????我認為，對康柏的收購并沒有那么糟糕。如果你試圖成為一家大型電腦公司，收購康柏順理成章。這跟目前傳說中的EMC和惠普合并一案并沒有什么區別，都是講得通的。當時，惠普在x86系統（一種基于英特爾處理器的計算程序）和存儲器方面的技術比較薄弱。康柏給了他們這兩項技術。顯然，要是當初沒有收購康柏，惠普就不可能擁有如今的市場地位。

????你對惠普的管理層有何評價？

????這些年來，他們失去了很多人才。我認為，惠普的管理已經無法企及昔日的水平。但我的確相信，CEO梅格?惠特曼已經做了一些改進。最近，我們跟惠普首席戰略官穆罕默德?阿里進行了一場電話會議。梅格給惠普引入了寶潔公司(Procter & Gamble)率先使用的“為勝利而戰”(Playing to Win)戰略。她是在那里學到的，因為寶潔CEO雷富禮曾經在2000年代使用過這種方式。他們擁有這樣的戰略框架。我還沒有聽說過有人對這種理念不屑一顧。它已經被應用了大約9到12個月。我聽說，她和惠普的約100名高層在異地開了一個會。她說，“我希望大家都來閱讀這本書。我會考考你們對它的理解程度。”飛機上的空姐注意到了。她們想知道在這趟飛往拉斯維加斯的航班上，為什么每位乘客都在閱讀同一本書。由此可見，惠普管理層還是很有紀律意識的。

????惠普最近一直在談論云計算，但我并沒有感覺到它的云計算戰略跟競爭對手有什么不同之處，不少競爭對手進入這一領域的時間都要比惠普更長一些。

????總體而言，觀察家們還不清楚。我們最近采訪了比爾?維迪（惠普企業技術事業部負責人，曾長期擔任微軟高管）。他們目前有三個不同的管理團隊在運營其云技術戰略。這項信息技術業務的名稱已經被改為Helion。它有好幾個特色，其中有不少還沒有對外公布。因此，對于惠普來說，這還是一個在不斷改進的半成品。

????在大約10年前那篇文章的結尾，卡羅爾?盧米斯問卡莉?菲奧莉娜，哪家公司當時處于領導地位。菲奧莉娜回答說，沒有這樣的公司。但現在回想起來，蘋果公司的領先優勢顯然要比她想象的大得多。你現在如何回答這個問題？

????蘋果現在當然是全球領先的消費技術公司。IBM則是全球領先的企業技術公司。不過，微軟、甲骨文(Oracle)和惠普也并沒有被遠遠拋在后面。分拆后成立的惠普Inc公司，可能非常接近成為一家消費技術和企業技術各占據一半的公司。惠普如何協調如此多業務這一問題依然存在。我認為，此次拆分是為了更好地定位企業技術業務。他們在這方面比較脆弱。人們還看不清楚該公司的云戰略。

????最后一個問題：你最近怎么樣？如今的工作跟以前的分析師工作有什么不同？

????當下與上世紀90年代初非常類似。我們正在再次經歷一個破壞性時期，一切都在改變。投資者應該汲取的教訓是：離開正占據主導地位的企業，專注于單一業務公司。硅谷現在的氛圍甚至比上世紀90年代更加壓抑，各路新公司都說，他們要摧毀在位者。我說那里令人沮喪，是因為我的客戶擁有的公司正在遭受攻擊。但EMC、IBM，甚至包括惠普，并沒有迅速地消失。（財富中文網）

????譯者：葉寒

????I’d argue that the Compaq acquisition wasn’t so bad. If you were going to try to be a major computer company, the Compaq deal made some sense. It’s not unlike the rumored EMC EMC -1.57% and HP combination currently [rumored], which could make some sense. Back then HP was weak in x86 systems [a type of computing based on Intel processors] and storage. Compaq gave them both. Clearly they would not be in the market position they are in today if they hadn’t done that acquisition.

????What is your assessment of HP’s management?

????They’ve lost so much talent over the years. I don’t think it can ever be what it once was. But I do believe CEO Meg Whitman has made improvements. We did a conference call recently with Mohamad Ali, HP’s chief strategist. Meg has brought to HP this “Playing to Win” approach, which Procter & Gamble PG -1.56% uses. She learned it there because [P&G CEO] A.G. Lafley used it in the 2000s. They have this strategic framework. I had never heard boo about this. It’s nine to 12 months old. I heard she had an offsite with the top 100 or so managers at HP. And she said, “I want you all to read this book. I’m going to test you on it.” The flight attendants noticed. They wanted to know why everybody on this flight to Las Vegas was reading the same book. It gives you a sense of the discipline there.

????HP has been talking a lot about the cloud lately, but I don’t have a sense of how its cloud computing strategy is different from the competition, several of whom have been at it longer than HP.

????In general, observers are unclear. We talked recently to Bill Veghte [the head of HP’s enterprise group and a longtime Microsoft executive]. They’ve had three different management teams running their cloud strategy. The IT has been rebranded as Helion. It has several features, many of which aren’t available yet. So, for HP, that is a work in progress.

????Toward the end of her article almost a decade ago, Carol Loomis asked Carly Fiorina who the leading technology company of the day was. Fiorina responded that there was no one company, but in retrospect Apple exerted far more than its fair share of leadership. What would your answer be today?

????Apple today is clearly the world’s leading consumer tech company. And IBM is the leading enterprise company. But Microsoft, Oracle, and HP aren’t far behind. The HP Inc company is probably pretty close to half consumer and half enterprise. There’s still the question of how HP fits in. I think the split is to better position the enterprise side. They are vulnerable there. Their cloud strategy is unclear to people.

????Last question: How about you? What’s different today from your previous stint as an analyst?

????It’s very similar to the early ’90s. We’re going through one of those disruptive periods when everything is changing. The lesson for investors is this: Get out of the incumbents and focus on the pure-plays. Going out to Silicon Valley is even more depressing than it was in the 1990s, with new players saying they are going to destroy the incumbents. It’s depressing because my clients own the companies that are under attack. But EMC and IBM—and even HP—are not going away quickly.