Give up TV Apple wisely

At the very least, I myself was not surprised at all. I have never felt that this plan has any meaning. This, in the past few years, I have already talked about it more than once when I have written an article or interviewed. The timing seems to be a little weird now, but I think it's best for me to explain clearly why I would think so and give some practical reasons.

Cost, profit and difference

If Apple (AAPL) really builds a TV product, at least one thing we can assert now is that they will definitely use expensive raw materials similar to the company’s current products, and they will also hope The profitability of new products can be consistent with other existing products. However, the challenge also arises from here. When Apple is just starting out, the scale of production will be very limited, and it will not enjoy the benefits of the economies of scale that these television companies currently have. However, even if these existing manufacturers, their profit margins have become as thin as a blade. Now.

Overall, the consumer electronics industry itself is a low-margin business, and this profit can only be lower and lower. Even for those companies that are still able to make money, the single-digit operating margin is already normal. If Apple wants to blend in, because of the use of higher-priced raw materials, and secondly, because of the smaller scale, the cost of the product will inevitably increase significantly, and it will be difficult for Apple to give up its habit of super-profit, which will make them The price of television is at least twice that of comparable ordinary televisions, and even higher. Of course, it must be admitted that in some similar products, we are also a little used to the style of Apple: Apple's 27-inch Thunderbolt monitor, retail price of 999 US dollars, while Dell's similar product price of 599 US dollars, ASUS 430 Dollar, as for other low-end brands, the price of the product is even lower. (It should be noted that I have never mentioned the rise of 4K TV at all. The latter will greatly amplify all the aforementioned issues and make Apple TV's pricing more ridiculous.)

So why is Apple not able to re-engrave the display achievements to the TV market? I think this is about the topic of differentiation. Apple's monitors, at least to a certain extent, differ in material and appearance from other displays. Needless to say, the presence of the Apple logo is also a clear sign that the user and the people around him can know that this is a premium product. When customers and others see it, this in itself conveys an important message, that is, what the user is doing and what they are using to work.

However, we must understand what TV is all about and how it evolved. These products are either mounted on the wall, standing on the edge of the wall or hidden in the closet most of the time. The borders shrink to nothing, or even disappear. The logo that always appeared at the bottom of the screen was destined to disappear with the border. To a large extent, this TV is destined to become yet another black rectangle in our life already filled with black rectangles. This time, how can Apple really highlight their hardware? Are they still able to pour the wheels of history and let the borders reappear? Consumers can pay attention to the material of the frame is aluminum or black plastic? Even if they noticed, do they care? The evolution of television hardware, the current trend, in a nutshell, is to make everything except the screen disappear as much as possible. It seems that this does not meet Apple's style.

So, how can Apple convince consumers not to spend half or even lower prices on competitor's products when hardware differences are largely invisible? Of course, one option is to add extra features such as adding cameras and microphones for video calls, and the microphone can also ensure that Siri enters the TV. The problem is that these have been tried and are still white. We use some more personalized equipment to make video calls. This is no problem. But who can convince their family that they are willing to pay a high price for a TV because it has the function of a video phone? From Wulin's article, it seems that Apple really tried such a thing, but obviously, they also came to the same conclusion with me.

Integration or simple input

Apple wants to differentiate its products from a common TV. Another way is to use software. As we all know, Apple's products are not inferior to just the hardware, but Apple's software is obviously still Easier to use. So, can Apple's TV stand out with software?

The key to the problem here is not that Apple can't do it. It's because, if all the differences are in software, why isn't Apple simply going to continue to do their Apple TV set-top boxes? Or, to put it more simply, the product differences here are not Apple TVs and TVs from other manufacturers, but Apple's own TVs and their companion boxes.

When it comes to Apple TV and other next-generation companion boxes and traditional pay-TV set-top boxes, the biggest challenge now is that for many consumers, choosing one of them cannot meet all their needs. Today's television products are equipped with more and more HDMI interfaces to connect more and more input signals that each individual or family wants to connect: pay-TV set-top boxes, Blu-ray players, game consoles, streaming TV boxes or TV sticks, and so on. In such a world, it seems that an Apple TV can really manage all these inputs better than an ordinary companion box.

However, why can't Apple choose another way to solve this problem with only one HDMI port? Why can't Apple just use HDMI1 and persuade users to give up all those lines that were once plugged into the TV?

In fact, this is exactly the same strategy that I expect Apple is currently adopting and will continue to adopt in the future. It will continue to improve Apple TV companion boxes and corresponding services. In this case, the difference between an Apple-produced TV and a third-party TV with an upgraded Apple TV companion box will be very limited. It's important to say the difference. Perhaps it's the need for one or two remote controls, and the ability to integrate features like Siri. However, even with this difference, in the case of continuous upgrading of the companion box, it can be resolved sooner or later.

Targeted market

It is better to say that Apple is better to use Apple TV Companion Box than to develop TV. The third important reason lies in the target market. To sell their own TVs, Apple must find people who are willing to abandon their current TVs anyway and pay a much higher price to buy Apple products. Obviously, such people will not be many. However, the price of the Apple TV Companion Box is much lower, and the potential market is much larger - any consumer with an HDTV can easily understand the value of Apple's service experience. We also need to understand that the revenue potential of Apple TV services is largely dependent on the sales of the companion box, which together add up to the fact that Apple's appeal is obviously much higher than a TV set. We also need to take into account the hardware upgrade cycle of television. Generally speaking, we usually buy a TV every five to ten years. The revenue of the companion box service is generated every month. Say it?

Anti-party perspective

Above, I have used quite a bit of space to discuss why Apple does not need to build televisions, but I am by no means a paranoid person. Below, I will briefly introduce some different points of view and think that even if these obstacles mentioned above, Apple manufactures. My own TV still makes sense.

- Control and integration: Apple's standard product development model is hardware and software go hand in hand to create a complete, peer-to-peer experience. The current Apple TV companion box is obviously contrary to their tradition, because the TV combined with it is from a third party, is the brand of others. An Apple’s own TV helps create a more complete system that integrates hardware, software, and services to create a standard Apple product.

- Meet the fruit powder: The fact is that Apple does have a group of the most loyal users, although their bedroom may contain Samsung TV, but deep down, they see Samsung as a low-grade brand. For those consumers who are accustomed to buying high-end, well-designed and seamlessly connected hardware products, there is actually such an eye-catching and obtrusive thing in their own homes that really makes them crazy. Providing an apple's own TV hardware for these fruit powders is also an attractive option. There is no doubt that even if the overall sales volume will not be great, consumers who are willing to pay for high-priced Apple TVs are certainly still there.

- The need for competition: When Apple only produces companion boxes, they are essentially no different from any other box manufacturers, and they have no control or bargaining status. Accompanied by the pay-per-view TV set-top box and even the increasingly intelligent process of the TV itself, Apple TV does have the risk of being gradually squeezed out. However, if you change the entire system from scratch and launch your own TV, Apple will suddenly get its say. For example, they can bargain with pay-TV content providers to change the way their shows appear on television.