上周五我在《财富》杂志（Fortune）发表了一篇文章，打头一句就说过：“苹果（Apple）永远不会收购Twitter”。但是上周六的《纽约时报》（New York Times）的文章标题却赫然写道，苹果官方表示有意考虑收购Twitter的股份。看到这篇报道，我的心简直停跳了一拍。难道我错了？

    读完《纽约时报》记者伊芙琳•鲁斯利和尼克•比尔顿的这篇报道后，我冷静了下来。所谓苹果收购Twitter的消息只是一场讨论，而不是一次交易。即便成真，也只是一笔投资，而不是收购。而且双方的谈判已经结束了，以失败告终。

    《纽约时报》的报道见报几个小时后，《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal）也发表了一篇文章跟进这个消息。从《华尔街日报》的报道看，苹果对Twitter的收购似乎更遥不可及。据《华尔街日报》的一位“熟悉双方谈判内情”的人士表示，苹果和Twitter的谈判早在一年多以前就开始了，而不是像《纽约时报》所说的那样，是在“最近几个月”。

    两家媒体虽然都没有明确说明，但均暗示道，这笔投资实际上一直没有实现。

    那么如果苹果真的向Twitter投资了几亿美元又会怎么样？我认为这种交易对对方都是说得通的。

    只需要付出卖几天iPhone的收入，苹果就可以从Twitter那里获得它无法从Facebook那里获得的合作。Twitter也可以通过大量的侵入性广告赚钱，把被迫做价出售的日子推迟得久一些。

    苹果有一条著名的原则，蒂姆•库克也总是利用每个机会再三提起这个原则，也就是生产“世界上最好的产品”，然后在令全行业羡慕的高利润点上销售出数以百万计的产品。除此以外，苹果做的任何事，无论是iTunes还是“天才吧”，都是为了支持硬件销售而做的。

    苹果CEO蒂姆•库克在今年春天的一次科技会议上自问自答道：“苹果需要社交化吗？是的。但苹果并不需要拥有一家社交网络。”

    而Twitter首席执行官迪克•科斯特洛本月初对《洛杉矶时报》（L.A. Times）称，他的公司并不急于上市或出售。他说，Twitter“在银行里还有一卡车的钱。”

    不过他并没有说那里面是否包含苹果投资的钱。

    最新消息：彭博社（Bloomberg）上周日报道，据一位“熟悉此事”的人士透露，苹果与Twitter的投资谈判“无果而终”。

    译者：朴成奎

    Having posted a piece Friday suggesting -- right in the first sentence -- that Apple (AAPL) would never buy Twitter, my heart stopped briefly when I saw the headline Apple Officials Said to Consider Stake in Twitter in Saturday's New York Times.Could I have been wrong?

    I calmed down a bit when I read Evelyn Rusli and Nick Bilton's piece. These were discussions, not a deal. About an investment, not an acquisition. And the negotiations were over. Done. Kaput.

    The Wall Street Journal's catch-up-to-the-Timespiece, posted a few hours later, made an acquisition seem even more remote. According to the Journal's "person familiar with the talks," the discussions occurred more than a year ago, not in "recent months" as the Times had it.

    Both papers implied, without actually saying it, that the proposed investment was never consummated.

    But so what if Apple had invested a few hundred million dollars in Twitter? That's the kind of deal I can see making sense for both parties.

    For a couple days worth of iPhone revenue, Apple gets the kind of cooperation from Twitter that itdoesn't get from Facebook (FB).And Twitter can postpone a little longer the day it has to junk up its elegant 140-character messaging service with a flood of intrusive advertising.

    Apple is a company famous for sticking to its knitting which is -- as Tim Cook reminds us at every opportunity -- making the "very best products in the world" and selling millions of them at profit margins that are the envy of the rest of the industry. Everything else it does -- from iTunes to the Genius Bar -- it does in support of those hardware sales.

    "Does Apple need to be social? Yes." Cook asked himself rhetorically at a tech conference this spring. "Apple doesn't have to own a social network."

    For his part, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo told the L.A. Times earlier this month that his company was in no hurry go public or find a buyer.Twitter has, he said, "a truckload of money in the bank."

    He did not say if any of it was Apple's.

    UPDATE: Bloomberg reported Sunday that according to one source "familiar with the matter," discussions of an Apple investment in Twitter ended "without an agreement."