智能手機(jī)市場利潤份額陷阱
|
????智能手機(jī)大戰(zhàn)當(dāng)中，什么指標(biāo)最重要，市場份額還是利潤份額？在喧囂的爭論聲中，薩米爾?辛格從顛覆性創(chuàng)新理論的角度，對當(dāng)前的形式進(jìn)行了冷靜地分析。 ????這位來自印度海德拉巴的分析師在其科技博客Tech-Thoughts上發(fā)表文章稱，目前的現(xiàn)狀——即蘋果（Apple）與三星（Samsung）共同占有了約100%的智能手機(jī)利潤——是一個(gè)“陷阱”。 ????辛格寫道：“目前，由于摻雜了經(jīng)濟(jì)因素，智能手機(jī)行業(yè)的利潤份額已經(jīng)被曲解。在購買力較高的市場所銷售的智能手機(jī)大多都會(huì)獲得補(bǔ)貼，從而確保了各大品牌的市場主導(dǎo)地位。但在購買力較低的市場所銷售的智能手機(jī)，卻往往沒有補(bǔ)貼，這便確保了低端手機(jī)和低端廠商（利潤更低）的優(yōu)勢地位?！?/p> ????到目前為止，蘋果不平衡的智能手機(jī)利潤份額受到了一個(gè)因素的保護(hù)——軟件與服務(wù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，其中包括數(shù)十萬個(gè)應(yīng)用、數(shù)以億計(jì)的歌曲和數(shù)十萬個(gè)信用卡賬戶。 ????但顛覆性創(chuàng)新理論認(rèn)為，當(dāng)產(chǎn)品日益改進(jìn)，變得“足夠好”而成為一款主流產(chǎn)品時(shí)，想通過生產(chǎn)一款“更好的”產(chǎn)品來建立一個(gè)穩(wěn)固的價(jià)值主張就會(huì)變得越來越困難。 ????對于蘋果而言，這個(gè)理論意味著，隨著競爭平臺不斷涌現(xiàn)，生態(tài)系統(tǒng)將從一個(gè)差異化因素變成辛格所謂的“保健因素”——即必要的、但不夠充分的購買條件。 ????辛格總結(jié)說：“一旦產(chǎn)品變得足夠出色，定價(jià)壓力和供應(yīng)商的議價(jià)能力將限制利潤。而如果投資者和分析師們繼續(xù)期望實(shí)現(xiàn)同樣不可持續(xù)的發(fā)展水平和盈利能力，‘利潤份額陷阱’就會(huì)出現(xiàn)更多問題。逃脫這個(gè)陷阱的唯一辦法是進(jìn)行多樣化經(jīng)營（IBM就是很好的例子），成為一家面向競爭日益激烈的原始設(shè)備制造領(lǐng)域（在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域，三星占據(jù)優(yōu)勢）的服務(wù)/軟件/組件供應(yīng)商，或者采取風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更大的方式——進(jìn)行另外一個(gè)方面的顛覆性創(chuàng)新（傳聞中的蘋果iWatch似乎便是這種嘗試的產(chǎn)物）?！?/p> ????當(dāng)然，嘗試的對象不一定是腕表。但如果辛格的理論是正確的，蘋果必須推出一款驚世之作。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)） ????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪浩 |
????In the midst of aloud debate over which matters most in the smartphone wars -- market share or profit share -- Sameer Singh calmly analyzes the situation from the perspective of disruption theory. ????Writing on his Tech-Thoughtsblog, the Indian analyst from Hyderabad describes the current state of affairs -- where Apple (AAPL) and Samsung share between them nearly 100% of smartphone profits -- as a "trap." ????"Profit share in the smartphone industry is currently skewed, because of the economics involved," Singh writes. "Smartphones sold in markets with higher purchasing power are mostly subsidized, which ensures that today's major brands dominate. Smartphones sold in markets with lower purchasing power are mostly unsubsidized, which ensures the dominance of low-end phones, and a number of low-end vendors (with far lower profits)." ????Until recently, Apple's lopsided share of smartphone profits was protected by a deep moat -- a software and services ecosystem that includes hundreds of thousands of apps, tens of millions of songs and hundreds of millions of credit card accounts. ????But disruption theory says that as products improve and become "good enough" for mainstream use, it becomes increasingly difficult to create a strong value proposition by making a "better" product. ????Applied to Apple, this suggests that as competing platforms catch up, the ecosystem will evolve from being a differentiator to what Singh calls a "hygiene factor" -- a necessary but not a sufficient condition for purchase. ????"As products become good enough," Singh concludes, "pricing pressure and supplier bargaining power limits profits. This "profit share trap" becomes more problematic as investors and analysts continue to expect the same, unsustainable level of growth and profitability. The only way to escape this trap is by diversifying (IBM is an example), becoming a services/software/component supplier to the increasingly competitive OEM space (Samsung has the advantage here) or by the riskiest approach -- attempting another disruption (Apple's rumored iWatch seems to be such an attempt)." ????It doesn't have to be a wristwatch, of course. But if Singh is right, Apple has to have something up its sleeve. |
最新文章