????由于蘋果公司（Apple）一向神秘莫測，因而大凡涉及該公司未來的產品規劃，虛無飄渺的猜測從來都多于實實在在的信息。

????不管蘋果眼下正在醞釀的電視到底是什么樣，上述結論同樣適用。顯而易見，蘋果正在電視行業有所行動，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“拋棄機頂盒”，創造神奇的新玩藝兒。事實上，在該公司取得成功的每個市場，他們都是這么干的。盡管目前有不少報道均稱蘋果正在開發重要電視項目，但它們都沒有提供足夠的細節；盡管如此，這些報道已經足以說明，該公司已經圍繞蘋果牌電視機制定了專門計劃。

????猜測也即源于此。如果猜測屬實，蘋果不僅需要將業務從計算設備擴充到壁壘性很強的消費電子領域，而且還需要與媒體公司達成協議，后者因為擔心失去對電影和電視節目的控制權，眼下正寢食難安。

????“欲占領客廳，蘋果需要開創一項堪與iPhone媲美的創新，這項創新必須能讓電視機發生脫胎換骨的改變，”媒體戰略家本?昆茲在《商業周刊》（BusinessWeek）的專欄文章中稱。

????聽起來昆茲認為三維電視就是此項創新。但這不太可能。在電影院里，三維基本只是一陣風。昆茲表示，蘋果已經為一種新型三維技術申請了專利，該技術不但無需使用特制的眼鏡，而且允許多個觀眾從不同位置觀看。但是，手中握有一項專利，并不等同于擁有已經準備就緒、可以隨時上市的技術。而且，不管怎么說，盡管三維技術可能是蘋果電視產品的一個特色，甚至可能是一項重要特性，但僅憑這一點，蘋果電視仍無法成為像iPad一樣能顛覆世界的產品。

????相形之下，風投資訊博客VentureBeat的德文德拉?哈達沃的理論聽起來更為實際。他摒棄了蘋果將開發一種全新電視的想法；相反，他認為，蘋果有可能直接瞄準小型電視機市場，也就是說將客廳留給其他電視機廠商，而專注于宿舍、臥室、以及廚房。他的話很在理：對于蘋果而言，與三星（Samsung）和索尼（Sony）等大型電視機廠商競爭，無疑是一項重大挑戰（當然蘋果也可選擇與其中之一建立合作伙伴關系）。此外，消費者更換小電視往往相對更為頻繁，這與蘋果一貫地盡量縮短產品周期的戰略相一致。哈達沃認為，生產大型電視機會侵蝕目前的蘋果電視產品，該觀點其實也缺乏說服力：如果蘋果能夠占領客廳市場，它將欣然放棄被史蒂夫?喬布斯視為“愛好”的產品。

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

????蘋果可以在推出一整套電視機的同時，也隨時準備推出一套智能的、設計優美的電視機，該電視可通過iPad和其他設備上部署的iOS界面，訪問蘋果開發的其他內容產品。這聽起來與蘋果處理音樂和iPod的做法如出一轍。在蘋果電視機上運行iOS，與其界面相比，行將就木的有線電視服務供應商提供的界面粗糙且往往惹人生氣，簡直不堪一擊。僅憑這一點，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容，從而避開有線提供商的話，上述結論就能成立。

????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，蘋果卻因這款產品取得了巨大的成功，這很大程度上是由于該公司同時還以低廉的價格銷售大量音樂作品，而且它提供的購買界面具有很強的易用性。但是，與唱片公司相比，電影廠的處境有所不同，而且優越得多，他們仍然擁有討價還價的余地。iPod推出時面臨來自唱片界的競爭，不同的是，蘋果的電視業務將面臨來自Hulu、Netflix、亞馬遜（ Amazon）、谷歌（Google）、以及其他公司視頻服務的強有力競爭。如果蘋果不能提供大量訪問簡便、定價合理的視頻內容，無論蘋果電視做得多么漂亮，它都得給出一個理由，大眾才會買賬。

????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.