索尼（Sony）日前公布了截止于6月30日的最新一季財報，當(dāng)季凈收入為35億日圓(3,500萬美元)，而先前一季則是虧損246億日圓；同時該公司最新一季營業(yè)利潤為367億日圓(3.6968億美元)，超越了分析師先前預(yù)測的253億日圓。 且先不必粉飾太平，Sony看似亮眼的財報結(jié)果主要是因為日圓走弱；而該公司本季 Xperia 系列智能手機與影像傳感器銷售成長，也對該財報結(jié)果貢獻不少?？傆婼ony這一季營收成長了13%，達到173億美元。所以，Sony已經(jīng)從泥淖中脫身了嗎？恐怕沒有。

索尼被分析師指：贏了財報，輸了市場
MTlesmc

Sony是否會一分為二，以恢復(fù)往日榮光？不確定。 在Sony的財報發(fā)布記者會上，該公司首席財務(wù)官加藤優(yōu)(Masaru Kato)表示：“我們雖達成了差強人意的(第一季)財報結(jié)果，但我并不肯定未來絕對樂觀?！边@種不確定性讓Sony仍然衰弱，也促使激進派股東 Daniel Loeb 提案將Sony拆分為兩家公司。 Loeb 的投資機構(gòu)Third Point提案建議Sony將賺錢的娛樂業(yè)務(wù)──電影、電視與音樂──的至少五分之一獨立，使其營運更透明化、可承擔(dān)會計責(zé)任。而Sony的董事會是在一個月之前接到Loeb的提案，當(dāng)時該公司首席執(zhí)行官平井一夫(Kazuo Hirai)表示將審慎考慮。 但 Sony首席財務(wù)官加藤日前表示，公司董事會還在討論Third Point的提案，包括從外部聘請財務(wù)顧問──說句不客氣的話，這種提案真的需要考慮這么久嗎？也許我漏了些什么，請告訴我為何將Sony一分為二是個好主意？我實在不了解這將如何有助于讓Sony電子業(yè)務(wù)復(fù)蘇。 針對我對Sony拆分提案的疑問，科技顧問機構(gòu)Envisioneering Group分析師Richard Doherty指出：“Loeb的野心以及他的既定目標(biāo)其實是兩回事；”他猜測，這位激進派股東：“是在利用Sony消費性電子業(yè)務(wù)(的弱點)，來為他自己的投資機構(gòu)尋求獲利?！? Doherty進一步表示：“我不認(rèn)為任何一個娛樂產(chǎn)業(yè)分析師能發(fā)現(xiàn)其中的邏輯。” 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 本文下一頁：能拯救Sony的不是哪種熱門商品，而是它積累的平臺

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 1H13半導(dǎo)體廠商Top 20，無晶圓和代工廠漲勢兇猛
• 每日一報7月30日：索尼松下開發(fā)下一代光盤，容量達藍光6倍
• 當(dāng)電子業(yè)務(wù)成為索尼的拖累……MTlesmc

{pagination} 一直以來，我都認(rèn)為將某個事業(yè)多角化經(jīng)營是件好事，因為雞蛋最好不要放在同一個籃子里。但如果我們相信Third Point的立場，Sony同時在一個屋檐下?lián)碛熊浖c硬件業(yè)務(wù)的策略忽然就變得不合時宜──因為所有一切都得打上“會計責(zé)任”的名號。 當(dāng)然，Sony并不是唯一同時擁有娛樂與硬件業(yè)務(wù)的公司；Panasonic曾經(jīng)在1990年收購環(huán)球影業(yè)(Universal Studios)的母公司MCA (Music Corporation of America)，后來又于1995年將之售予Seagram。 Seagram的負(fù)責(zé)人Edgar Bronfman Jr.藉由環(huán)球影業(yè)與MCA進軍電影娛樂市場，可惜僅維持了一段很短的時間。收購娛樂事業(yè)是一回事，如何有效率地經(jīng)營──特別是還伴隨著其它像是硬件的業(yè)務(wù)──又是另一回事；說比做總是容易得多。 在這方面，Sony在電影/娛樂業(yè)務(wù)堅持了足夠久的時間，不但學(xué)習(xí)到生意訣竅也與娛樂產(chǎn)業(yè)建立的穩(wěn)固的關(guān)系，是值得敬佩的。Doherty指出：“Samsung與LG也能藉由各種營銷砸錢進軍娛樂產(chǎn)業(yè)，但他們還是比Sony落后了十年?！? Doherty已經(jīng)觀察Sony很長一段時間，看到了Sony“與娛樂事業(yè)溝通、與觀眾溝通”之能力所帶來的內(nèi)在價值，因此他認(rèn)為這將有助于該公司建立“產(chǎn)生新營收來源的新平臺?！碑?dāng)然，Doherty所言之Sony“價值”，是一種看不見的東西。 讓我們面對現(xiàn)實：能拯救Sony的不是單一種、甚至兩種熱門商品。 如Doherty所說，它得是一種“可建立觀眾群與新收入來源”的新平臺或是新的業(yè)務(wù)模式──例如音樂卡帶、CD、DVD等過去綜合其軟硬件業(yè)務(wù)所推出的產(chǎn)品：“Sony知道如何開發(fā)觀眾模型，人們?nèi)栽诳丛摴救绾稳〉贸晒Α！? 對Doherty來說，這正是Sony所擁有的“魔法”，而將該公司拆分成兩半，將會毀掉那樣的能力──你可以說我耳根子軟，但我同意他的看法！ 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯：Judith Cheng 參考英文原文：Splitting Sony Won't Restore Its Future，by Junko Yoshida

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 1H13半導(dǎo)體廠商Top 20，無晶圓和代工廠漲勢兇猛
• 每日一報7月30日：索尼松下開發(fā)下一代光盤，容量達藍光6倍
• 當(dāng)電子業(yè)務(wù)成為索尼的拖累……MTlesmc

{pagination} Splitting Sony Won't Restore Its Future Junko Yoshida, Chief International Correspondent a year earlier. Sony also reported an operating profit of 36.7 billion yen ($369.68 million), beating the 25.3 billion yen profit expected by financial analysts. Let's not sugarcoat this. The company's results were boosted mostly by a weaker yen. The increased sales of Sony's Xperia smartphones and image sensors, however, also contributed to the results. Sony's revenue increased 13 percent, to $17.3 billion. So, is Sony out of the woods? Hardly. Will splitting Sony into two restore the future of Sony? I am not sure. During the company's press conference, Sony's chief financial officer, Masaru Kato, reportedly said: "We were able to achieve adequate (first-quarter) results but I'm not necessarily optimistic about the future." That uncertainty is keeping Sony vulnerable, giving an opening for activist shareholder Daniel Loeb to press his proposal to split Sony in two. Loeb's Third Point hedge fund wants Sony to spin off as much as a fifth of its money-making entertainment business operation -- movies, TV, and music -- in order to make it more transparent and accountable. Sony's board has been entertaining Loeb's proposal for over a month now. Sony CEO Kazuo Hirai told shareholders last month the company's board would carefully consider Third Point's suggestions. CFO Kato on Thursday, August 1, said the board was continuing to discuss the fund's suggestions, including input from outside financial advisers. With all that politeness aside, here's the thing: Is this a proposal Sony really needs to entertain for so long? I may be missing something here, but help me understand why splitting Sony in two is a good idea. I don't understand how this would ever help restore Sony's electronics business. When I asked the why-split-Sony question, Richard Doherty, director of technology consulting firm Envisioneering Group, made it very clear: "Mr. Loeb's ambition and his stated goal are two different things." He speculated that the activist may be "using the [weakness of the] CE business" to find gains for his hedge fund. "Talk to any entertainment industry analysts. I don't think anyone can find logic in this," said Doherty. Business diversification For a long time, I've believed that diversifying one's business is a good thing. You hedge the bets by not putting all eggs in one basket. But if we are to believe Third Point's position, Sony's strategy of having software and hardware businesses under one roof is suddenly falling out of fashion -- all in the name of "accountability." Of course, Sony wasn't alone to harbor the dream of owning both entertainment and hardware businesses. Panasonic was the owner of Universal Studios, then known as the Music Corporation of America, since acquiring the company in 1990 but sold it to Seagram in 1995. Seagram's head, Edgar Bronfman Jr., then, got in film entertainment through MCA and Universal Pictures. However, the new entertainment conglomerate he created had a brief life. Acquiring an entertainment business is one thing. Running it effectively -- especially alongside some other business like hardware -- is entirely another. It's easier said than done. In that respect, Sony deserves a lot of credit for having stuck it out with its movie/entertainment business long enough to learn the trade and build a solid relationship with the entertainment industry. "Samsung and LG could buy their way into the entertainment industry" by making various marketing deals, said Doherty. "But they are still a decade behind Sony." Doherty, who is taking a long view on Sony, sees the intrinsic value in Sony's ability to "communicate with the entertainment business and communicate with its audience." He believes that it will in the end help Sony build "a new platform that will generate new revenue streams." Of course, what's described by Doherty as Sony's value is something intangible. But let's face it: What will save Sony isn't a single hit product, not even two hit products. It has to come from a new platform or a new business model that "builds audience and creates new revenue streams" -- just like what audio cassette tapes, CDs, and DVDs have done so for both hardware and software businesses," explained Doherty. "Sony knows how to develop audience models. People are still looking to Sony to pull this off." To Doherty, that's the magic of Sony. Splitting the company in two is a sure way to kill that magic. Well, call me a softy. I agree with Doherty on this one.