蘋果要不要買下匈牙利
|
???? ????上周，蘋果公司（Apple）召開了股東大會。正如大家所知，大會對蘋果如何使用所持的1,370億現金展開了積極的討論。我看到有篇文章說，蘋果的現金儲備差不多等于整個匈牙利的GDP，所以也許某個激進主義的股東應該推動蘋果收購匈牙利，而不是干些小打小鬧的事情（比如增加股息，或者發行優先股）。 ????匈牙利可能不愿意把主權和整個經濟體拱手賣出，不過由于蘋果沒有債務，匈牙利或許能將這筆交易作為杠桿，在1,370億美元資本的基礎上借貸到更多錢。想到蘋果將使匈牙利的稅收提高，從而為股息資本重組籌集資金，我就覺得很搞笑…… ????嚴肅一點說，蘋果應該如何處理一大筆不斷增加的現金呢？三個顯而易見的方案分別是：大量投資新產品（Apple TV、iWatch或者其他產品）、向股東返還現金（通過股息、回購、發布新型優先股等方式）以及招募員工。除去匈牙利之外，還有什么并購方案真的有意義呢？ ????首先，蘋果不是思科（Cisco）或者甲骨文（Oracle）。相反，這家公司之所以不可思議，是得益于它內部創新的悠久歷史，而并不是因為它在收購、整合和培養其他業務方面有出色表現。很長的時間內（按照技術標準），蘋果1億美元以上的收購案例屈指可數，10億美元以上的收購更是從來沒有出現過。通過收購NeXT，蘋果建立了如今臺式機系統Mac OS的基礎，還把史蒂夫?喬布斯請回了蘋果。更近一些，蘋果收購Quattro Wireless，創造了iAds手機廣告網絡；而收購SIRI公司則獲取了智能語音助手Siri技術。比較不走運的是對一家瑞典地圖技術公司（C3）的收購，蘋果在此基礎上創立了Apple Maps。最后，蘋果兼并了幾家組件公司（芯片公司Intrinsity和P.A. Semi，閃存公司Anobit，還有安全設備廠商Authentec），將它們整合進了豐富多彩的“i”字輩產品中。 ????蘋果在本質上非常擅長打造具有創造力的新平臺。它們因為易于使用，讓數字生活變得合理，而廣受消費者青睞。它并不是第一家跨入PC機、MP3、智能手機甚至平板電腦領域的公司，但它卻徹底革新了這些領域。蘋果并不真正通過出售軟件或數字內容賺錢，但是它無縫集成了軟件和數字內容，從而支撐了高利潤的硬件業務。 ????但是蘋果骨子里追求的是巨大突破，而不是循序漸進。所以如果他們想要成為一家雄心勃勃的公司，我認為在他們在收購上需要同產品創新一樣高瞻遠矚，勇往直前。蘋果需要追求的三大主要推動力分別是： ????1. 收購內容。內容對于蘋果的平臺而言，具有戰略上的重大意義。但在蘋果宏大的計劃中，這只是業務里幾乎沒有意義的一部分。把蘋果所有的內容、軟件和服務（比如iCloud訂閱服務）加起來，也只占蘋果收入的6%。但客觀地來說，蘋果從所有充電器和其他配件上獲取的收入也僅占內容、軟件、服務三者創造的總收入的50%。 ????一些人認為蘋果應該收購網飛（Netflix）。理論上看這很合理：網飛的市值達到100億美元，與大量內容所有者有業務來往，擁有一個存有已開發內容的數據庫，還有令人愉快且忠心的顧客基礎。但這個設想在我看來則不是那么合理。顧客喜愛網飛的原因是他們可以將它應用于所有硬件設備上（多家制造商的電視機、游戲機和平板電腦等），而內容所有者愿意與網飛合作，是因為他們不希望iTunes在統治數字音樂之后再統治數字視頻領域。蘋果可以轉而收購迪斯尼（Walt Disney Co.，市值980億美元），并擁有內容豐富的巨大數據庫和“基礎設施”以開發更多產品（ABC/ESPN頻道、電影制片廠等）。迪斯尼主題公園可能需要出讓，但是迪斯尼的其余部分能夠給蘋果提供難以置信的平臺，以重新思考如何在這個隨需應變的世界發展家庭視頻業務。它還可以在硬件之外，從內容上獲取有意義的利潤，促使公司轉型。根據這個思路，時代華納（Time Warner）也是這個領域不錯的收購對象。 |
???? ????Yesterday was Apple's shareholder meeting and, as many of you know, there's been healthy debate about what they should do with its $137 billion in cash. I had read somewhere that Apple's cash pile was equivalent to Hungary's GDP so perhaps an activist shareholder should push an acquisition of Hungary rather than thinking small (e.g., increasing dividends or issuing preferred stock). ????Hungary probably wouldn't 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… ????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 M&A strategies actually make sense? ????For starters, Apple isn't Cisco (CSCO) or Oracle (ORCL). Instead, it's 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. ????Apple is fundamentally great at creating innovative new platforms that consumers love because they're easy to use and rationalize digital fragmentation. It wasn't the first in PCs, MP3 players, smartphones or even tablets -- yet Apple revolutionized each of those categories. Apple doesn't really make money by selling software or even digital content, but it seamlessly integrates software and content to support a high margin hardware business. ????But Apple's DNA is about quantum leaps, not incremental ones. So if they were to become an acquisitive company, I'd 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: ????1. Buy Content. Content is strategically important to Apple's platforms, but in the grand scheme of Apple it's a pretty meaningless part of their business. If you add up all the content, software and services (e.g., iCloud subscriptions), it's only about 6% of Apple's 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. ????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 don't 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. |
