????上個月，在線視頻流媒體服務商Netflix股價暴跌。億萬富翁馬克?庫班隨后增持了該公司股份，原因是他相信前者是一個絕佳的收購對象。無論他是對是錯，更有趣的問題在于，誰才是最符合邏輯的買家。

????截至今年第三季度末，Netflix擁有5010萬用戶。對于很多公司來說，Netflix十分誘人，因為它們都想利用其不斷增長的龐大用戶群體。今年，該公司還在六個歐洲國家取得了實質性進展，擴大了全球覆蓋范圍，提升了知名度。同時，Netflix開始制作原創連續劇，比如《紙牌屋》（House of Cards），另一部原創連續劇《女子監獄》（Orange is the New Black）也帶來了不俗的回報。

????然而，Netflix的市值已經達到230億美元，目前股價對應的市盈率超過了100倍。對大多數買家來說，該公司都可能過于昂貴。這縮小了潛在買家的范圍，也要求他們在實施收購時拿出有力的戰略依據。

????顯而易見而且經常掛在人們嘴邊的潛在收購者有兩家，分別是亞馬遜公司（Amazon）和蘋果公司（Apple）。它們既有資金又有收購意愿。不過，問題在于這兩家公司都有自己親手打造的流媒體視頻產品，而這些產品和Netflix存在競爭關系。考慮到內容上的重疊，收購Netflix可能會節省兩家公司用于購買內容的資金，但這同樣有可能擠占它們現有產品的空間，擾亂這些產品的戰略目標。

????亞馬遜在流媒體市場中的份額為1.6%，依然很小。但該公司擁有龐大的視頻庫，而且已經把尊享即時視頻（Prime Instant Video）作為營銷手段來吸引更多的該服務付費用戶。按照同樣的思路，亞馬遜可能借助收購來擴大尊享服務用戶群，并讓消費者長期使用這項服務；或者，就像收購在線游戲網站Twitch那樣，拿下一些切實與自身產品有互補性的公司，而不是讓收購造成業務重疊。

????考慮到這一點，亞馬遜收購Netflix的最主要原因應該是向后者的用戶推廣尊享即時視頻服務。但Netflix的平均年費（約100美元）和尊享用戶的年費（99美元）相當，而且消費者不太可能重復付費，如果收購Netflix，亞馬遜就可能被迫把這兩項服務捆綁在一起，這實際上相當于把尊享服務白送給Netflix用戶。同時，還不清楚有多少Netflix用戶已經開始在亞馬遜網站上購物（或者有可能在雙方不合并的情況下自然而然地成為亞馬遜用戶）。

????所有這些都表明，亞馬遜和Netflix應該在營銷方面進行某種形式的合作，但不一定非得合并。

????和Netflix不同，iTunes通過下載來出售內容。Netflix的訂閱模式可以和iTunes形成互補。但iTunes在下載市場的份額高達65%。很難想象，在可以單獨出售各項內容的情況下，蘋果公司會提供內容訂閱服務，從而讓自己的收入面臨風險。同時，盡管iTunes的收入增速確實正在放慢，但鑒于用i字頭產品構建獨立體系的策略一直都非常成功，蘋果不太可能因為引進非嫡系產品而淡化自己強大的品牌平臺。

????After Netflix’s stock dropped significantly last month, billionaire Mark Cuban raised his stakes in the company on the conviction that the online video streaming service is a prime takeover target. Regardless of whether he’s right, the more interesting question is who could be the most logical buyer?

????With 50.1 million subscribers at the end of the third quarter, Netflix is an attractive target for a wide range of companies looking to leverage its large and growing subscriber base. The company has also made meaningful inroads into six European countries this year, expanding its global reach and brand name. Its moves to produce original programming like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black has also paid off handsomely.

????But with a market capitalization of $23 billion and trading at a multiple north of a 100 times earnings per share, the company may be too expensive for most buyers. That narrows down the field of potential acquirers and demands a solid strategic rationale for a takeover.

????Two obvious, and often touted, potential suitors are Amazon AMZN 0.58% and Apple AAPL 1.30% , which have the cash and appetite to acquire a company like Netflix. The problem, however, is that both Amazon and Apple have competing streaming video products that are established in their own right. Buying Netflix might save them money in content acquisition because of the overlap, but it could also cannibalize their existing offerings and possibly interfere with the strategic purpose those offerings serve.

????While Amazon’s 1.6% share of the streaming market is still small, it boasts a large video library and uses Prime Instant Video as a marketing tool to increase its paid membership for Prime. Along the same lines, Amazon is likely to make acquisitions that expand its Prime membership and keep customers hooked to the program for the long-term, or as in the case of its acquisition of online gaming site Twitch, buy companies that truly complement its offerings instead of doubling up on them.

????Given this, the primary reason to buy Netflix NFLX -0.03% would be to sell Prime to its subscribers. But since the average annual cost of Netflix (about $100) is the same as a yearly Prime membership of $99, and since consumers aren’t likely to pay the fee twice, Amazon would be forced to bundle the two — effectively giving away Prime for free to reach Netflix subscribers. It’s also unclear how many Netflix subscribers already shop at Amazon (or could become shoppers naturally without a merger between the two companies).

????What all this implies is that there is rationale for some type of marketing partnership between Amazon and Netflix, but not necessarily a merger.

????By contrast, iTunes sells its content via downloads. Netflix’s subscription model would be complementary to its service, but with a hefty 65% of the downloads market, it’s hard to see why Apple would risk this revenue stream by offering subscription-based content that it can sell individually instead. Also, it’s true that iTunes’ revenue growth is slowing, but Apple’s strategy of a self-contained universe of i-products has been so successful that it is unlikely to dilute its powerful branded platform by inviting an outsider into the family.