????由于蘋果公司（Apple）一向神秘莫測(cè)，因而大凡涉及該公司未來的產(chǎn)品規(guī)劃，虛無飄渺的猜測(cè)從來都多于實(shí)實(shí)在在的信息。

????不管蘋果眼下正在醞釀的電視到底是什么樣，上述結(jié)論同樣適用。顯而易見，蘋果正在電視行業(yè)有所行動(dòng)，但沒人知道他們到底在干什么。史蒂夫?喬布斯曾公開表示，稱蘋果希望“拋棄機(jī)頂盒”，創(chuàng)造神奇的新玩藝兒。事實(shí)上，在該公司取得成功的每個(gè)市場(chǎng)，他們都是這么干的。盡管目前有不少報(bào)道均稱蘋果正在開發(fā)重要電視項(xiàng)目，但它們都沒有提供足夠的細(xì)節(jié)；盡管如此，這些報(bào)道已經(jīng)足以說明，該公司已經(jīng)圍繞蘋果牌電視機(jī)制定了專門計(jì)劃。

????猜測(cè)也即源于此。如果猜測(cè)屬實(shí)，蘋果不僅需要將業(yè)務(wù)從計(jì)算設(shè)備擴(kuò)充到壁壘性很強(qiáng)的消費(fèi)電子領(lǐng)域，而且還需要與媒體公司達(dá)成協(xié)議，后者因?yàn)閾?dān)心失去對(duì)電影和電視節(jié)目的控制權(quán)，眼下正寢食難安。

????“欲占領(lǐng)客廳，蘋果需要開創(chuàng)一項(xiàng)堪與iPhone媲美的創(chuàng)新，這項(xiàng)創(chuàng)新必須能讓電視機(jī)發(fā)生脫胎換骨的改變，”媒體戰(zhàn)略家本?昆茲在《商業(yè)周刊》（BusinessWeek）的專欄文章中稱。

????聽起來昆茲認(rèn)為三維電視就是此項(xiàng)創(chuàng)新。但這不太可能。在電影院里，三維基本只是一陣風(fēng)。昆茲表示，蘋果已經(jīng)為一種新型三維技術(shù)申請(qǐng)了專利，該技術(shù)不但無需使用特制的眼鏡，而且允許多個(gè)觀眾從不同位置觀看。但是，手中握有一項(xiàng)專利，并不等同于擁有已經(jīng)準(zhǔn)備就緒、可以隨時(shí)上市的技術(shù)。而且，不管怎么說，盡管三維技術(shù)可能是蘋果電視產(chǎn)品的一個(gè)特色，甚至可能是一項(xiàng)重要特性，但僅憑這一點(diǎn)，蘋果電視仍無法成為像iPad一樣能顛覆世界的產(chǎn)品。

????相形之下，風(fēng)投資訊博客VentureBeat的德文德拉?哈達(dá)沃的理論聽起來更為實(shí)際。他摒棄了蘋果將開發(fā)一種全新電視的想法；相反，他認(rèn)為，蘋果有可能直接瞄準(zhǔn)小型電視機(jī)市場(chǎng)，也就是說將客廳留給其他電視機(jī)廠商，而專注于宿舍、臥室、以及廚房。他的話很在理：對(duì)于蘋果而言，與三星（Samsung）和索尼（Sony）等大型電視機(jī)廠商競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，無疑是一項(xiàng)重大挑戰(zhàn)（當(dāng)然蘋果也可選擇與其中之一建立合作伙伴關(guān)系）。此外，消費(fèi)者更換小電視往往相對(duì)更為頻繁，這與蘋果一貫地盡量縮短產(chǎn)品周期的戰(zhàn)略相一致。哈達(dá)沃認(rèn)為，生產(chǎn)大型電視機(jī)會(huì)侵蝕目前的蘋果電視產(chǎn)品，該觀點(diǎn)其實(shí)也缺乏說服力：如果蘋果能夠占領(lǐng)客廳市場(chǎng)，它將欣然放棄被史蒂夫?喬布斯視為“愛好”的產(chǎn)品。

????但是，很明顯，蘋果渴望成為電視市場(chǎng)的主要廠商，僅僅生產(chǎn)小型電視機(jī)與此愿望不符；如果不拿下客廳（大型電視）市場(chǎng)，就無法實(shí)現(xiàn)這一愿望。

????蘋果可以在推出一整套電視機(jī)的同時(shí)，也隨時(shí)準(zhǔn)備推出一套智能的、設(shè)計(jì)優(yōu)美的電視機(jī)，該電視可通過iPad和其他設(shè)備上部署的iOS界面，訪問蘋果開發(fā)的其他內(nèi)容產(chǎn)品。這聽起來與蘋果處理音樂和iPod的做法如出一轍。在蘋果電視機(jī)上運(yùn)行iOS，與其界面相比，行將就木的有線電視服務(wù)供應(yīng)商提供的界面粗糙且往往惹人生氣，簡(jiǎn)直不堪一擊。僅憑這一點(diǎn)，蘋果電視就能暢銷。也就是說，如果通過蘋果電視，用戶可以訪問足夠多的內(nèi)容，從而避開有線提供商的話，上述結(jié)論就能成立。

????iPod并非首款MP3音樂播放器，它甚至也不必是最棒的一款。但是，蘋果卻因這款產(chǎn)品取得了巨大的成功，這很大程度上是由于該公司同時(shí)還以低廉的價(jià)格銷售大量音樂作品，而且它提供的購(gòu)買界面具有很強(qiáng)的易用性。但是，與唱片公司相比，電影廠的處境有所不同，而且優(yōu)越得多，他們?nèi)匀粨碛杏憙r(jià)還價(jià)的余地。iPod推出時(shí)面臨來自唱片界的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，不同的是，蘋果的電視業(yè)務(wù)將面臨來自Hulu、Netflix、亞馬遜（ Amazon）、谷歌（Google）、以及其他公司視頻服務(wù)的強(qiáng)有力競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。如果蘋果不能提供大量訪問簡(jiǎn)便、定價(jià)合理的視頻內(nèi)容，無論蘋果電視做得多么漂亮，它都得給出一個(gè)理由，大眾才會(huì)買賬。

????譯者：大海

????Thanks to Apple's famous secrecy, when it comes to the company's plans for future products, there's always more speculation than information.

????That's the case with whatever Apple (AAPL) might be cooking up for television. It's obviously doing something, but nobody can quite tell what it is. Steve Jobs has publicly stated the company's desire to "tear up the set-top box" and create something novel -- which is what Apple does in all of the markets it succeeds in. And though reports that Apple is working on a major TV project are sketchy on details, there are enough such reports to make it obvious that the company has a specific plan of some kind, apparently involving Apple-branded television sets.

????That's where the speculation comes in. Not only would such a move entail Apple expanding beyond computing devices into the entrenched world of consumer electronics, it also would involve reaching agreements with media companies that are increasingly worried about losing control of their movies and TV shows.

????To "win the living room, Apple will need an innovation comparable to that of its iPhone—something that changes TV sets in a fundamental way," argues media strategist Ben Kunz in a column for BusinessWeek.

????Kunz seems to think 3D TV will be that innovation. That seems unlikely, though. At the movie theater, 3D appears to be mostly a fad. Kunz notes that Apple has registered a patent for a new kind of 3D technology that doesn't require special glasses and also allows multiple people to watch from different positions. But the existence of a patent isn't tantamount to ready-for-market technology. And in any case, while 3D might well be a feature of an Apple TV product -- maybe even a major one -- it wouldn't make the product a world-changer like the iPad.

????VentureBeat's Devindra Hardawar has a more down-to-earth theory, one that rejects the idea that Apple would have to create a new kind of television altogether: Apple, he thinks, might be aiming squarely at the small-set market, which would mean leaving the living room to others and concentrating on dorm rooms, bedrooms, and kitchens. He makes a good argument: Competing with the likes of Samsung and Sony on large sets would be a major challenge (though of course Apple could partner with one of them). And people would be more likely to replace smaller TVs more often, which would hew to Apple's usual strategy of creating short product cycles. Hardawar's argument that making big TVs would cannibalize the company's current Apple TV product doesn't really wash -- if Apple can take over the living room, it would gladly dispense with a product that Steve Jobs has referred to as a "hobby."

????But simply making smaller sets doesn't really square with Apple's apparent wish to be a major player in the TV market, and you don't do that without taking on the living room.

????Apple could simply be putting together a whole TV package all at once, with an eye toward introducing a suite of smart, well-designed television sets along with access, via the iOS interface used on iPads and other devices, to Apple-brokered content. That would be similar to what Apple did with music and the iPod. With the iOS running on Apple's televisions, the company could sell a lot of TVs simply by comparing its interface with the clunky, often infuriating interfaces offered by moribund cable providers. That is, if Apple offered access to enough content to skirt the cable providers.

????The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, nor even necessarily the best. But Apple succeeded with it largely because it also had lots and lots of music to sell cheaply and an interface that made it easy to buy. The situation is different with the studios, which are in a far better negotiating position than the music labels were. And unlike with music when the iPod was introduced, Apple would face a lot of competition for video from the likes of Hulu, Netflix (NFLX), Amazon (AMZN), Google (GOOG) and others. If Apple can't provide a wide range of easily accessible, reasonably priced video content, it will be hard pressed to give mass audiences a reason to buy its TVs, however beautiful they might be.