苹果电视机不见得是个金点子

    苹果电视机：从未有过这样一款产品，人们纷纷撰文探讨，却几乎没有人真正了解其中一鳞半爪。

    相关的议论铺天盖地，以至于很多人将苹果电视（Apple TV）当作既成事实。派杰（Piper Jaffray）分析师吉恩•蒙斯特显然也这样认为，他一直是这方面最直言不讳的预言者之一。今年稍早些时候他表示，苹果电视最终“‘何时’推出才是问题。”（蒙斯特还作出了其他多方面预测，包括其尺寸将介于42-55英寸，而价格将介于1,500-2,000美元。）

    然而，很少有人质疑：这款神秘产品真的是个好主意吗？

    电视市场绝对没有那么容易攻克。同时，与电视机的生产与销售匹配的商业模式也和苹果的经营模式不太契合。过去十年来，苹果最成功的产品，也就是那些推动其走向成功的产品，都是人们急于购买且经常购买的数码设备。正因为此，iPod而非麦金塔电脑（Macintosh）是苹果复兴的中流砥柱，而iPhone与iPad现在则是苹果最重要的产品。

    去年10月，苹果宣布从iPod于2001年上市以来，全球范围内已累计售出3亿部。这款标志性的微型音乐播放器极受欢迎，以至于上述销量中一部分是由拥有两三部、有时甚至四部iPod的人士贡献。带着Nano和Shuffle去跑步很不错，可iPod Classic才是长途旅行的理想伴侣。iPod Touch则是年龄太小，还不适合玩iPhone，但又想要一款iOS设备的儿童的次优选择。购买多款此类苹果产品的理由层出不穷。

    iPhone的情况与此相似。根据消费者情报调研合伙（Consumer Intelligence Research Partners）6月份进行的一次调查，过去一年里购买了iPhone 4S的消费者中，只有38%之前使用的是苹果竞争对手的产品。换句话说，其他那些人几乎都曾经拥有过iPhone。每隔几年就在iPod或iPhone上花个几百美元（最多）没什么大不了的，苹果公司的高明之处一部分就体现在将升级周期维持得相对较短。

    可这一策略在电视机领域行不通。索尼（Sony）和三星之类的电视厂商已经习惯于将尽可能多地资源投入于每一款设备，而不是每年对设备功能进行微调——苹果正是刻意采取了这种做法。为什么？因为人们使用电视机的时间要长得多。根据研究公司DisplaySearch的统计，电视机的平均使用时间将近7年。（这个数字已经比以前的15年之多显著下降了。）

    更严重的是，电视机市场的利润率并不像智能手机或平板电脑市场那么高。DisplaySearch今年稍早些时候报道称，大多数液晶电视厂商都面临极低的利润率，以至于亏损的居多。比如索尼的电视机业务已经持续多年亏损，松下（Panasonic）和夏普（Sharp）也都只是惨淡经营。

    当然，真正的推崇者会指出，苹果颠覆平庸市场的能力极为神奇，手机、笨重的主机……苹果的魔力在这些市场毕露无遗。可是，就连最热情的苹果观察人士也无法忽视该公司进入电视机业务之后可能面临的明显阻力。不管怎样，电视机市场是一头特别的猛兽，不可能被苹果轻易屠戮。

    译者：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.