????2、收購管道。許多人認為通訊的基礎設施將成為“啞管道”，而內容和/或硬件公司將會贏取家庭的“資訊娛樂”項目。現在看來，管道公司仍然頗有價值，而即時點播的視頻并沒有淘汰管道。大家仍然需要電纜或光纖接入家中，以觀看網飛上的節目，而“有線電纜”公司【康卡斯特（Comcast）、時代華納有線（Time Warner Cable）、威瑞森（Verizon Fios）等等】的總收入也沒有真正減少的跡象。此外，建設通往家中的電信網絡難度很大，而且價格不菲……Google Fiber僅在美國前100座城市中的1座提供這種服務是有原因的。衛星電視公司（DirectTV、Dish Network）有著利潤頗豐的電視業務和覆蓋全國的網絡系統，但是缺少真正的寬帶網絡服務，所以他們并不適合。

????擁有管道和與之匹配的內容業務可以在戰略上助蘋果一臂之力。首先，iPhone的成功帶來了大量利潤，因為它獲取了雙份收入——顧客要付給蘋果錢，而無線運營商也要為每臺設備向蘋果付費（以補貼的形式）。不過無論Apple TV有多好，都很難再現這種盛況，讓有線電視公司補貼成本。iPhone問世時，大概有三到四家全國性的無線運營商，因此可以理解為什么美國電話電報公司（AT&T）獨家同蘋果合作。但是有線市場基本由地方雙頭壟斷，甚至獨家壟斷，所以他們沒有動機來改變消費份額。

????但是如果蘋果坐擁其中某家大型有線公司，就可以通過每月的訂購收入進行內部補貼，從而增加電視的利潤。蘋果還可以立刻獲得大量電視和電影內容。此外，如果他們收購了康卡斯特（Comcast，市值1,060億美元），就能得到買一贈一的優惠。其一是內容生產，其二是管道。如今康卡斯特已經完全收購了美國國家廣播環球公司（NBC Universal）。

????3、垂直整合。蘋果還能以更徹底的方式進行垂直整合。我不是指收購鴻海集團（Hon Hai，又名富士康），以控制大量勞動力和蘋果硬件的生產。我指的是收購零部件供應商，比如美滿（Marvell，市值50億美元）或意法半導體（STMicroelectronics，市值70億美元）以提供芯片，或者夏普（Sharp，市值30億美元）或東芝（Toshiba）以提供液晶顯示屏等等。三星（Samsung）和LG這類公司也向蘋果供應顯示屏，但是由于它們在終端用戶設備上存在一定的競爭，因此收購其中的任何一家可能都沒有意義。顯示器配件利潤超低，因此蘋果不太可能做這個，不過可以想見，收購一半股權是個更好的選擇。但是說到底，垂直整合并不會像第一條和第二條方案那樣真正改變蘋果的業務。

????4、收購社交平臺。從我的戰略觀點來看，Facebook（市值630億美元）是唯一有意義的收購對象。Twitter的戰略協作意義不夠深遠，而由于蘋果是一家消費公司，而不以商務為中心，因此商務社交網站LinkedIn也可以排除。不過即便蘋果能夠按照目前的股價給Facebook的股東支付100%的溢價，考慮到馬克?扎克伯格在公司的表決控制權，收購也絕不可能發生。我打賭，當然，蘋果不會做以上任何事情。這樣看來，也許收購匈牙利開始顯得更加合理……（財富中文網）

????作者李?豪威爾是投資公司NextView Ventures的共同創始人和普通合伙人。這家公司總部位于波士頓，主要從事早期互聯網相關公司投資。他曾是商務社交網站LinkedIn的創始團隊成員，從LinkedIn創立至成長初期擔任企業發展總監。他目前的博客設在AgileVC網站。

????譯者：嚴匡正

????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.