????智能手機大戰當中，什么指標最重要，市場份額還是利潤份額？在喧囂的爭論聲中，薩米爾?辛格從顛覆性創新理論的角度，對當前的形式進行了冷靜地分析。

????這位來自印度海德拉巴的分析師在其科技博客Tech-Thoughts上發表文章稱，目前的現狀——即蘋果（Apple）與三星（Samsung）共同占有了約100%的智能手機利潤——是一個“陷阱”。

????辛格寫道：“目前，由于摻雜了經濟因素，智能手機行業的利潤份額已經被曲解。在購買力較高的市場所銷售的智能手機大多都會獲得補貼，從而確保了各大品牌的市場主導地位。但在購買力較低的市場所銷售的智能手機，卻往往沒有補貼，這便確保了低端手機和低端廠商（利潤更低）的優勢地位。”

????到目前為止，蘋果不平衡的智能手機利潤份額受到了一個因素的保護——軟件與服務生態系統，其中包括數十萬個應用、數以億計的歌曲和數十萬個信用卡賬戶。

????但顛覆性創新理論認為，當產品日益改進，變得“足夠好”而成為一款主流產品時，想通過生產一款“更好的”產品來建立一個穩固的價值主張就會變得越來越困難。

????對于蘋果而言，這個理論意味著，隨著競爭平臺不斷涌現，生態系統將從一個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。

????辛格總結說：“一旦產品變得足夠出色，定價壓力和供應商的議價能力將限制利潤。而如果投資者和分析師們繼續期望實現同樣不可持續的發展水平和盈利能力，‘利潤份額陷阱’就會出現更多問題。逃脫這個陷阱的唯一辦法是進行多樣化經營（IBM就是很好的例子），成為一家面向競爭日益激烈的原始設備制造領域（在這個領域，三星占據優勢）的服務/軟件/組件供應商，或者采取風險更大的方式——進行另外一個方面的顛覆性創新（傳聞中的蘋果iWatch似乎便是這種嘗試的產物）。”

????當然，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。（財富中文網）

????譯者：劉進龍/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.