/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

← → days · ↑ ↓ browse · Enter similar · o open

Is the Apple TV officially a flop?  (Or: How to fix Apple TV)

It's been online for a few days now, but I just spotted (via PaidContent) Fortune's article entitled The iFlop (sub-head: "Steve Jobs tried to design—and dictate—the future of television.  Here's how he failed.")

Crave: The gadget blog John P. Falcone

Context & Ripple Effects

Two weeks after Fortune branded the box 'The iFlop' — arguing that Steve Jobs failed in his attempt to design and dictate the future of television — the verdict is still echoing through the gadget blogosphere, with Crave picking it up via PaidContent. That makes the flop framing a durable storyline rather than one outlet's take.

The critique lands on top of earlier scrutiny of the product's economics: Business Week's June teardown of what Apple TV costs to make had already framed the box as a margin question, and now Fortune's piece reframes it as a strategic failure — Jobs, fresh off topping Blender's list of online-music powerbrokers, unable to replicate the iTunes playbook in the living room.

First-order effects

  • Apple TV enters the holiday season carrying a public 'flop' label from Fortune, forcing Jobs to defend the box against the very narrative of inevitable disruption that carried the iPod and the just-launched iPhone.
  • PaidContent's amplification shows the story has crossed from business press into the tech-blog audience that forms Apple's core buyer base.

Second-order effects

  • Studios and cable gatekeepers reading the iFlop coverage gain leverage: if Apple's dictation model stalls in TV, content owners can hold out for better terms instead of conceding the iTunes-style single-price structure.
  • Rival set-top and download efforts get an opening to court studios precisely because Apple's position looks weakest in this category.

Third-order effects

  • If the pattern holds, Apple's device-plus-store formula proves category-dependent — dominant where Apple sold music players into a fragmented market, vulnerable in TV where incumbents control the pipes — setting the terms by which every subsequent Apple living-room push gets judged.

The trend: Consumer-electronics platforms are discovering that owning the hit device does not confer the same power over Hollywood and cable that the iTunes model held over the music labels.