亚冠投注app:Yesterday was Apples shareholder meeting and, as many of you know, theres been healthy debate about what they should do with its $137 billion in cash. I had read somewhere that Apples cash pile was equivalent to Hungarys GDP so perhaps an activist shareholder should push an acquisition of Hungary rather than thinking small (e.g., increasing dividends or issuing preferred stock).上周,苹果公司(Apple)开会了股东大会。正如大家熟知,大会对苹果如何用于持的1,370亿现金进行了大力的辩论。

我看见有篇文章说道,苹果的现金储备差不多相等整个匈牙利的GDP,所以或许某个激进主义的股东应当推展苹果并购匈牙利,而不是腊些小打小闹的事情(比如减少股息,或者发售优先股)。Hungary probably wouldnt 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…匈牙利有可能不不愿把主权和整个经济体让给售出,不过由于苹果没债务,匈牙利也许能将这笔交易作为杠杆,在1,370亿美元资本的基础上借贷到更加多钱。

想起苹果将使匈牙利的税收提升,从而为股息资本重组筹集资金,我就实在很无厘头……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 MA strategies actually make sense?坦率一点说道,苹果应当如何处置一大笔大大减少的现金呢?三个显而易见的方案分别是:大量投资新产品(Apple TV、iWatch或者其他产品)、向股东归还现金(通过股息、买入、公布新型优先股等方式)以及召募员工。除去匈牙利之外,还有什么收购方案知道有意义呢?For starters, Apple isnt Cisco (CSCO) or Oracle (ORCL). Instead, its 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,苹果不是思科(Cisco)或者甲骨文(Oracle)。

忽略,这家公司之所以不可思议,是归功于它内部创意的历史悠久历史,而并不是因为它在并购、统合和培育其他业务方面有出众展现出。很长的时间内(按照技术标准),苹果1亿美元以上的并购案例屈指可数,10亿美元以上的并购堪称根本没经常出现过。通过并购NeXT,苹果创建了如今台式机系统Mac OS的基础,还把史蒂夫?乔布斯请回了苹果。

更加将近一些,苹果并购Quattro Wireless,建构了iAds手机广告网络;而并购SIRI公司则提供了智能语音助手Siri技术。较为不走运的是对一家瑞典地图技术公司(C3)的并购,苹果在此基础上创办了Apple Maps。最后,苹果吞并了几家组件公司(芯片公司Intrinsity和P.A. Semi,存储器公司Anobit,还有安全设备厂商Authentec),将它们统合入了丰富多彩的“i”字辈产品中。Apple is fundamentally great at creating innovative new platforms that consumers love because theyre easy to use and rationalize digital fragmentation. It wasnt the first in PCs, MP3 players, smartphones or even tablets — yet Apple revolutionized each of those categories. Apple doesnt really make money by selling software or even digital content, but it seamlessly integrates software and content to support a high margin hardware business.苹果在本质上十分擅长于打造出具备创造力的新平台。


But Apples DNA is about quantum leaps, not incremental ones. So if they were to become an acquisitive company, Id 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:但是苹果骨子里执着的是极大突破,而不是循序渐进。所以如果他们想沦为一家雄心勃勃的公司,我指出在他们在并购上必须同产品创意一样高瞻远瞩,勇往直前。苹果必须执着的三大主要推动力分别是:1. Buy Content. Content is strategically important to Apples platforms, but in the grand scheme of Apple its a pretty meaningless part of their business. If you add up all the content, software and services (e.g., iCloud subscriptions), its only about 6% of Apples 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. 并购内容。内容对于苹果的平台而言,具备战略上的重大意义。


但客观地来说,苹果从所有充电器和其他配件上提供的收益也仅有占到内容、软件、服务三者建构的总收入的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 dont 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.一些人指出苹果应当并购网飞来(Netflix)。理论上看这很合理:网飞来的市值超过100亿美元,与大量内容所有者有业务往来,享有一个存在已研发内容的数据库,还有令人无聊且忠心的顾客基础。但这个设想在我看来则不是那么合理。

顾客青睐网飞来的原因是他们可以将它应用于所有硬件设备上(多家制造商的电视机、游戏机和平板电脑等),而内容所有者不愿与网飞来合作,是因为他们不期望iTunes在统治者数字音乐之后再行统治者数字视频领域。苹果可以转而并购迪斯尼(Walt Disney Co.,市值980亿美元),并享有内容丰富的极大数据库和“基础设施”以研发更加多产品(ABC/ESPN频道、电影制片厂等)。迪斯尼主题公园有可能必须转让,但是迪斯尼的其余部分需要给苹果获取难以置信的平台,以新的思维如何在这个随需应变的世界发展家庭视频业务。它还可以在硬件之外,从内容上提供有意义的利润,促成公司转型。

根据这个思路,时代华纳(Time Warner)也是这个领域不俗的并购对象。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 hasnt really eroded that. You still need cable or fiber to your home to watch Netflix, and its 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… theres 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 wouldnt be a fit.2、并购管道。许多人指出通讯的基础设施将沦为“痴管道”,而内容和/或硬件公司将不会赢得家庭的“资讯娱乐”项目。

现在显然,管道公司依然颇有价值,而即时串流的视频并没出局管道。大家依然必须电缆或光纤终端家中,以观赏网飞来上的节目,而“有线电缆”公司【康卡斯特(Comcast)、时代华纳有线(Time Warner Cable)、威瑞森(Verizon Fios)等等】的总收入也没确实增加的迹象。此外,建设通向家中的电信网络难度很大,而且价格不菲……Google Fiber仅有在美国前100座城市中的1座获取这种服务是有原因的。卫星电视公司(DirectTV、Dish Network)具有利润丰厚的电视业务和覆盖全国的网络系统,但是缺乏确实的宽带网络服务,所以他们并不合适。

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, its 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 ATT (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.享有管道和与之给定的内容业务可以在战略上助苹果一臂之力。首先,iPhone的顺利带给了大量利润,因为它提供了双份收益——顾客要支付苹果钱,而无线运营商也要为每台设备向苹果收费(以补贴的形式)。不过无论Apple TV有多好,都很难重现这种盛况,让有线电视公司补贴成本。iPhone问世时,大约有三到四家全国性的无线运营商,因此可以解读为什么美国电话电报公司(ATT)独家同苹果合作。

但是有线市场基本由地方双头独占,甚至独家独占,所以他们没动机来转变消费份额。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) its essentially a twofer of #1 (content production) and #2 (pipes) now that Comcast (CMCSA) has fully acquired NBC Universal.但是如果苹果坐拥其中某家大型有线公司,就可以通过每月的采购收益展开内部补贴,从而减少电视的利润。


其一是内容生产,其二是管道。如今康卡斯特早已几乎并购了美国国家广播环球公司(NBC Universal)。

3. Vertically Integrate. Apple also could vertically integrate in more radical ways. I dont mean buying Hon Hai (aka Foxconn) to control vast labor and production of Apples 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 wouldnt 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 wouldnt really transform Apples business in the way #1 or #2 would.3、横向统合。苹果还能以更加完全的方式展开横向统合。我不是指并购鸿海集团(Hon Hai,又名富士康),以掌控大量劳动力和苹果硬件的生产。


但是说到底,横向统合并会像第一条和第二条方案那样确实转变苹果的业务。4. Buy A Social Platform. Facebook ($63B mkt cap) is the only one that makes sense to me from a strategic standpoint. Twitter doesnt 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 Zuckerbergs voting control of the company.My bet, of course, is that Apple does none of these things. Maybe Hungary is starting to look more plausible…4、并购社交平台。


这样显然,或许并购匈牙利开始变得更为合理……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 companys inception through its early growth phases. He currently He blogs at AgileVC.作者李?豪威尔是投资公司NextView Ventures的联合创始人和普通合伙人。这家公司总部坐落于波士顿,主要专门从事早期互联网涉及公司投资。他曾是商务社交网站LinkedIn的创立团队成员,从LinkedIn创办至茁壮初期兼任企业发展总监。他目前的博客设于AgileVC网站。