????2005年，卡羅爾?盧米斯為《財(cái)富》雜志(Fortune)撰寫了一篇惠普公司(HP)首席執(zhí)行官卡莉?菲奧莉娜收購(gòu)康柏公司(Compaq)的計(jì)劃陷于困境的詳盡報(bào)道。在這篇堪稱其代表作的文章中，她援引了一位華爾街分析師的預(yù)測(cè)：惠普終有一日會(huì)被拆分。

????這位名叫史蒂芬?米盧諾維奇的分析師一度離開(kāi)研究領(lǐng)域。但他如今又回來(lái)了。目前，米盧諾維奇供職于瑞銀集團(tuán)(UBS)，負(fù)責(zé)追蹤企業(yè)級(jí)科技公司，也就是那些將技術(shù)賣給其他公司，而不是消費(fèi)者的公司。他仍然密切注意惠普的動(dòng)向。該公司上周宣布了一項(xiàng)分拆計(jì)劃：惠普將一分為二，一個(gè)是專注從事消費(fèi)PC和打印機(jī)業(yè)務(wù)的惠普公司(HP Inc)，另一個(gè)是從事企業(yè)級(jí)硬件和軟件業(yè)務(wù)的惠普企業(yè)公司(Hewlett-Packard Enterprise)。

????企業(yè)分拆通常能夠贏得一片喝彩聲，但這一次，各方的反映一直不溫不火。詹姆斯?斯圖爾特上周末發(fā)表于《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(The New York Times)的文章，總體上看淡這兩家公司的發(fā)展前景。在每周更新一次的博客《周一觀察》(Monday Note)中，讓-路易斯?蓋瑟從歷史的角度，對(duì)惠普的文化進(jìn)行了一番精彩評(píng)論，聲稱這家公司如今是一個(gè)“疲憊的混合體”

????米盧諾維奇則發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些讓他對(duì)惠普保持謹(jǐn)慎樂(lè)觀的原因。上周，我來(lái)到他的紐約辦公室。以下是經(jīng)過(guò)編輯的對(duì)話內(nèi)容：

????我在拆分宣布的當(dāng)天寫了一篇文章，說(shuō)惠普不再是一家舉足輕重的公司，至少?zèng)]有過(guò)去那般重要。你同意嗎？

????惠普的招牌顯然有點(diǎn)褪色。它已經(jīng)不是過(guò)去那個(gè)惠普了。但惠普仍然是世界上最大的消費(fèi)計(jì)算公司之一。當(dāng)然目前蘋果(Apple)已經(jīng)超越它了。不過(guò)，惠普距離全球頭號(hào)PC廠商的位置非常接近。它依然是一家卓越的打印機(jī)公司。盡管它在企業(yè)級(jí)市場(chǎng)名聲漸暗，曾經(jīng)擁有的創(chuàng)新光環(huán)早已逝去。但我不會(huì)說(shuō)，惠普現(xiàn)在無(wú)足輕重。我認(rèn)為，這種看法有點(diǎn)夸張了。

????說(shuō)說(shuō)你2005年的預(yù)測(cè)。

????我當(dāng)時(shí)預(yù)測(cè)說(shuō)，打印機(jī)業(yè)務(wù)將從PC業(yè)務(wù)中剝離。我一直非常信奉“聚焦”(focus)。它是影響企業(yè)發(fā)展的最強(qiáng)大的因素。我們總是覺(jué)得，惠普要想同時(shí)成為一流的消費(fèi)技術(shù)和企業(yè)技術(shù)公司，的確很有難度。微軟(Microsoft)顯然也有過(guò)類似的問(wèn)題。就惠普的情況而言，沒(méi)有一勞永逸的高招。該公司目前還沒(méi)有收縮任何一個(gè)部門。但這不利于激勵(lì)“聚焦”。我認(rèn)為他們?cè)缭趲啄昵熬驮撟鲞@件事了。

????正如你所說(shuō)，惠普并沒(méi)有把打印機(jī)和PC業(yè)務(wù)分離開(kāi)來(lái)，這意味著早年收購(gòu)的康柏資產(chǎn)基本上原封未動(dòng)。

????In 2005, when Carol Loomis wrote one of her signature, exhaustive articles for Fortune, this one about Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina’s troubled acquisition of Compaq, she quoted a Wall Street analyst who predicted that HP HP -5.89% would one day be split up.

????That analyst, Steven Milunovich, left the research business for a time. But he’s back at it again, now working at UBS, where he covers enterprise technology companies—that is, companies that sell technology to other companies as opposed to consumers. Milunovich is still paying careful attention to HP, which announced last week that it is splitting its consumer PC and printer businesses (to be called HP Inc) from its enterprise hardware and software lines (to be known as Hewlett-Packard Enterprise).

????Reaction to the spin-off, beyond general praise for spin-offs, has been tepid. Writing in The New York Times over the weekend, James Stewart walks through HP’s generally weak prospects on both sides of its house. In his weekly “Monday Note,” Jean-Louis Gassée provides outstanding historical commentary on HP’s culture, calling the company today a “tired conglomeration.”

????As for Milunovich, he finds some reasons for guarded optimism about HP. I reached him at his desk in New York last week. Below is an edited version of our conversation.

????I wrote in an essay on the day the split was announced that HP didn’t much matter anymore, at least not the way it used to. Do you agree?

????HP’s obviously lost a lot of luster. It’s not the company it once was. But it is one of the largest consumer computing companies. Clearly Apple AAPL -0.91% has surpassed it. But HP is very close to being the number-one PC company globally. They are the premier printing company. Where they have faded is on the enterprise side, and the innovation halo they once had is long gone. But I wouldn’t say it doesn’t matter. I think that’s a bit of an exaggeration.

????Talk about your 2005 prediction.

????I apparently predicted that printers would be peeled off from PCs. I’ve always been a big believer in focus. It’s the most powerful factor in business. In the case of HP we always felt it was difficult being the premier consumer and enterprise company. Microsoft MSFT -0.86% clearly has had similar issues. In HP’s case there’s no silver bullet. No one unit is being held back. But it doesn’t encourage focus. I would argue that they should have done this years ago.

????As you note, HP isn’t separating printers and PCs, meaning the Compaq acquisition is remaining somewhat intact.