苹果要不要买下匈牙利

    2、收购管道。许多人认为通讯的基础设施将成为“哑管道”，而内容和/或硬件公司将会赢取家庭的“资讯娱乐”项目。现在看来，管道公司仍然颇有价值，而即时点播的视频并没有淘汰管道。大家仍然需要电缆或光纤接入家中，以观看网飞上的节目，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】的总收入也没有真正减少的迹象。此外，建设通往家中的电信网络难度很大，而且价格不菲……Google Fiber仅在美国前100座城市中的1座提供这种服务是有原因的。卫星电视公司（DirectTV、Dish Network）有着利润颇丰的电视业务和覆盖全国的网络系统，但是缺少真正的宽带网络服务，所以他们并不适合。

    拥有管道和与之匹配的内容业务可以在战略上助苹果一臂之力。首先，iPhone的成功带来了大量利润，因为它获取了双份收入——顾客要付给苹果钱，而无线运营商也要为每台设备向苹果付费（以补贴的形式）。不过无论Apple TV有多好，都很难再现这种盛况，让有线电视公司补贴成本。iPhone问世时，大概有三到四家全国性的无线运营商，因此可以理解为什么美国电话电报公司（AT&T）独家同苹果合作。但是有线市场基本由地方双头垄断，甚至独家垄断，所以他们没有动机来改变消费份额。

    但是如果苹果坐拥其中某家大型有线公司，就可以通过每月的订购收入进行内部补贴，从而增加电视的利润。苹果还可以立刻获得大量电视和电影内容。此外，如果他们收购了康卡斯特（Comcast，市值1,060亿美元），就能得到买一赠一的优惠。其一是内容生产，其二是管道。如今康卡斯特已经完全收购了美国国家广播环球公司（NBC Universal）。

    3、垂直整合。苹果还能以更彻底的方式进行垂直整合。我不是指收购鸿海集团（Hon Hai，又名富士康），以控制大量劳动力和苹果硬件的生产。我指的是收购零部件供应商，比如美满（Marvell，市值50亿美元）或意法半导体（STMicroelectronics，市值70亿美元）以提供芯片，或者夏普（Sharp，市值30亿美元）或东芝（Toshiba）以提供液晶显示屏等等。三星（Samsung）和LG这类公司也向苹果供应显示屏，但是由于它们在终端用户设备上存在一定的竞争，因此收购其中的任何一家可能都没有意义。显示器配件利润超低，因此苹果不太可能做这个，不过可以想见，收购一半股权是个更好的选择。但是说到底，垂直整合并不会像第一条和第二条方案那样真正改变苹果的业务。

    4、收购社交平台。从我的战略观点来看，Facebook（市值630亿美元）是唯一有意义的收购对象。Twitter的战略协作意义不够深远，而由于苹果是一家消费公司，而不以商务为中心，因此商务社交网站LinkedIn也可以排除。不过即便苹果能够按照目前的股价给Facebook的股东支付100%的溢价，考虑到马克•扎克伯格在公司的表决控制权，收购也绝不可能发生。我打赌，当然，苹果不会做以上任何事情。这样看来，也许收购匈牙利开始显得更加合理……（财富中文网）

    作者李•豪威尔是投资公司NextView Ventures的共同创始人和普通合伙人。这家公司总部位于波士顿，主要从事早期互联网相关公司投资。他曾是商务社交网站LinkedIn的创始团队成员，从LinkedIn创立至成长初期担任企业发展总监。他目前的博客设在AgileVC网站。

    译者：严匡正

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 company.

    My bet, of course, is that Apple does none of these things. Maybe Hungary is starting to look more plausible…

    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.