由于苹果公司（Apple）一向神秘莫测，因而大凡涉及该公司未来的产品规划，虚无飘渺的猜测从来都多于实实在在的信息。

    不管苹果眼下正在酝酿的电视到底是什么样，上述结论同样适用。显而易见，苹果正在电视行业有所行动，但没人知道他们到底在干什么。史蒂夫•乔布斯曾公开表示，称苹果希望“抛弃机顶盒”，创造神奇的新玩艺儿。事实上，在该公司取得成功的每个市场，他们都是这么干的。尽管目前有不少报道均称苹果正在开发重要电视项目，但它们都没有提供足够的细节；尽管如此，这些报道已经足以说明，该公司已经围绕苹果牌电视机制定了专门计划。

    猜测也即源于此。如果猜测属实，苹果不仅需要将业务从计算设备扩充到壁垒性很强的消费电子领域，而且还需要与媒体公司达成协议，后者因为担心失去对电影和电视节目的控制权，眼下正寝食难安。

    “欲占领客厅，苹果需要开创一项堪与iPhone媲美的创新，这项创新必须能让电视机发生脱胎换骨的改变，”媒体战略家本•昆兹在《商业周刊》（BusinessWeek）的专栏文章中称。

    听起来昆兹认为三维电视就是此项创新。但这不太可能。在电影院里，三维基本只是一阵风。昆兹表示，苹果已经为一种新型三维技术申请了专利，该技术不但无需使用特制的眼镜，而且允许多个观众从不同位置观看。但是，手中握有一项专利，并不等同于拥有已经准备就绪、可以随时上市的技术。而且，不管怎么说，尽管三维技术可能是苹果电视产品的一个特色，甚至可能是一项重要特性，但仅凭这一点，苹果电视仍无法成为像iPad一样能颠覆世界的产品。

    相形之下，风投资讯博客VentureBeat的德文德拉•哈达沃的理论听起来更为实际。他摒弃了苹果将开发一种全新电视的想法；相反，他认为，苹果有可能直接瞄准小型电视机市场，也就是说将客厅留给其他电视机厂商，而专注于宿舍、卧室、以及厨房。他的话很在理：对于苹果而言，与三星（Samsung）和索尼（Sony）等大型电视机厂商竞争，无疑是一项重大挑战（当然苹果也可选择与其中之一建立合作伙伴关系）。此外，消费者更换小电视往往相对更为频繁，这与苹果一贯地尽量缩短产品周期的战略相一致。哈达沃认为，生产大型电视机会侵蚀目前的苹果电视产品，该观点其实也缺乏说服力：如果苹果能够占领客厅市场，它将欣然放弃被史蒂夫•乔布斯视为“爱好”的产品。

    但是，很明显，苹果渴望成为电视市场的主要厂商，仅仅生产小型电视机与此愿望不符；如果不拿下客厅（大型电视）市场，就无法实现这一愿望。

    苹果可以在推出一整套电视机的同时，也随时准备推出一套智能的、设计优美的电视机，该电视可通过iPad和其他设备上部署的iOS界面，访问苹果开发的其他内容产品。这听起来与苹果处理音乐和iPod的做法如出一辙。在苹果电视机上运行iOS，与其界面相比，行将就木的有线电视服务供应商提供的界面粗糙且往往惹人生气，简直不堪一击。仅凭这一点，苹果电视就能畅销。也就是说，如果通过苹果电视，用户可以访问足够多的内容，从而避开有线提供商的话，上述结论就能成立。

    iPod并非首款MP3音乐播放器，它甚至也不必是最棒的一款。但是，苹果却因这款产品取得了巨大的成功，这很大程度上是由于该公司同时还以低廉的价格销售大量音乐作品，而且它提供的购买界面具有很强的易用性。但是，与唱片公司相比，电影厂的处境有所不同，而且优越得多，他们仍然拥有讨价还价的余地。iPod推出时面临来自唱片界的竞争，不同的是，苹果的电视业务将面临来自Hulu、Netflix、亚马逊（ Amazon）、谷歌（Google）、以及其他公司视频服务的强有力竞争。如果苹果不能提供大量访问简便、定价合理的视频内容，无论苹果电视做得多么漂亮，它都得给出一个理由，大众才会买账。

    译者：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.