科技行業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)來(lái)臨,。蘋(píng)果公司的銷(xiāo)售額和利潤(rùn)13年來(lái)第一次出現(xiàn)滑坡，導(dǎo)致金融市場(chǎng)暴跌,，蘋(píng)果的市值也隨之蒸發(fā)430億美元,。高科技世界就是這樣大起大落。

2016年第一季度,，蘋(píng)果68%的收入都來(lái)自iPhone，iPad和Mac電腦各自只占9%,。蘋(píng)果成了一家純粹的手機(jī)供應(yīng)商,，但過(guò)度依賴單一產(chǎn)品實(shí)現(xiàn)增長(zhǎng)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)愈發(fā)明顯。

在史蒂夫·喬布斯治下,，蘋(píng)果一直在搶占自家產(chǎn)品的市場(chǎng)。2005年iPod Mini仍有巨大需求時(shí),，蘋(píng)果就推出了iPod Nano,，截?cái)嗔薸Pod Mini的收入。在iPod依然銷(xiāo)售火爆之際,，喬布斯將集iPod,、手機(jī)和上網(wǎng)功能于一身的iPhone投入市場(chǎng)。iPhone上市三年后,，iPad又出現(xiàn)在人們面前，看起來(lái)有可能侵占Mac臺(tái)式機(jī)的銷(xiāo)售額,。蘋(píng)果在上馬高利潤(rùn)業(yè)務(wù)迎接不確定的未來(lái)時(shí)總是很堅(jiān)決,，就像喬布斯反復(fù)說(shuō)的：“如果你不搶自己的市場(chǎng)，別人就會(huì)搶走,?！?/p>

這條箴言顯然已經(jīng)隨風(fēng)而去,。

蒂姆·庫(kù)克上任后,，蘋(píng)果利用在新興市場(chǎng)的地位繼續(xù)高歌猛進(jìn)。中國(guó)在蘋(píng)果收入中所占的比重從2011年的9%升至2014年的29%,。更讓人擔(dān)心的是缺乏新產(chǎn)品,。Apple Watch尚未闖出名堂，蘋(píng)果就推出了現(xiàn)有產(chǎn)品的多個(gè)變體,，比如iPhone 6s和6s Plus、iPad Pro,、Air 2,、Mini 4和Mini 2。經(jīng)理人往往會(huì)擔(dān)心新產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)直接侵蝕現(xiàn)有產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的銷(xiāo)售額,，如今蘋(píng)果可能也陷入了同樣的思維模式,。

消費(fèi)電子產(chǎn)品就像商業(yè)界的果蠅,，變化迅速而且生命周期很短。這種環(huán)境基本不容許出現(xiàn)戰(zhàn)略性錯(cuò)誤,。對(duì)市場(chǎng)的誤讀會(huì)造成利潤(rùn)下降,；多失誤幾次企業(yè)就會(huì)沒(méi)戲。

矛盾的是,，采取保守策略并設(shè)法保護(hù)和維持現(xiàn)有產(chǎn)品也不是辦法,，頂多只能推遲企業(yè)走下坡路的時(shí)間,。必須在核心業(yè)務(wù)顯露成熟跡象前找到下一個(gè)增長(zhǎng)點(diǎn)。最好的辦法可能就是像喬布斯一樣,，管理產(chǎn)品生命周期時(shí)將自家產(chǎn)品相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)作為指導(dǎo)原則,。

全球最大胰島素制造商諾和諾德首席執(zhí)行官索文森似乎也同意這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)。他在接受采訪時(shí)說(shuō)：“如果我們最終能治愈糖尿病，很大一塊業(yè)務(wù)會(huì)消失,，但我們會(huì)感到驕傲,，而且一定能找到別的事做。我們將成為醫(yī)藥行業(yè)里社會(huì)貢獻(xiàn)最大的公司,，那會(huì)是件了不起的事,。”

霍華德·于是洛桑國(guó)際管理發(fā)展學(xué)院戰(zhàn)略管理和創(chuàng)新系教授,，專(zhuān)攻技術(shù)創(chuàng)新、戰(zhàn)略轉(zhuǎn)型和管理調(diào)整,。2015年,，工商管理類(lèi)資訊網(wǎng)站Poets & Quants將于教授評(píng)為全球40位40歲以下最佳教授之一。他在哈佛商學(xué)院獲得博士學(xué)位,。

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

The tech world is witnessing a turning point. Apple just saw its first decline in sales and profits in 13 years, triggering a selloff in the financial market that wiped out $43 billion of the company’s market value. Such is the rough-and-tumble play of the high-tech world.

As recent as in Q1 2016, 68% of the company revenue came from the iPhone, while the iPad and Mac each commanded merely 9%. Apple is first and foremost a mobile phone provider, which in turn highlights the danger of overreliance on a single product for growth.

Under Steve Jobs, Apple AAPL -2.85% had a track record of cannibalizing its own products. In 2005, when the demand for the iPod Mini remained huge, the Nano was launched, effectively destroying the revenue stream of an existing product. And while iPod sales were still going through the roof, Jobs launched the iPhone which combined iPod, cell phone, and Internet access into a single device. Three years after the iPhone’s launch, iPad made its debut and raised the prospect of cutting into Mac desktop computer sales. So resolute was Apple’s determination in trading a highly profitable business for an unknown future that Jobs reportedly said, “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will.”

That mantra has apparently disappeared.

With Tim Cook, Apple has experienced unmitigated growth by exploiting its market position in emerging countries. Revenue from China has grown from 9% of Apple’s overall revenue in 2011 to 29% in 2014. More worrisome is the lack of new products. While the Apple Watch has yet to make significant inroads, consumers saw the proliferation of different models of existing products: iPhone 6s and 6s Plus; iPad Pro, Air 2, Mini 4, and Mini 2. What managers often fear most is a company’s new products and services with lower profit margins directly cutting into the sales of existing ones. Apple is now in danger of falling into the same pattern of thinking.

Consumer electronics are the fruit flies of the business world. Change is rapid and life cycles are short. In such an environment, there is little room for strategic mistakes. Misreading the market leads to diminished earnings; misreading it a few times, the company is sent packing.

Paradoxically, pursuing a conservative strategy and trying to protect and extend existing products is not an option either. It only delays decline. One must develop the next growth engine before the core business begins to show signs of maturity. And the best rule of thumb is perhaps to follow Jobs’ footstep of imposing cannibalization as a guiding principle to manage product life cycle.

Lars S?rensen, CEO of Novo Nordisk—the world’s largest maker of insulin—seems to agree. “If we wind up curing diabetes, and it destroys a big part of our business, we can be proud, and you can get a job anywhere,” he said in an interview. “We’ll have worked on the greatest social service of any pharmaceutical company, and that would be a phenomenal thing.”

Howard Yu is professor of strategic management and innovation at IMD. He specializes in technological innovation, strategic transformation and change management. In 2015 Professor Yu was featured in Poets & Quants as one of the Best 40 Under 40 Professors. He received his doctoral degree at Harvard Business School.