Columns

One of the most surprising details to emerge from the conference call following the announcement of Apple's financial results for its October to December quarter was that sales of Apple TV showed a year-on-year increase of 200%. That's very impressive for a product into which the company has put virtually no marketing effort and which it still describes as a hobby.

Part of the reason for the increase is that version 2 of Apple TV, launched in January of last year, was significantly better than the original, in that it allowed users to buy and rent movies and music directly from the Apple TV, rather than have to move content, or stream it, from a host Mac or PC. It was also, in the US at least, cheaper than the original. And it's still the only way to buy high-definition movies from iTunes.

Understandably, Apple isn't getting too excited by the jump in sales. Tim Cook, the company's chief operating officer, insisted that the company still saw it as a hobby, but added that it would continue to invest in Apple TV because it believes that growth in the online movie rentals business means there's a bright future for the set-top box.

That's a sensible position to take, which is more than can be said for the one taken by at least one analyst. Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster has taken that increase in sales, added it to the announcement from LG last month that it had signed a five-year deal with Apple to supply LCD panels, and come up with the conclusion that Apple will launch a television with a screen and tuner, and all the things you'd expect from a television designed to sit in the corner of your living room.

Just in case you're a little sceptical, Munster

ADVERTISEMENT

has one more key piece of evidence to substantiate his claim. He cites Peter Oppenheimer's warning at a conference call in July that Apple investors should expect lower margins in the following quarter due to an unannounced product transition. Unfortunately for Munster, that warning related to the July to September quarter and not some unspecified point in the future.

Quite simply, Munster is wrong, and it's not difficult to see why. Just take a look at Apple's record of new product releases in recent years. Look at the products it has released, and those that it hasn't. The iPod was launched because it could see there was a huge market whose potential wasn't being exploited by the devices that were available at that point. Quite simply, Apple believed it could build a better MP3 player than any of those that were on the market.

Apple launched the iPhone because it knew that by exploiting the huge popularity of the iPod and the iTunes Store, and combining it with OS X, the company could make a phone that would compete with anything that Nokia, Samsung or Sony Ericsson could make. And Apple knew that even if it only captured 1% of the market, it would have a viable and profitable business because the model it agreed with network providers ensured that it received a percentage of the monthly contract fee. And, of course, the iPhone was another device on which users could buy content from iTunes.

The Apple TV was a relatively low-cost experiment. Apple had all the bits it needed already in place, so there was no big R&D bill and by minimising marketing spend, it ensured that the number of units it needed to sell to break even was relatively small. And again, every Apple TV owner is a potential iTunes Store customer.

Contrast those products with a television screen. What has Apple got to gain from building the existing Apple TV into a 32in or 42in TV screen? The market for televisions is mature, heavily saturated and populated by companies that have been selling televisions for decades. Apple doesn't have the expertise to compete in such a high-volume, low-margin market. What's more, it doesn't need to. It has no desire to sell a box that can play terrestrial, satellite or cable TV. It generates revenue by selling and renting content.