惠普TouchPad为什么只卖99美圆？

从供应链的角度来看，惠普(HP)决定暂时恢复其 TouchPad 平板装置生产的举措是明智的；它可能是HP一连串失误中，唯一做对的事情。根据分析师们的说法，HP重启TouchPad生产线的原因，是要把预先采购的零组件库存用完，他们也认为HP将因此面临亏损风险。但实际上，笔者认为HP的做法是“两害相权取其轻”。 HP可以有几个选项：在零组件部分，该公司或许可尝试退货给供货商；但考量到目前供应链中半导体与显示器零件库存水位高涨，供货商们恐怕不会接受。如果供货商们真的接受了，因库存品的价值远不及其原始价值，该笔损失会记在供货商的帐上，不是HP。 或许HP也可以试着把零组件卖到开放市场；供货商们不会喜欢这种自家产品被透过非法管道销售的状况，却也无法阻止HP这么做。但因为日本大地震后，包括半导体组件、互连产品、被动组件、机电产品等零组件的库存，已经不再处于供不应求的状态，开放市场的零组件价格大跌，HP恐怕得亏本卖那些零件，这笔损失会记在自己帐上。 但如果以上两种都不选，HP就得在终端产品上蒙受亏损。根据美国华尔街日报(Wall Street Journal)，一台16GB的TouchPad成本约306美元，HP的最后出清价是99美元，将亏损207美元。以消费者的眼光来看，这似乎很不划算；但从供应链的角度看来，这或许是合理的策略──至少HP已经知道消费者愿意花99美元买一台TouchPad，却无法确定拋售一台TouchPad零组件可能蒙受的损失会不会高于207美元；知道总比不知道好。 HP的另一个选项，是将那些零组件消耗在其它的产品上，但这是有局限的；虽然PC与企业用产品所用的零组件有一些是相同的，但那些高单价的零件──例如半导体组件与显示器──不太容易相互替换，所以HP还是得回到原点来考量。 最后一个选项则是请渠道商帮忙，但这得看有多少零件是透过渠道商所取得。渠道业者会在底线不受损失的前提下，同意协助将未使用的零组件退回给供货商；但这通常仅适用于广泛见于各种终端产品的通用零组件，各种特制产品，例如半导体组件、F{GA与显示器，都是不能退货的。渠道商不会愿意回收这种产品，因为无法退回给供货商，或是再转卖给其它客户。 因此，HP终究还是做了正确的决定──但这种“两害相权取其轻”的作法，对长期业务经营策略来说也不是件好事。 编译：Judith Cheng 本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文： HP Chooses the Lesser of Two Evils，by Barbara Jorgensen

相关阅读：
• HP分拆PC业务对电脑代工厂家的冲击几何？
• 惠普放弃PC和webOS业务，新CEO hold不住了？
• Q2 NB市场：宏碁欧洲失血，HP趁机窜起lbgesmc

{pagination} HP Chooses the Lesser of Two Evils Barbara Jorgensen, EBN Community Editor From the supply chain standpoint, Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE: HPQ) is making a smart move on the last-run production of its TouchPad. It might be the only move in a series of HP blunders that makes sense. (See: Bumbling HP Strikes Again.) The purpose of the production run, analysts say, is to use up pre-purchased components. Even though the company will be taking a loss on the lot, HP is actually going with the lesser of two evils. Consider HP's options: at the component level, it could try to return products to its suppliers. With semiconductor and display inventories building up in the supply chain, suppliers don't want the stuff. Even if they did, the inventory's value will be nowhere near its original cost. The difference would show up on suppliers' books, not HP's. HP could try to sell components into the open market. Although suppliers frown upon this practice -- their brands are now being sold through unauthorized channels -- there's nothing stopping HP from doing this. But the company still faces a bookkeeping dilemma. Component inventories of all products -- semiconductor, interconnect, passive, and electromechanical -- are no longer in short supply as they were after the Japan earthquake. As a result, component prices in the open market have taken a dive. HP would be selling its components below what it paid, and this loss would show up on HP's books. So instead, HP will take a loss on the end product. According to the Wall Street Journal, a 16GB TouchPad costs HP $306 to manufacture. At $99 -- the price HP charged for its last batch of TouchPads -- that's a loss of $207. That doesn't make sense from the consumer standpoint, but it might make sense from the supply chain standpoint. HP already knows customers are willing to pay $99 for the TouchPad. It has no idea how much the open market is willing to pay for the components. The component-related losses could be higher than the $207 HP knows it's losing. Better to go with the known than the unknown. Another option for HP would be to consume those components within another business unit, but the options are limited. PC and enterprise products have some overlap in components, but the highest-cost parts -- semiconductors and displays -- aren't easily swapped. So HP is back to square one. A final option would be to look at the distribution channel, depending on how much product is sourced through distributors. Distributors are permitted to return unused parts to suppliers under certain circumstances with no impact on the distributors' bottom line. However, this practice is mostly applied to commodity parts that are used over a wide range of end products. Anything proprietary, such as semiconductors, FPGAs, or displays, is non-returnable. Distributors would be reluctant to take this stuff back because they can't return it to suppliers or resell it to other customers. So finally, HP is doing something right -- although choosing the lesser of two evils isn't a good long-term business strategy.