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 573291
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by majipoor
by galvanash on Thu 26th Sep 2013 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by majipoor"
Member since:

I agree with that analysis to be honest, but Apple still hasn't introduced the product the market thought the 5C was going to be - a phone that will sell in unsubsidized markets in volume.

Maybe they never will. They certainly don't have to - but eventually the shear inertia of all of the cheaper phones will catch up with them...

I hope they try at some point - but personally I don't want to see a "cheap" iPhone - Id rather see something totally different - a really good feature phone, something like the ipod nano in phone form. No app store, just a really solid phone/music player with some good useful built in apps optimized for what would have to be much lower end internals. Small but good screen with excellent build quality.

That would be somewhat radical, and it won't win in comparisons with Android devices on the features, but I think there is a market for "just a good phone" at say $199 no contract if it were extremely small and pocketable.

I think the components to build such a thing are all there and the price is doable - its just a matter of the battery, they have to get about 2x better than they are now to make it work most likely.

Anyway, just a though. Doubt they would go this route - there is too much momentum tied up in the app economy.

Reply Parent Score: 2