“While I’m not against the iWatch — because it is likely to account for some revenue — it won’t be the game-changer that investors want,” Bret Kenwell writes for TheStreet. “It’s really hard to introduce blockbuster product after blockbuster product. And growing revenues at a high rate for a company Apple’s size isn’t exactly a piece of cake either. Apple shares opened today at $530 even, down 5% year to date but up 17.8% over the past year.”

“My biggest concern has to do with product turnover and the replacement cycle. Unlike smartphones, there’s no need to upgrade to a new TV every couple of years. Once a consumer buys a TV, the product generally lasts a long time,” Kenwell writes. “As Apple is known for its superior, high quality products, why would I need to replace an Apple TV five or 10 years after I buy one?”

“Second, as television prices continue to sink, how will Apple be able to maintain its typical expensive prices? I don’t know that Apple could. It would result in a direct hit to margins if the price of the company’s TV set declined,” Kenwell writes. “Still, the living room has a lot of potential… Apple needs more than a TV set. Incorporating Siri, along with the iPhone and iPad as a remote would be nice. But there needs to be a way to turn the TV into something more. And I don’t mean connecting to Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime video either. ”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As Apple’s iWatch does not currently exist, it would be difficult to be “against it,” much less divine how much revenue it might generate.