站LinkedIn也可以排除。不過即便蘋果能夠按照目前的股價給Facebook的股東支付100%的溢價，考慮到馬克?扎克伯格在公司的表決控制權，收購也絕不可能發生。我打賭，當然，蘋果不會做以上任何事情。這樣看來，也許收購匈牙利開始顯得更加合理……

Lee Hower (@leehower) is a co-founder and general partner at NextView Ventures, a Boston-based investment firm focused on seed stage Internet-enabled businesses. He previously was part of the founding team at LinkedIn, serving as director of corporate development from the company's inception through its early growth phases. He currently He blogs at AgileVC.
作者李?豪威爾是投資公司NextView Ventures的共同創始人和普通合夥人。這家公司總部位於波士頓，主要從事早期互聯網相關公司投資。他曾是商務社交網站LinkedIn的創始團隊成員，從LinkedIn創立至成長初期擔任企業發展總監。他目前的博客設在AgileVC網站。