我從不曾懷疑過(guò)自己的人性，直到有一天，家人給了我一本有趣的書：《我們?nèi)祟悾?人類追尋自我價(jià)值及定位的歷史》(So You Think You're Human？－A Brief History of Humankind)。它使我開(kāi)始懷疑對(duì)于有關(guān)人類的假設(shè)及其所代表的意思。這本書的作者是Felipe Fernandez-Armesto，雖然這并不是一本探討商業(yè)領(lǐng)域的書籍，但我還是推薦給所有產(chǎn)業(yè)的企業(yè)主管們，特別是電子產(chǎn)業(yè)OEM和半導(dǎo)體公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者們。 最近我在編輯一則有關(guān)消費(fèi)電子與PC巨擘──蘋果公司的文章時(shí)，突然想到了這本書。跟這本書看似不相關(guān)的文章中提到，蘋果公司可能考慮自行生產(chǎn)其Macintosh計(jì)算機(jī)芯片組以及其它自家的消費(fèi)性電子產(chǎn)品。這將意味著它將放棄其現(xiàn)有的供貨商──英特爾(Intel)的芯片，甚至為其它OEM類似的行動(dòng)開(kāi)啟了一扇門，還可能終止x86架構(gòu)十年來(lái)在計(jì)算機(jī)領(lǐng)域的主導(dǎo)地位。 這篇文章的觀點(diǎn)與蘋果對(duì)于宣稱侵犯其專利的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手采取的強(qiáng)勢(shì)作法不謀而合，例如已故的蘋果CEO喬布斯向Google訴諸“熱核戰(zhàn)”(thermonuclear war)、壓榨供貨商降低成本等等。然而，蘋果公司在市場(chǎng)上舉足輕重，就連智能手機(jī)與平板電腦的對(duì)手三星電子(Samsung Electronics)也難與其較勁。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)地，蘋果已經(jīng)是當(dāng)今業(yè)界眾廠商爭(zhēng)相討好的公司了。 然而，對(duì)于蘋果和電子產(chǎn)業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)，還存在一個(gè)較大的問(wèn)題。我想強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，蘋果能有今天的成就，部份原因在于該公司的供貨商都愿意配合其要求，甚至在蘋果還是PC市場(chǎng)的小公司正準(zhǔn)備進(jìn)軍消費(fèi)電子市場(chǎng)之際。而今，如果背棄曾經(jīng)協(xié)助過(guò)你站起來(lái)的公司，我認(rèn)為這將是一項(xiàng)很糟糕的經(jīng)營(yíng)策略，最終還可能讓你的公司付出更大的代價(jià)。 現(xiàn)在，讓我針對(duì)蘋果在電子產(chǎn)業(yè)供應(yīng)鏈中的角色提供更多的觀察。就我所知，在電子產(chǎn)業(yè)領(lǐng)域中，還沒(méi)有其它公司能達(dá)到 像蘋果一樣的成長(zhǎng)速度，當(dāng)然也沒(méi)有其它廠商能如此徹底地吸引投資人。在短短的三年內(nèi)，該公司的銷售額就成長(zhǎng)了三倍多，從2009年的429億美元成長(zhǎng)到 2012年約1,565億美元。該公司巨大的購(gòu)買力(蘋果公司2012年的銷貨總成本約88億美元)，意味著它有能力決定一家供貨商的成敗。光是蘋果公司 巨大半導(dǎo)體采購(gòu)預(yù)算的一小部份，就可能使一家公司的營(yíng)收大幅增加，并迅速提升市場(chǎng)價(jià)值。相反地，如果損失了這么大筆的合約，也可能會(huì)結(jié)束掉一家公司的業(yè)務(wù)。 讓我解譯一下這些數(shù)字的意義。如果你是(或希望成為)蘋果公司的供貨商，一旦蘋果公司發(fā)了一封短信說(shuō)要見(jiàn)你，就算你是英特爾公司的CEO，你應(yīng)該也會(huì)丟下一切，跑到加州Cupertino去吧！更何況英特爾可不是電子產(chǎn)業(yè)中的小公司，它是世界上最大的半導(dǎo)體供應(yīng)商，2011年的銷售額達(dá)到了540億美元。如果蘋果公司決定放棄使用英特爾的處理器，這一舉動(dòng)將對(duì)于已在移動(dòng)手機(jī)市場(chǎng)備受ARM壓力的英特爾頭痛更嚴(yán)重三倍。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 本文下一頁(yè)：蘋果也應(yīng)該重新考慮其他供應(yīng)商

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 英特爾CEO提前退休，繼任者肩負(fù)向移動(dòng)領(lǐng)域轉(zhuǎn)型重任
• 蘋果轉(zhuǎn)單效應(yīng)發(fā)酵，爾必達(dá)移動(dòng)內(nèi)存營(yíng)收增長(zhǎng)七成
• [拆拆看]硬件與上代相似，iPad 4是來(lái)打醬油的么？lLhesmc

{pagination} 蘋果公司應(yīng)該重新慎重考慮這項(xiàng)決定。雖然蘋果并沒(méi)義務(wù)持續(xù)與英特爾的業(yè)務(wù)往來(lái)，而英特爾公司本身也沒(méi)權(quán)利決定業(yè)界應(yīng)該流行什么。我并不是在指責(zé)蘋果公司為了堅(jiān)持使用一家定供貨商，而犧牲掉另一家原有的供貨商。然而，沒(méi)有任何一家公司可以自行處理涉及設(shè)計(jì)、生產(chǎn)、配送、銷售以及產(chǎn)品售后服務(wù)的所有活動(dòng)。甚至讓許多公司覺(jué)得自己隨時(shí)可輕易地被取代，無(wú)論該公司現(xiàn)有的情況如何，對(duì)于長(zhǎng)期的敗務(wù)策略來(lái)說(shuō)，這都不是一項(xiàng)應(yīng)有的決定。 在電子產(chǎn)業(yè)中，沒(méi)有任何一家公司能夠永遠(yuǎn)占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位，而且蘋果公司的優(yōu)勢(shì)目前也已經(jīng)在多個(gè)市場(chǎng)開(kāi)始受到打擊了，包括數(shù)位音樂(lè)播放器(MP3)、智能手機(jī)和平板電腦等市場(chǎng)。蘋果公司過(guò)去在這些市場(chǎng)所實(shí)現(xiàn)的銷售數(shù)字將開(kāi)始發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變，因?yàn)樗鼘?shí)在是一個(gè)太誘人的目標(biāo)了，許多公司都已經(jīng)以蘋果豐厚的利潤(rùn)設(shè)定其范圍了。例如，根據(jù)最近的統(tǒng)計(jì)報(bào)告指出，三星公司在今年第三季的智能手機(jī)市場(chǎng)出貨量已經(jīng)超越了蘋果公司。 就像本文標(biāo)題所說(shuō)的，沒(méi)有一家公司能在任何市場(chǎng)中永遠(yuǎn)立于不敗之地。蘋果公司并非天下無(wú)敵，總有一天，蘋果也會(huì)需要求助于其重要的供貨商。如果它對(duì)于其現(xiàn)有供貨商的需要仍然不聞不問(wèn)，總有一天，它將會(huì)付出同樣的代價(jià)。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯：Susan Hong 參考英文原文：So You Think Apple Is Invincible...，by Bolaji Ojo, Editor in Chief

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 英特爾CEO提前退休，繼任者肩負(fù)向移動(dòng)領(lǐng)域轉(zhuǎn)型重任
• 蘋果轉(zhuǎn)單效應(yīng)發(fā)酵，爾必達(dá)移動(dòng)內(nèi)存營(yíng)收增長(zhǎng)七成
• [拆拆看]硬件與上代相似，iPad 4是來(lái)打醬油的么？lLhesmc

{pagination} So You Think Apple Is Invincible... Bolaji Ojo I had never questioned my humanity until a family member gave me an interesting book titled So You Think You're Human: A Brief History of Humankind. It forced me to question my assumptions about humanity and what it meant. The book, by Felipe Fernández-Armesto, is not about the business world, but I still recommend it to corporate executives in all industries and especially leaders of electronic OEMs and semiconductor companies. The book came to mind while I was editing a seemingly unrelated article about how consumer electronics and PC giant Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) may be considering producing (itself) chipsets for the Macintosh computers and possibly many of its consumer electronics products. This will mean dumping current vendor Intel Corp. (Nasdaq: INTC), opening the door for similar moves by other OEMs (OK, that may be a stretch), and possibility ending the dominance of the X86 architecture that has reigned over the computing market for decades. Couple this with the take-no-prisoners way Apple has pursued rivals for allegedly violating its patents, the late CEO Steve Jobs's declaration of "thermonuclear war" on Google, and the squeeze it allegedly puts on suppliers to reduce inventory costs, and you get the image of a company really throwing its weight around. Apple's heft is substantial -- not even smartphone and tablet market rival Samsung Electronics relishes a dust-up with the company. Today, Apple is the undisputed no. 1 company that vendors fawn over, for good reasons. There's a bigger issue here, though, for the industry and for Apple. What I'd like to point out is that Apple got to where it is today because its supply base was willing to work with the company even when it was a bit player in the PC market and during its march up the consumer electronics food chain. Dumping the companies that helped push you up is a bad business strategy that may eventually cost a company a lot more than it might gain. More on this later. For now, let me provide some additional insight into Apple's role in the electronics supply chain. No other company in the electronics world has to my knowledge grown as rapidly as Apple, and certainly no other has captured investor imagination quite as completely. In just three years, its sales more than tripled to $156.5 billion in fiscal 2012 ended September 29 from $42.9 billion in fiscal 2009. The company's enormous purchasing power (total costs of goods sold in Apple's fiscal 2012 was approximately $88 billion) means it can make or break a vendor. A slice of Apple's enormous semiconductor procurement budget could swell a company's revenue and dramatically jack up its market value. The loss of such a contract could, conversely, drive an enterprise out of business. Let me translate again what those numbers mean if you are a supplier -- or wish to be a vendor -- to Apple. Even if you are the CEO of Intel, you'd drop everything and run down to Cupertino, Calif., if Apple sent a text message asking to see you. And Intel isn't one of the smallest companies in the electronics market: It is the world's biggest semiconductor supplier by sales with $54 billion in 2011 revenue. If Apple drops Intel, this move will automatically triple the severity of the headache the chipmaker is already experiencing from the lock ARM Ltd. (Nasdaq: ARMHY; London: ARM) seeming has on the mobile handset market. Apple should rethink this move. The company has no obligations to keep Intel in business, and the semiconductor vendor itself does not have a right to what should prevail in the industry. I am not advocating Apple stick with a particular supplier at the expense of another. However, no single company can handle the dozens of activities involved in the design, production, distribution, sales, and after-sales support of its products. Making companies feel as if they can be easily replaced isn't a fiscally good long-term strategy notwithstanding your company's current position. No company in this industry reigns forever, and Apple's domination is already under assault in all of its markets, including digital music players, smartphones, and tablet PCs. The numbers will start to shift against the company because it is too tempting a target, and too many companies have their scope set on its fat margins. A recent report noted Samsung beat Apple in smartphone shipment during the third quarter, for example. As the headline of this blog indicates, no company has an unassailable position in any market. Apple is not invincible. A day will come when it will need to call in some favors for critical supplies or to clinch a share-winning deal. If it remains blind and deaf to the needs of its current suppliers, they'll repay the favors in equal measures.