智能手机大战当中，什么指标最重要，市场份额还是利润份额？在喧嚣的争论声中，萨米尔•辛格从颠覆性创新理论的角度，对当前的形式进行了冷静地分析。

    这位来自印度海德拉巴的分析师在其科技博客Tech-Thoughts上发表文章称，目前的现状——即苹果（Apple）与三星（Samsung）共同占有了约100%的智能手机利润——是一个“陷阱”。

    辛格写道：“目前，由于掺杂了经济因素，智能手机行业的利润份额已经被曲解。在购买力较高的市场所销售的智能手机大多都会获得补贴，从而确保了各大品牌的市场主导地位。但在购买力较低的市场所销售的智能手机，却往往没有补贴，这便确保了低端手机和低端厂商（利润更低）的优势地位。”

    到目前为止，苹果不平衡的智能手机利润份额受到了一个因素的保护——软件与服务生态系统，其中包括数十万个应用、数以亿计的歌曲和数十万个信用卡账户。

    但颠覆性创新理论认为，当产品日益改进，变得“足够好”而成为一款主流产品时，想通过生产一款“更好的”产品来建立一个稳固的价值主张就会变得越来越困难。

    对于苹果而言，这个理论意味着，随着竞争平台不断涌现，生态系统将从一个差异化因素变成辛格所谓的“保健因素”——即必要的、但不够充分的购买条件。

    辛格总结说：“一旦产品变得足够出色，定价压力和供应商的议价能力将限制利润。而如果投资者和分析师们继续期望实现同样不可持续的发展水平和盈利能力，‘利润份额陷阱’就会出现更多问题。逃脱这个陷阱的唯一办法是进行多样化经营（IBM就是很好的例子），成为一家面向竞争日益激烈的原始设备制造领域（在这个领域，三星占据优势）的服务/软件/组件供应商，或者采取风险更大的方式——进行另外一个方面的颠覆性创新（传闻中的苹果iWatch似乎便是这种尝试的产物）。”

    当然，尝试的对象不一定是腕表。但如果辛格的理论是正确的，苹果必须推出一款惊世之作。（财富中文网）

    译者：刘进龙/汪浩

    In the midst of aloud debate over which matters most in the smartphone wars -- market share or profit share -- Sameer Singh calmly analyzes the situation from the perspective of disruption theory.

    Writing on his Tech-Thoughtsblog, the Indian analyst from Hyderabad describes the current state of affairs -- where Apple (AAPL) and Samsung share between them nearly 100% of smartphone profits -- as a "trap."

    "Profit share in the smartphone industry is currently skewed, because of the economics involved," Singh writes. "Smartphones sold in markets with higher purchasing power are mostly subsidized, which ensures that today's major brands dominate. Smartphones sold in markets with lower purchasing power are mostly unsubsidized, which ensures the dominance of low-end phones, and a number of low-end vendors (with far lower profits)."

    Until recently, Apple's lopsided share of smartphone profits was protected by a deep moat -- a software and services ecosystem that includes hundreds of thousands of apps, tens of millions of songs and hundreds of millions of credit card accounts.

    But disruption theory says that as products improve and become "good enough" for mainstream use, it becomes increasingly difficult to create a strong value proposition by making a "better" product.

    Applied to Apple, this suggests that as competing platforms catch up, the ecosystem will evolve from being a differentiator to what Singh calls a "hygiene factor" -- a necessary but not a sufficient condition for purchase.

    "As products become good enough," Singh concludes, "pricing pressure and supplier bargaining power limits profits. This "profit share trap" becomes more problematic as investors and analysts continue to expect the same, unsustainable level of growth and profitability. The only way to escape this trap is by diversifying (IBM is an example), becoming a services/software/component supplier to the increasingly competitive OEM space (Samsung has the advantage here) or by the riskiest approach -- attempting another disruption (Apple's rumored iWatch seems to be such an attempt)."

    It doesn't have to be a wristwatch, of course. But if Singh is right, Apple has to have something up its sleeve.