> True but, can't you kind of say the same about phones?

No, at least not at the flagship $1k+ market Apple competes in. Maybe for $120 motos, but apple is competing in an entirely different market segment. They're absolutely not commodities - apple charges a premium with strong margins and a differentiated product. They have regulars who upgrade (bi-)yearly, regardless of the features and price and necessity. They literally have a subscription program for iPhones.

> The market for an apple branded TV...

They already have the most profitable part of the TV market. They sell an expensive add-on to TVs that offer over-the-top subscriptions and software services. The remaining panel is sold nearly at-cost on the assumption that the underpowered processor inside will serve you ads instead. They're expensive to ship, tough to stock, and high-end ones worth selling are a niche market.

Apple sells computer monitors, which are pretty close to TVs in terms of "commodity" status, and the products are like 2x the cost of their closest competitor spec wise. That should be a clear indicator on the potential and costs for even bigger screens.

> Who would have guess headphones would do so well before they did so well?

Well, they bought beats who certainly helped prove the market for headphones expensive headphones from a recognizable brand (to say nothing of Bose, Sony, etc who had sold headphones for a generation prior).