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

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.

Thread beginning with comment 573243
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by leos
by leos on Wed 25th Sep 2013 15:51 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

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%


Not logical. Just because the phone is for sale in China doesn't mean it is available to everyone in China. A majority of the population is not in the financially able to buy a smartphone so don't count as potential customers.

Edited 2013-09-25 15:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by leos
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 25th Sep 2013 15:59 in reply to "Comment by leos"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

*wooosh*

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by leos
by Nelson on Wed 25th Sep 2013 16:44 in reply to "RE: Comment by leos"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Its not exactly obvious you're parodying yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by leos
by leos on Wed 25th Sep 2013 20:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by leos"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

*wooosh*


You seem to be confused about the meaning of the "whoosh" comment. This comment is used when someone doesn't get a joke. Obviously your article is not a big joke, you are just pointing out that numbers can be interpreted in different ways. And I'm pointing out that the way you interpreted them makes no sense.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by leos
by unclefester on Thu 26th Sep 2013 02:25 in reply to "Comment by leos"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The Chinese urban middle class (all of whom can afford a smartphone) is actually around 500 million people - 50% larger than the entire population of the USA.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by leos
by leos on Sat 28th Sep 2013 06:07 in reply to "RE: Comment by leos"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

The Chinese urban middle class (all of whom can afford a smartphone) is actually around 500 million people - 50% larger than the entire population of the USA.


Way to make my point.

Reply Parent Score: 1