为什么大家没完没了谈论苹果公司？

这周一上午，投资银行瑞银的科技业分析师史蒂文•米卢诺维奇告诉旧金山一场会议的主办方，他曾试图邀请一位苹果公司高管出席会议讲话，但被婉拒。于是，作为那场会议的主持人，米卢诺维奇请了三位研究苹果公司的专家——分析师霍拉斯•德迪乌、在密歇根大学念大四的知名科技博客博主马克•古尔曼和我组成专家组出席。

得知苹果高管拒绝参会的消息后，我觉得很有趣。因为我还记得，三年前《财富》杂志在美国科罗拉多州阿斯彭市举行的财富科技头脑风暴大会也出现过类似一幕。总而言之，如果苹果不出面谈论自己，就找一帮其他人来讨论苹果。

从痴迷产品的粉丝到华尔街投资者，苹果无疑仍然是所有人着迷的话题。米卢诺维奇注意到，苹果股票的市盈率“倍数”低得惊人，可想而知是因为在投资者眼中，苹果就是有能力不断推出热卖产品。长期关注苹果的观察家德迪乌认为，苹果的确是靠热销的产品带动增长，但投资者忽视了更关键的原因。在德迪乌看来，苹果已经建立起了类似订购的业务，让消费者养成了规律购买苹果产品的习惯。到目前为止，这种趋势并未出现任何变化。

在与会专家中，古尔曼专攻设计和创业领域，根据目前掌握的证据，他深信苹果有意制造汽车。德迪乌认为，问题不在于苹果会不会制造汽车，而在于造多少。讨论到这个问题时，我同意苹果正打算制造汽车的推测——苹果聘用了大量汽车行业的人才，已经不由人不信。但我也相信，如果汽车项目的进展不尽如人意，苹果很可能会放弃或者雪藏这个项目。毕竟，在一个最终失败的开创性项目上损失数十亿美元固然会让苹果受伤，但一意孤行在错路上走到黑只会伤得更深。

讨论时问到苹果面临的最大风险，我回答是过于依赖iPhone。德迪乌认为保持苹果的文化方面有点尴尬，尤其是在创始人乔布斯离世之后。

无论如何都要承认，除了苹果，世界上还没有哪家公司能让大家讨论得如此热烈。（财富中文网）

译者：Pessy

审校：夏林

I had a chuckle Monday morning, when Steven Milunovich, a technology analyst with investment bank UBS, told a San Francisco conference he was hosting that Apple AAPL 3.17% had declined his invitation to send an executive to speak. Instead, he asked three Apple experts to form a panel: analyst Horace Dediu, blogger (and University of Michigan senior) Mark Gurman, and me. I was amused because I pulled a similar maneuver at Fortune Brainstorm Tech in Aspen three years ago. If Apple won’t talk about itself, then invite others to talk about Apple.

Apple justifiably remains the object of fascination for everyone from product fanatics to Wall Street investors. Milunovich noted that Apple trades for a surprisingly low “multiple” to its earnings, presumably because investors think of it as a hit machine. Dediu, as shrewd an observer of Apple as they come, believes that while Apple indeed is hit-driven, investors are missing a larger point. Apple, in Dediu’s view, has built up a quasi-subscription business in that customers buy something from Apple with great regularity. He doesn’t see that changing.

Gurman, who is studying design and entrepreneurship, among other subjects, puts great stock in all the evidence that Apple intends to build a car. Dediu thinks the question isn’t whether Apple builds a car but how many. My contribution to this discussion is that while I agree Apple is pursuing a car—they have hired too many people to believe otherwise—I wouldn’t put it past Apple to cancel or shelve the project if it isn’t moving along satisfactorily. It would sting Apple to sink billions of dollars into an initiative that doesn’t see the light of day, but the sting of a multibillion-dollar flop would be worse.

Asked the biggest risk Apple faces, I suggested its overreliance on the iPhone. Dediu thinks it is the tricky task of maintaining Apple’s culture, especially without Steve Jobs.

There isn’t another company on the planet that is discussed this way. Still.