Statista is about as objective as it gets... as opposed to any manufacturing marketing spin which may use words like "magical" and "faster than a 3090."
Retail pricing started at $500 and then got significantly discounted soon after launch (and even a rebate from Apple was mailed), further discounted through a consumer lens by working towards "FREE*" via AT&T contract subsidy. By iPhone 4, retail pricing was $199-$299... but consumers were still feeling "free*" or nearly free by contract subsidies.
So whether 1.4 million or 4 million, many customers did not directly spend $400 for GEN 1 phone as tangibly as they are spending $3500 - $5K+ for Vpro transactions with no cell service subsidies & contracts.
Here's another source backing up 1.4M units and sharing revenue from Apple's own financials.
Nevertheless, applying the 4M units claim and $400 vs. all just offered = $1.6B in GEN 1 iPhone revenue. If it is reasonable to divide by the $3700 I'm guessing for average Vpro transactions (maybe that is too small with some accessory purchases too?), I get about 433K units for Vpro to hit THAT SAME revenue number. Rumors are thick that up to 400K is all Apple could make in 2024, so if we take that stance, then iPhone at $1.6B beats Vpro at it's max first year potential of $1.48B IF Apple sells all they can possibly make in the next 12 months. Even then, I can't cast it as DOA or failure, etc as perhaps OP was trying to do by even making the comparison at all. And if 400K MAX rumor is puffed up only 33K units more, then it yields the SAME revenue in year 1. AND if Kuo's number is accurate, it's already at about 41% of iPhone year 1 revenue only 3 days into a pre-release!
Adjusting for inflation can help puff that up some more for this comparison. However, Apple will- if they choose to do so- simply be reporting revenue- whether that's 2007 revenue reporting then or 2024 revenue now. If Apple wants to make this particular case they will NOT adjust for inflation because they would want to show that their brand new product is selling very well... not undermine it by selectively choosing when to use the tactic.
The inflation adjusting game is used where it suits the objective. For example, adjusting for inflation, Gone with the Wind did much better than Avatar, Titanic, Avengers: Endgame and Star Wars A New Hope. If I want to get people to buy GWTW and feel this helps me pitch it, I adjust for inflation to help make my case. On the other hand, if I'm trying to sell one of those other movies, I don't allow some ancient ones into my "Top 10" list so that the product I want to push is as high on such a list as it can be. Depending on the movie to be sold, both GWTW and Avatar can be spun as #1 movie by revenue all time... which serves the purposes of selling BOTH of them as all time #1.
The attempt was to put this iPhone sales barometer of success in perspective: it makes no sense to compare year 17 to first days of year 1 and declare Vpro DOA or incredible or something in between. And if we want to inject variables like inflation adjustments in, then we might as well stand by and wait for this time in 2025 so we can compare actual results vs. actual results.
Personally, I don't care if it is less successful, more successful or as successful as a very different product like iPhone. I care what it can do, what value does it add, can it fulfill on what we've seen so far, what can it do that we haven't yet seen, etc. However, there are these other people playing extremist cards- positive & negative- that sometimes need an extremist bit of content put in perspective... such as comparing a 17 years mature, refined, perfected(?) flagship vs. one that not 1 buyer has got to actually try for themselves yet... and claiming it is DOA... or best thing ever.
The very best judge of whether this is DOA or "best ever" or something in between will come from looking back at actual results at least a year to as many as 17 years (and 17 years of evolution & refinement) from now.
