Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You can't really turn launch weekend into a case study. Above the normal level of buyers and those drawn in by advertising, you have people who keep track of dates to buy a new device. This is not to say they're not doing well.

The debate is generally over where they will find more buyers. Without subsidies, an iphone costs as much or in some cases more than a low budget PC. This represents price territory they covered anyway. They just moved some of the costs around according to the teardown. I suspect they reduced manufacturing cost or the need to purchase costly equipment somewhere, but I don't see where you have enough information to draw an unbiased conclusion.

I'm not trying to do a case study. Just observations from first weekend sales.

I'm not sure what your second comment about price compared to a computer and the teardown have to do with my comment.
 
Parents (being one myself) who have any self respect, won't pay for their kids to have a $2,400 dollar contract for a mobile phone, regardless of the subsidized up-front cost.

All I can say is that you reap what you sow, and teaching your kids that spending that kind of money on them is financially responsible is only going to hurt them in the long run.

You can get a cell phone for $50 off-contract, and pay-go for 10-40 bucks a month depending on what you need, service-wise. Any kid with an iphone who isn't working full time and paying for phone/car/insurance themselves is learning the wrong things about life, and boy, are their parents going to be confused one day when their 35 year old son is living in the basement. Where did we go wrong, honey?

Wow, just wow. Self-righteous much?

I'm 24 and grew up in a very blessed household. If you asked my parents, specifically my dad why he paid for a cell phone plan for me, bought me a car and paid for the gas, and generally gave me the things he gave me, I think this is what he'd say (based on conversations on such things I've had with him):

He grew up poor - very much so. Big family, mom and dad both working multiple jobs, dirt floor home in the projects in New Jersey. He worked all kinds of jobs - never went to college, enlisted in the Navy and worked at McDonalds for a little while. Became a radio DJ, worked with his brothers selling furnaces then finally got into sales when he was in his 40s. It wasn't until he was 42 that he figured out what he wanted to do for a career. He started his own company, which now pulls in roughly $25 million a year in revenue and he's doing pretty well. He'd tell you (as he's told me) that he's struggled my (and my siblings) entire lives balancing wanting to give us everything because he had nothing while at the same time teaching us the value of money and how to be independent.

At this point, given I'm married, working full time living in my own house with my wife, my brother is currently paying his way through law-school and is a year from being married and my other brother is almost out of college and has already started his own little media production company with his buddies - I'd say my parents did a pretty great job raising us. And I had a cell phone plan when I was a teenager that I didn't pay for.

So before you go bashing every parent for not making their kids work for everything like you think they should - how about realizing that generalizations usually only make yourself look foolish.

There are a lot of terrible parents out there. Lord knows bad parenting is a BIG reason why our society finds itself in the predicaments its in - but saying that a parent buying their kid an iPhone and paying for a cell contract is contributing to their failure and bashing said parents? Please.....

/rant over
 
Not really, this just shows that die hard fans are willing to buy early. Which is great for publicity but what really matters is what the average consumer who doesn't care chooses at their next upgrade.

Well then I guess there are nearly double the die hard fans this year. Yes, time will tell the sales of the S vs C, but consumers are looking for better quality over price when considering Apple.
 
As has been said, how is this any different than if they had not introduced the 5C and just discounted the 5? That's what they did with every other launch. But everyone had it in their heads (thanks to all the bogus rumors) that Apple would make a cheap phone.

The difference is this is a new product, that's not the same as just selling off old stock. Apple can do what they like, but you get the impression they wanted to sell a lot of the 5c. However these sales figures appear to suggest that the public have realised buying a 5s or even a 5 is a much better option. They didn't have to make the 5c super-cheap but in my country it's almost the same price as the 5s on contract and that's just crazy.
 
Actually, they won't because....

Hopefully Apple realises that they priced the iPhone 5C too high and we actually get the low-cost iPhone we all wanted.

The point of the 5C was never to create a cheaper iPhone. The goal was to sell last years phone with a higher margin, hence the move from aluminum to plastic.

If you want cheap, get a 4S (now free on contract) or move to a Android/Window phone.
 
The 3.7:1 international ratio includes the United States. So, I don't know where this 3.5x in the title came from.

At 3.7:1 with 9 million sold, that's approximately:

1,914,894 iPhone 5C

7,085,106 iPhone 5S

So, just the 5S sales alone blew away the old record of 5 million!

Mark
 
Seems right to me as i bought 3 5s and one 5c. :)

Why 3 5s? Because i could't decide between space grey and gold so i got both, and the white one is for my collection, i didn't even opened the box.
Why one 5c? For my collection, i don't plan to use it. :)
 
That's what I thought, too. But my teen granddaughter and her pre-teen sister both want the 5s. The color options did not sway them. The one feature that intrigued them was the finger print sensor.

I also think that in more affluent areas, the initial cost of the iphone was not, nor will be, the determinating factor. Most of the cost of owning a smart phone is in the service each month. Looking at the entire cost over the two year contract, the extra $100 is not a deal breaker.

I think you've hit on a important point. Apple are advertising the 5c as a "colourful" device. Forgive me for stating the blindingly obvious but you can add colour to the 5s simply by sticking in a colourful case. Apple even sell them. So the colourful 5c has no advantages as far as I can see apart from being a little bit cheaper.
 
Agreed. They should've used 4S components in the 5C body and priced it a lot lower.

This has to be the most stupid set of comments ever.

Anyone saying they needed a lower cost iPhone using lesser components is out of touch with Apple's strategy in everything.

Apple has always gone for premium or higher end in everything they do. This 5c WILL attract new customers to the iPhone and you don't want to have customers disappointed with the performance, you want them to be blown away.

By putting the 4s internals into a 5c you would have attracted customers to the shiny glittery new phone only to have them disappointed at how badly it runs iOS7 (I have a 4s and it doesn't run iOS7 anywhere near as well as my wife's 5).

I think Apple even selling the 4S at all going forward is a bad idea because the only people who buy an outdated phone like that are the same people who are constantly complaining that their phone is out of date the day they buy it. NEWSFLASH IT IS IF YOU BUY AN OUT OF DATE PHONE INSTEAD OF THE UP TO DATE ONE.

/rant
 
I like how you think you are qualified to assess the tastes and preferences of "most" people.

Hey I'm a designer, it's my job. :D

Anyway I didn't say most people, I said most 'normal' people. I'm sure abnormal people will just love their salmon pink phones...
 
The 5S is a little pricey for a new, flagship phone, but, not by that much.

The 5C, on the other hand, is very expensive compared to the similar Samsung phones that are a step down. For example, the Samsung Galaxy S III Mini, unlocked.

I have to admit that I was disappointed by the 5C pricing. I need a new phone, and, the 5S (unlocked, of course) is too expensive for me right now. But, so is the 5C.

Are you really comparing iPhone 5C with the galaxy s3 mini ??? :eek::eek:

Did you try one ?
 
The sales numbers tell nothing about that. They are always supply-side capped.


5c was not supply capped. Plenty to go around to anyone who wants it.

It's interesting how the 5 had pre-orders and took 5M in launch sales, while the 5s had no pre-order and took most of the 9M 2013 launch sales. As constrained as the 5s is claimed to be, it may be reasonable to say more 5s were made for launch. But spreading it across more markets constrained local markets.
 
You missed the point. The 5C makes good sense from a business point of view, not from a consumer point of view. Part of running a successful business is selling what your customers want, even if it defies logic. It's not your job to educate customers.

That's OK. Some of the same folks telling others to go back to school are the same ones who SWORE that Apple was NEVER going to release the iPad mini because at one point Jobs said that it didn't make any sense to go lower than 9.7"

The second the mini was announced, their tune changed 180 degrees. They knew all along that the mini was needed and that it would be a huge hit.

Best to ignore those who are incapable of taking ANY position that is not in lock step with 1 Infinite Loop. Or at a minimum, let your position be posted in opposition 1st, then ignore the childish responses like "Go back to school"
 
Hedge

Apple can't predict the future perfectly, the economy might improve dramatically over the next few months ( and this may correlate with more 5s sold than 5c ).

Alternatively the economy might get worse.

Having a 5c and a 5s available may be nothing more than an acknowledgement of a volatile economy.

--

Look at it this way, if Apple could accurately predict the economy 6 months from now, if they could predict it far better than everyone else, well they could just invest all the cash they have sat and make a massive return.

But they can't predict it, so supplying the market with these 2 phones gives them strategic options in a few months time.
 
Come on now, don't be silly. The story clearly said "The disparity in popularity between the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c is unlikely to persist over the long-term, as the iPhone 5s is more likely to be the device of choice for early adopters who made the effort to purchase the device on the launch weekend, while the lower-cost iPhone 5c will likely improve its relative performance over time as the bulk of customers who are likely to be more budget conscious purchase new phones as they become upgrade eligible."

Had the iPhone 5C outsold the 5S, it would have been looked at as a disaster. This is supposed to happen the first week, or month even. At the very least.

They made as many 5Ss as they could, given the supposed fingerprint sensor constraints. Since the two phones aren't sharing parts, or even factories(?), how many 5Cs were made was independent of how many 5Ss were made.

I still say the 5C is a red herring. By creating different hardware types, 32bit vs 64, etc, they are risking the very same problem Android has - fragmentation. Better to stick with one core design.
 
It sold better than I thought, but it's good it didn't sell nearly as many. Consumers are getting smarter, or at least Apple consumers are smarter. This will also make Apple focus more on higher end phones which I will always want anyway.
 
Actually, customer satisfaction and profit margins are what's important. Nokia and RIM had a large market share just 3 or 4 years ago. What did that buy them?

Exactly right.

I see a lot of people always going on and on about Android marketshare, but it hasn't and doesn't do anything for them. None of the Android OEMs are making money except Samsung and iOS is still the primary development platform for devs and in turn still receives more apps first, higher quality apps, and some apps which are exclusive. Then in terms of profit Apple is making more than all of them. I don't see any benefit it this point that Apple would experience by competing with Android in the race to the bottom.

Marketshare for now is just a number when it comes to Android as it isn't experiencing any of the benefit that comes with having the dominant marketshare in a product category.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.