Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Sep 2013 10:38 UTC

I've been thinking a bit more about those iPhone 5C/5S weekend sales figures, and while it is certainly impressive, if you compare it to the iPhone 5's first weekend sales figures, it's actually quite a step backwards for Apple. The issue here - something many sites and even Apple itself doesn't want to focus on - is that the iPhone 5C/5S is available to a lot more people than the iPhone 5 was.

The iPhone 5 was available to 720 million people at launch, and sold 5 million units. This is a penetration of 0.69%. The iPhone 5C and 5S, however, are available to 2078 million people, and sold 9 million units, which constitutes a penetration of 0.43%. So, Apple has two new models to advertise and lure consumers with instead of one, and has a huge additional market (China) to address, yet it failed to capitalise on either of these two factors.

What this shows is that while the sales figure is still pretty darn impressive, it's not nearly as groundbreaking if you put it in perspective. Looking at it this way, the so-called record breaking 9 million figure can easily be explained away by Apple almost tripling its launch weekend audience, instead of an increasing popularity of the iPhone.

The only reason I'm writing this is to illustrate how numbers are entirely arbitrary, and it's easy to make silly comparisons and claim an arbitrary victory - or, change perspective a bit and claim arbitrary defeat, as I've done here.

Permalink for comment 573265
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: The impressive part
by CaptainN- on Wed 25th Sep 2013 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE: The impressive part"
Member since:

There's also the total lack of regard for the idea that Apple (and any company which must market a product to sell a product) has certainly adjusted its sales strategy to account for it's existing stock and ability to deliver them once sold. It's not like they could produce 3 times as many iPhones just because they used 3 times as much marketing to reach 3 times the sales numbers. Then they'd just have a shortage of stock, and egg on their face (and all the financial press hand wringing cause they failed to deliver, yada yada), as well as wasted marketing dollars.

It almost sounds like Thom still believes in the philosophy department's "economics". Business is not philosophy.

Reply Parent Score: 2