本周二，蘋果股價已經(jīng)是三月份第五次刷新紀(jì)錄了,，這也是蘋果股價今年第11次刷新紀(jì)錄?，F(xiàn)在我們應(yīng)該仔細(xì)觀察一下蘋果下一步將做些什么。蘋果一向是一個出色的顛覆者,，且歷來堅持“自造不外購”,。然而由于蘋果上周推出的新款iPad反響平平，很多人不禁質(zhì)疑,，蘋果是否還是那個犀利的創(chuàng)新企業(yè),。

我之前曾經(jīng)說過，蘋果正在執(zhí)行一種“收割戰(zhàn)略”,，以在趨平甚至下滑的市場上榨取盡可能多的利潤,，這也是一個非常聰明的戰(zhàn)略。由于平板電腦市場整體不景氣,，iPad也無法獨善其身,。蘋果試圖在還有些賺頭的情況下盡可能地收割利潤。這種戰(zhàn)略是說得過去的,，市場的反應(yīng)也證明了這一點——蘋果股價昨天再創(chuàng)歷史新高,。

Mac、iPad和iPhone作為蘋果的三大支柱產(chǎn)品,，其銷售額占蘋果總收益的比重超過了85%,，然而這三種產(chǎn)品也都面臨著越來越大的壓力。未來對蘋果只會越來越難,，而不是越來越簡單,。消費者已經(jīng)不愿升級到實際改動并不大的所謂“新款”，三星,、中興和華為等競爭對手與蘋果的差距也變得越來越小,，有時甚至能以更低的價格推出更高級的功能。另外,，平臺之戰(zhàn)的天平已經(jīng)開始朝著Android傾斜,。雖然蘋果在這些產(chǎn)品上還有不小的“收割”空間，但蘋果的長期展望卻著實不容樂觀,。

為了保住顛覆者的位置,，蘋果必須由防御性戰(zhàn)略轉(zhuǎn)向進(jìn)攻性戰(zhàn)略。好在蘋果的轉(zhuǎn)型資本還是很雄厚的,，一有優(yōu)質(zhì)的品牌聲譽(yù),，二有忠誠的用戶群，三有多達(dá)2000億美元左右的現(xiàn)金可用,。然而資本雄厚的廠商并非只有蘋果一家,，就在其他競爭對手大搞收購的同時，蘋果卻基本上對收購持觀望態(tài)度,。它迄今為止最大手筆的一次收購,，就是在2014年以30億美元收購了Beats公司。與其他很多競爭廠商相比,，這樣的手筆只是小巫見大巫,。

蘋果最近開拓新業(yè)務(wù)領(lǐng)域的嘗試也并非很成功。首先,，Apple Watch稱不上是一款革命性的產(chǎn)品,。其次，蘋果的汽車戰(zhàn)略目前似乎陷入停滯,。另外,，蘋果音樂也仍未追上與Spotify的差距,。正如新書《數(shù)字漩渦》（Digital Vortex）中所指出的那樣，蘋果需要更加擅于占領(lǐng)新的競爭領(lǐng)域,，不管它是不是那個領(lǐng)域的顛覆者,。

重新構(gòu)建某種商品或服務(wù)是需要耗費大量時間的。蘋果近來在核心產(chǎn)品之外的領(lǐng)域已經(jīng)失去了發(fā)展勢頭,，但它卻握有大量的現(xiàn)金,，而現(xiàn)在也到了蘋果應(yīng)該花錢的時候了。換句話說,，蘋果現(xiàn)在應(yīng)該做的是收購,，而不是自造。

那么,，蘋果下一次收購的目標(biāo)是誰呢,？首先，不管蘋果收購誰,，它必須要符合蘋果的公司形象,。它應(yīng)該具有出色的設(shè)計水平和較好的創(chuàng)新性、簡潔性,、科技性,，并且具有高端或奢華的口碑。這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)就可以排除一些人們熱議已久的目標(biāo)了,，比如迪士尼（業(yè)務(wù)太過多元化）和索尼（業(yè)務(wù)太復(fù)雜）,。目前看來，蘋果有可能或比較可能收購的目標(biāo)有：

潘朵拉（Pandora,，市值30億美元）

蘋果如果收購Spotify,，或許無法通過反壟斷機(jī)構(gòu)的審查。因此蘋果如果想在流媒體音樂領(lǐng)域擴(kuò)大地盤,，收購潘朵拉或許是個不錯的選擇,，而且這筆交易的規(guī)模也相對較小，大約只在30億到50億美元之間,。然而單憑這樣一次收購,，對蘋果的整體業(yè)務(wù)其實推動不大，蘋果的胃口應(yīng)該還要再大些,。

特斯拉（440億美元市值）

蘋果和特斯拉多年以來一直相愛相殺,，一邊相互貶低，一邊相互挖對方的工程師,。特斯拉作為一個強(qiáng)勢的高端創(chuàng)新品牌，不失為蘋果進(jìn)入汽車業(yè)務(wù)的一個捷徑。然而特斯拉也是一家規(guī)模相對較小且利潤較低的公司,，而且對各種震蕩十分敏感,。另外，說到特斯拉就不能不提它的CEO伊隆·馬斯克,，他與蘋果CEO蒂姆·庫克都是十分自負(fù)之人,，說不好會碰撞出什么火花,。

PayPal（520億美元市值）

蘋果的移動支付服務(wù)Apple Pay在2014年10月推出時曾被寄予厚望,，但它的普及速度并沒有達(dá)到很多人的預(yù)期。蘋果很是吃了一番苦頭才明白金融服務(wù)業(yè)的水有多深,，被保護(hù)得多好,，以及有多難以攻克。假若能夠獲得反壟斷監(jiān)管部門的審批,，那么收購PayPal將使消費者和商家更容易接受蘋果的支付服務(wù),。不過金融服務(wù)畢竟不是蘋果的核心業(yè)務(wù)，甚至有可能讓它從核心業(yè)務(wù)上分心,。

動視暴雪（370億美元市值）

蘋果很有可能進(jìn)軍游戲領(lǐng)域,，因為這個領(lǐng)域如今已經(jīng)比電影和音樂產(chǎn)業(yè)加起來還要龐大。雖然動視暴雪沒有自己的游戲機(jī)業(yè)務(wù),，但它在PC,、網(wǎng)游和手游領(lǐng)域都十分強(qiáng)勁（為了進(jìn)軍手游界，它還收購了熱門游戲《糖果粉碎傳奇》的制作商）,。如果蘋果想要進(jìn)入一個臨近產(chǎn)業(yè),，收購動視暴雪將是一個很不錯的選擇。

Netflix（610億美元市值）

蘋果已經(jīng)圍繞視頻做了很多年的文章了,，但它一直沒能擠進(jìn)視頻內(nèi)容制作或傳播的第一梯隊,。蘋果通過iPod、iPhone和iPad收割了很大的價值,，實現(xiàn)了巨大的成功,，而內(nèi)容制作者等業(yè)內(nèi)其他各方實際上處于吃虧的地位。不過現(xiàn)在已有很多證據(jù)表明,，目前天平正在朝遠(yuǎn)離設(shè)備制造商的一方傾斜,。Netflix和亞馬遜都看到了這種趨勢，也都在努力占據(jù)這股潮流的最前沿,。

Netflix在這方面已經(jīng)取得了巨大的成功——首先是在傳播上,，其次是在內(nèi)容制作上。相比之下,，蘋果在這一領(lǐng)域的反應(yīng)則很慢,，它需要付出大量努力才能彌補(bǔ)這一差距。尤其是現(xiàn)在各大傳統(tǒng)內(nèi)容制作商紛紛認(rèn)識到了他們所創(chuàng)作的內(nèi)容的價值，而亞馬遜等新進(jìn)者也發(fā)出了不少自己的聲音,。Netflix雖然是個很貴的收購目標(biāo),，但它能給蘋果帶來巨大的平臺價值。

由于蘋果的口碑已陷入岌岌可危的境地,，蘋果必須擴(kuò)展自己的當(dāng)前戰(zhàn)略,，開辟新的市場。從當(dāng)前的硬件市場上收割盡可能多的利潤當(dāng)然是無可厚非的,，但蘋果也需要在游戲,、內(nèi)容制作與傳播等領(lǐng)域上創(chuàng)造價值。蘋果歷來喜歡用自己構(gòu)建的產(chǎn)品打入新市場,，然而它最近幾次的類似嘗試都以失敗而告終,，時間也不再站在它這一邊了。因此,，蘋果應(yīng)該利用它的巨額資本進(jìn)行戰(zhàn)略采購,，并占領(lǐng)鄰近市場。而收購動視暴雪或者Netflix都是非常有吸引力的選項,。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

作者：Michael Wade

譯者：樸成奎

本文作者M(jìn)ichael Wade是全球數(shù)字業(yè)務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)型中心（Global Center for Digital Business Transformation）主任,、瑞士國際管理發(fā)展學(xué)院（IMD）創(chuàng)新與戰(zhàn)略學(xué)教授，也是《數(shù)字漩渦：當(dāng)今的市場領(lǐng)袖如何打敗顛覆性的競爭對手》一書的作者之一,。他并不是蘋果或本文提到的任何一家公司的投資人,。

As Apple’s stock climbed to its fifth record in March on Tuesday, and it’s 11th record this year, it’s a good time to take a serious look at what the tech giant should take on next. Apple is renowned for being a great disruptor, relying on a “build rather than buy” approach. However, when the company released an underwhelming new iPad last week, many began to question its innovator status.

I previously argued that Apple is pursuing a harvest strategy, a smart strategic move in which it extracts as much profit as possible from a static or declining market. iPad sales are down (along with all tablets), and Apple is trying to capture returns while it is still possible to do so. This makes sense, and the markets seem to agree, as Apple stock hit another record level yesterday.

However, the Mac, iPad and iPhone – responsible for more than 85% of Apple’s revenue – are all under increasing pressure today, and the future looks harder, not easier. Consumers are resisting the urge to upgrade for marginal improvements. Competitors, like Samsung, ZTE and Huawei are closing the quality gap and are, in many cases, providing superior features at a lower cost. Plus, IOS is losing the global platform war with Android. While there is still plenty of harvesting to be done from these lines of business, the long-term prognosis does not look positive.

To reassert its place as a digital disruptor, Apple will need to move from a defensive strategy to an offensive one. Thankfully, Apple has the brand name, the loyal following, and, with around $200 billion in cash on the balance sheet, the money to do so. Yet, while other cash-rich competitors have splashed out on high-profile acquisitions, Apple has largely watched from the sidelines. Its largest acquisition to date has been Beats for $3 billion in 2014 – a mere pittance compared to many of its peers.

Apple’s recent attempts to occupy new battlegrounds have not been very successful. The Apple Watch has failed to ‘revolutionize the wrist;’ Apple’s car strategy seems to have stalled and Apple Music has not been closing the gap to Spotify. Apple needs to become better at occupying new competitive spaces, as explained in the Digital Vortex, whether or not it is the disruptor.

Building from scratch takes time, and Apple has lost momentum recently in areas outside its core. The company has cash, and now is the time to spend it. It’s time to buy rather than build.

So what should Apple’s next acquisition be? First, any acquisition should fit the company’s image. It should have great design, be innovative, simplistic, technology-focused, and have a high-end or luxury reputation. These criteria rule out some commonly considered targets such as Disney (too diversified) and Sony (too complex). A list of possible and not-so-possible contenders includes:

Pandora ($3 billion market cap)

An acquisition of Spotify would probably not clear anti-trust scrutiny, so if Apple wants to gain an additional foothold in the music streaming arena, it could buy Pandora for a relatively small $3 billion to $5 billion. However, this will not move the needle much, and Apple should be thinking bigger.

Tesla ($44 billion market cap)

Apple and Tesla have been trading barbs and engineers for years. Buying Tesla could be a fast way for Apple to enter the car business, with a strong, high-end, innovative brand. However, Tesla is relatively small, unprofitable and vulnerable to shocks. It is also very much linked to its CEO, Elon Musk, which could mean a clash of egos with Apple CEO Tim Cook.

PayPal ($52 billion market cap)

Apple Pay, launched with great fanfare in October 2014, has not taken off as quickly as many expected. Apple has learned the hard way that the financial services industry is complex, well protected and generally hard to crack. The acquisition of PayPal (assuming it is approved by anti-trust regulators) would give Apple more heft to convince both consumers to adopt and merchants to accept its payment service. However, financial services are a long way from Apple’s core, and could become a distraction.

Activision Blizzard ($37 billion market cap)

Apple could move into the gaming arena, which has now become bigger than both the movie and music industries combined. While Activision Blizzard does not have a game console business, it is strong in PC, online and mobile gaming (with the acquisition of the parent company of Candy Crush). If Apple wants to enter an adjacent industry, this is an interesting option.

Netflix ($61 billion market cap)

Apple has been dancing around video for years, but has never managed to crack the upper echelons of content creation or distribution. It has achieved great success by capturing value from devices such as the iPod, iPhone and iPad at the expense of content generators and other ecosystem players. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest this balance is swinging away from device manufacturers. Both Netflix and Amazon understood this trend, and have been making strides to get ahead of it.

Netflix has been tremendously successful — first in the distribution, and now in the generation of content. Apple, by contrast, has been slow to react. It will have a hard time bridging this gap, especially with the traditional content generators waking up to the value they create, and other new entrants, like Amazon, making a lot of noise. Netflix is an expensive option, but would bring Apple massive platform value.

With its reputation at stake, Apple must expand on its current strategy and open new markets to play in. Harvesting as much profit as possible from its current hardware business makes sense, but it needs to transfer this value to new areas, such as gaming, and content generation and distribution. Traditionally, Apple builds its own products to enter new markets. However, its last few attempts to do so have flopped and time is not on its side. Therefore, Apple should use its massive wealth to make strategic acquisitions and occupy adjacent markets – with Activision Blizzard or Netflix making very attractive targets.

Michael Wade is Director of the Global Center for Digital Business Transformation, Professor of Innovation and Strategy at IMD and co-author of Digital Vortex: How Today's Market Leaders Can Beat Disruptive Competitors at Their Own Game. Wade is not an investor in Apple or other companies noted in this article.