|
????上周五我在《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）發(fā)表了一篇文章，打頭一句就說過：“蘋果（Apple）永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)收購Twitter”。但是上周六的《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（New York Times）的文章標(biāo)題卻赫然寫道，蘋果官方表示有意考慮收購Twitter的股份。看到這篇報(bào)道，我的心簡直停跳了一拍。難道我錯(cuò)了？ ????讀完《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》記者伊芙琳?魯斯利和尼克?比爾頓的這篇報(bào)道后，我冷靜了下來。所謂蘋果收購Twitter的消息只是一場討論，而不是一次交易。即便成真，也只是一筆投資，而不是收購。而且雙方的談判已經(jīng)結(jié)束了，以失敗告終。 ????《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的報(bào)道見報(bào)幾個(gè)小時(shí)后，《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（Wall Street Journal）也發(fā)表了一篇文章跟進(jìn)這個(gè)消息。從《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》的報(bào)道看，蘋果對(duì)Twitter的收購似乎更遙不可及。據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》的一位“熟悉雙方談判內(nèi)情”的人士表示，蘋果和Twitter的談判早在一年多以前就開始了，而不是像《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》所說的那樣，是在“最近幾個(gè)月”。 ????兩家媒體雖然都沒有明確說明，但均暗示道，這筆投資實(shí)際上一直沒有實(shí)現(xiàn)。 ????那么如果蘋果真的向Twitter投資了幾億美元又會(huì)怎么樣？我認(rèn)為這種交易對(duì)對(duì)方都是說得通的。 ????只需要付出賣幾天iPhone的收入，蘋果就可以從Twitter那里獲得它無法從Facebook那里獲得的合作。Twitter也可以通過大量的侵入性廣告賺錢，把被迫做價(jià)出售的日子推遲得久一些。 ????蘋果有一條著名的原則，蒂姆?庫克也總是利用每個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)再三提起這個(gè)原則，也就是生產(chǎn)“世界上最好的產(chǎn)品”，然后在令全行業(yè)羨慕的高利潤點(diǎn)上銷售出數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的產(chǎn)品。除此以外，蘋果做的任何事，無論是iTunes還是“天才吧”，都是為了支持硬件銷售而做的。 ????蘋果CEO蒂姆?庫克在今年春天的一次科技會(huì)議上自問自答道：“蘋果需要社交化嗎？是的。但蘋果并不需要擁有一家社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)。” ????而Twitter首席執(zhí)行官迪克?科斯特洛本月初對(duì)《洛杉磯時(shí)報(bào)》（L.A. Times）稱，他的公司并不急于上市或出售。他說，Twitter“在銀行里還有一卡車的錢。” ????不過他并沒有說那里面是否包含蘋果投資的錢。 ????最新消息：彭博社（Bloomberg）上周日?qǐng)?bào)道，據(jù)一位“熟悉此事”的人士透露，蘋果與Twitter的投資談判“無果而終”。 ????譯者：樸成奎 |
????Having posted a piece Friday suggesting -- right in the first sentence -- that Apple (AAPL) would never buy Twitter, my heart stopped briefly when I saw the headline Apple Officials Said to Consider Stake in Twitter in Saturday's New York Times.Could I have been wrong? ????I calmed down a bit when I read Evelyn Rusli and Nick Bilton's piece. These were discussions, not a deal. About an investment, not an acquisition. And the negotiations were over. Done. Kaput. ????The Wall Street Journal's catch-up-to-the-Timespiece, posted a few hours later, made an acquisition seem even more remote. According to the Journal's "person familiar with the talks," the discussions occurred more than a year ago, not in "recent months" as the Times had it. ????Both papers implied, without actually saying it, that the proposed investment was never consummated. ????But so what if Apple had invested a few hundred million dollars in Twitter? That's the kind of deal I can see making sense for both parties. ????For a couple days worth of iPhone revenue, Apple gets the kind of cooperation from Twitter that itdoesn't get from Facebook (FB).And Twitter can postpone a little longer the day it has to junk up its elegant 140-character messaging service with a flood of intrusive advertising. ????Apple is a company famous for sticking to its knitting which is -- as Tim Cook reminds us at every opportunity -- making the "very best products in the world" and selling millions of them at profit margins that are the envy of the rest of the industry. Everything else it does -- from iTunes to the Genius Bar -- it does in support of those hardware sales. ????"Does Apple need to be social? Yes." Cook asked himself rhetorically at a tech conference this spring. "Apple doesn't have to own a social network." ????For his part, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo told the L.A. Times earlier this month that his company was in no hurry go public or find a buyer.Twitter has, he said, "a truckload of money in the bank." ????He did not say if any of it was Apple's. ????UPDATE: Bloomberg reported Sunday that according to one source "familiar with the matter," discussions of an Apple investment in Twitter ended "without an agreement." |
最新文章