????蘋果電視機：從未有過這樣一款產(chǎn)品，人們紛紛撰文探討，卻幾乎沒有人真正了解其中一鱗半爪。

????相關(guān)的議論鋪天蓋地，以至于很多人將蘋果電視（Apple TV）當(dāng)作既成事實。派杰（Piper Jaffray）分析師吉恩?蒙斯特顯然也這樣認為，他一直是這方面最直言不諱的預(yù)言者之一。今年稍早些時候他表示，蘋果電視最終“‘何時’推出才是問題?！保伤固剡€作出了其他多方面預(yù)測，包括其尺寸將介于42-55英寸，而價格將介于1,500-2,000美元。）

????然而，很少有人質(zhì)疑：這款神秘產(chǎn)品真的是個好主意嗎？

????電視市場絕對沒有那么容易攻克。同時，與電視機的生產(chǎn)與銷售匹配的商業(yè)模式也和蘋果的經(jīng)營模式不太契合。過去十年來，蘋果最成功的產(chǎn)品，也就是那些推動其走向成功的產(chǎn)品，都是人們急于購買且經(jīng)常購買的數(shù)碼設(shè)備。正因為此，iPod而非麥金塔電腦（Macintosh）是蘋果復(fù)興的中流砥柱，而iPhone與iPad現(xiàn)在則是蘋果最重要的產(chǎn)品。

????去年10月，蘋果宣布從iPod于2001年上市以來，全球范圍內(nèi)已累計售出3億部。這款標(biāo)志性的微型音樂播放器極受歡迎，以至于上述銷量中一部分是由擁有兩三部、有時甚至四部iPod的人士貢獻。帶著Nano和Shuffle去跑步很不錯，可iPod Classic才是長途旅行的理想伴侶。iPod Touch則是年齡太小，還不適合玩iPhone，但又想要一款iOS設(shè)備的兒童的次優(yōu)選擇。購買多款此類蘋果產(chǎn)品的理由層出不窮。

????iPhone的情況與此相似。根據(jù)消費者情報調(diào)研合伙（Consumer Intelligence Research Partners）6月份進行的一次調(diào)查，過去一年里購買了iPhone 4S的消費者中，只有38%之前使用的是蘋果競爭對手的產(chǎn)品。換句話說，其他那些人幾乎都曾經(jīng)擁有過iPhone。每隔幾年就在iPod或iPhone上花個幾百美元（最多）沒什么大不了的，蘋果公司的高明之處一部分就體現(xiàn)在將升級周期維持得相對較短。

????可這一策略在電視機領(lǐng)域行不通。索尼（Sony）和三星之類的電視廠商已經(jīng)習(xí)慣于將盡可能多地資源投入于每一款設(shè)備，而不是每年對設(shè)備功能進行微調(diào)——蘋果正是刻意采取了這種做法。為什么？因為人們使用電視機的時間要長得多。根據(jù)研究公司DisplaySearch的統(tǒng)計，電視機的平均使用時間將近7年。（這個數(shù)字已經(jīng)比以前的15年之多顯著下降了。）

????更嚴重的是，電視機市場的利潤率并不像智能手機或平板電腦市場那么高。DisplaySearch今年稍早些時候報道稱，大多數(shù)液晶電視廠商都面臨極低的利潤率，以至于虧損的居多。比如索尼的電視機業(yè)務(wù)已經(jīng)持續(xù)多年虧損，松下（Panasonic）和夏普（Sharp）也都只是慘淡經(jīng)營。

????當(dāng)然，真正的推崇者會指出，蘋果顛覆平庸市場的能力極為神奇，手機、笨重的主機……蘋果的魔力在這些市場畢露無遺?？墒?，就連最熱情的蘋果觀察人士也無法忽視該公司進入電視機業(yè)務(wù)之后可能面臨的明顯阻力。不管怎樣，電視機市場是一頭特別的猛獸，不可能被蘋果輕易屠戮。

????譯者：小宇

????Apple's television: never has more been written about a product almost nobody really knows anything about.

????So much, in fact, that many now take the Apple TV as a fait accompli. Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster certainly does. He has been one of the most outspoken prognosticators, saying earlier this year that "the question is now 'when'" the set will finally launch. (Among other things, Munster believes Apple (AAPL) will offer models ranging in size from 42 to 55 inches and cost $1,500 to $2,000.)

????Rarely asked: is this mythical product even a good idea?

????The television market is by no means an easy nut to crack. The business model that goes along with making and selling TVs, meanwhile, doesn't match up with Apple's. Over the last decade, Apple's most successful products -- the devices that have driven its success -- have been those people buy early and often. That's precisely why the iPod -- not the Macintosh -- was the centerpiece of Apple's resurgence, and why the iPhone and iPad are now its most important products.

????Last October, Apple announced that it has sold 300 million iPods worldwide since the first of those devices hit store shelves in 2001. Some of those sales went to folks who owned two, three, and sometimes, four of the iconic little music players. The Nano or Shuffle are great for a run, but the iPod Classic is ideal for long trips. The iPod Touch is the next-best option for little kids who aren't old enough for iPhones, but want an iOS device. The justifications practically multiply themselves.

????The iPhone is a similar story. According to a June survey conducted by Consumer Intelligence Research Partners, just 38% of those who bought an iPhone 4S in the last year were previously running devices from competing vendors. Nearly all of the others already owned an iPhone, in other words. Spending a few hundred dollars (at most) every couple of years on an iPod or iPhone is not greatly significant. Apple's genius, in part, has been in maintaining a comparatively short upgrade cycle.

????That won't fly as far TVs are concerned. Television makers such as Sony (SNE) and Samsung have gotten accustomed to throwing as much into each device as possible, rather than fine-tuning the feature balance every year as Apple so studiously does. Why? People hang onto their TVs much longer. According to research firm DisplaySearch, the average life span of a TV is nearly 7 years. (That figure has been dropping from a previous high of 15 years.)

????To make matters worse, margins are not nearly as high in the television market as they are in smartphones or tablets. DisplaySearch reported earlier this year most LCD TV makers are facing lousy margins that push most of them to losses. Sony, for example, has watched its television business lose money for years. Panasonic and Sharp are also having trouble staying afloat.

????Of course, true believers point to Apple's uncanny ability to upend stodgy markets -- cellphones, clunky mainframes -- over and over. But not even the most ardent Apple watchers can ignore the significant headwinds it might face if it enters the TV business. For better or worse, the television market is a different beast -- one Apple won't be able to slay so easily.