Another Apple analyst throws cold water on ‘Apple iTV’ rumors

“In December, Richard Gardner, formerly of Citigroup, warned that ‘Apple has not even defined specs yet,'” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune. “In February, Barclays’ Ben Reitzes suggested that Apple was focused more on lining up TV content partnerships than on the production of a TV set.”

P.E.D. reports, “Now Pacific Crest’s Andy Hargreaves has poured what may be the coldest water yet on the idea… in a note to clients issued Monday.”

Investment in Apple television makes little sense without a unique TV content offering. An Apple television could drive substantial profitability if it helped Apple capture service provider profits. However, we do not expect U.S. broadcast or cable networks to provide Apple content if it risks cannibalizing existing revenue, which makes a unique Apple service and an Apple television unlikely.

An Apple television would be a terrible use of retail space relative to iPhone, iPad or the Apple TV set-top box. A 46″ Apple television would likely generate less than 1/200th the gross profit per cubic foot as an iPhone at retail, and less than 1/50th the gross profit per cubic foot of an iPad. We believe this is critical given the limited inventory space at many Apple and partner stores.Analyst Andy Hargreaves, Pacific Crest Securities

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple’s iTV: Petite glass in every corner of your home – May 3, 2012
5 big challenges Apple will face in the TV business – May 3, 2012
Why Apple’s television will sell even faster than the iPad – April 26, 2012
Apple TV and the trojan horse strategy – April 20, 2012
Analyst: Apple considered investing in Sharp to aid development of television – April 13, 2012
Why TV fears the Apple iBroadcast revolution – March 23, 2012
Piper’s Munster on Apple iTV: ‘It will be the biggest thing in consumer electronics since the smartphone’ – March 1, 2012
PC Magazine reviews new 1080p Apple TV: Editors’ Choice – March 20, 2012
Strategy Analytics: With 32% share, Apple leading ‘Connected TV’ market with ‘hobby’ Apple TV – December 12, 2011

17 Comments

  1. OMG…. wise words from an anal…. yst. Scary.

    Steve Jobs did not say, “Hey, I have a nice idea for a hobby business”, or “Say, I have a basic concept that we need to play around with for several years before its ready.” He said ” I have nailed it”.

    Why do I think that he did? So, when its ready, we will see it.

    I have an Apple tv and I am a happy camper. I watch netflix, my movies and music, and stream to tv when I want.

    I can wait…… How about you?

    1. I actually want an Apple TV at every TV location in my house, that’s 3. I want Apple TV to get Hulu, though I don’t use Hulu much, maybe that’s why.

    2. Steve said he nailed the interface, not the hardware.
      There are NO margins (at least by Apple standards) in manufacturing a TV. Everything that Jobs wanted to do with a TV can be done with the AppleTV STB.

    3. Nobody outside of Apple knows at this point what Steve had nailed… He thought he did! What matters is that Apple has gotten better than the rest of the players and has delivered much better products. It is not a 50/50 chance anymore… It is more likely that Apple has the right answer and if they don’t it is still fine. Apple should not be expected to be the leader in everything all the time.
      I have two AppleTVs and I am very happy too but the fact that I am not obtaining hours of nonsense (aka content) I am even happier. I think we are overwhelmed with bull sh** information. This distracts us and does not allow brain development. You should be able to tell when you are hungry and eat instead of being fed all the time things that you are not hungry for.

  2. Maybe they should only put out one color of iPod, since they take up sooo much space.

    Ya know, that Apple TV is already hooked up to a TV in the store. Just change out the TV.

    Has this guy ever been in an Apple Store?

  3. Actually, there is no contraction between what Steve Jobs said and the above analysis. He said he knows how to make manipulating TV easy- not that he is going to build an HDTV. The current Apple TV (+ software update) with an iPad/iPhone and Siri could do the job. That actually makes more sense than making people buy whole new TVs. Also $99 is MUCH more affordable than the $1200-2000 price tag of Apple’s supposed HDTV.

  4. Yet Jobs said that he “cracked” TV thing, and Timothy Cook already twice hinted on products that would bring innovation that only Apple could do.

    Are those promised devices Retina MacBooks (and possibly Retina iMacs)? Might be so; but there is change that TV set will also arrive in the future, and maybe even this year.

  5. “An Apple television would be a terrible use of retail space relative to iPhone, iPad or the Apple TV set-top box. A 46″ Apple television would likely generate less than 1/200th the gross profit per cubic foot as an iPhone at retail, and less than 1/50th the gross profit per cubic foot of an iPad. We believe this is critical given the limited inventory space at many Apple and partner stores.” – Analyst Andy Hargreaves, Pacific Crest Securities

    This comment reaches the same level of stupidity as Dvorak’s warning about iMac glass screens in earthquakes. This guy shouldn’t be fired, he should be shot. He might breed.

  6. One word on this: content. There isn’t much via iTunes right now. Until they fix that, not much use for a new kind of tv. If you are satisfied with current content, all you need is the cheap Apple TV box.

  7. “We believe this is critical given the limited inventory space at many Apple and partner stores.”

    Whaa? This guy’s a “tard”. Partners and inventory space? Hello, moron ever heard of daily delivers……let FedEx and UPS store it for them. What a retard, doesn’t he know how many Apple sells products.

    Partners having limited inventory space…..maybe they should get rid of some of that Samsung junk that they’ve been force to take to push up Samsungs “shipping product” numbers.

    Andy from “I talk out of my a$$”, get a real job.

  8. Makes some good points but I completely disagree with this. As Apple will be puttin the retina display on larger screens in the iMacs and MacBooks which should drive up the slowing sales of both. Why shouldn’t Apple test the iTV waters with a 32″ retina display it’s only 5″ larger than the largest iMac.

      1. it’s not just about who would want it it’s also about who can afford it. Apple should come out innitally with three models like they did with most of their recent products. A 32″, 46″, and then a 50″. The issue that may come up from this is the cost to make retina displays that large and also how much of that cost falls on the the consumers. A 50″ retina display tv could cost the consumer anywhere between $5,000 to $8,000. Where a 32″ could cost around $2,000. All depending on added features. A 32″ could remain affordable to a younger fan base.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.