← Back to context

Comment by dingaling

14 hours ago

Apple sold around six million Mini models per year that they were on sale.

It's hard to envisage a boardroom scenario where that's not considered successful, but apparently it exists.

Apple sold ~230M iPhones the year the mini was discontinued. 2% is an unquestionable failure.

-an iPhone mini fan

  • So much for the long tail I guess. Tough luck if you want anything quirky or unique, society will only manufacture for the mainstream taste.

    • Society doesn't do anything of the sort. This is just diffuse irrational thinking. People invest their wealth where it will make the most profit for them and if a marginal dollar investment into the regular iPhone brings more profit than one into the iPhone Mini, then the owners and shareholders will ask the CEO why their money is flowing into suboptimal productions. People put their money investing in Apple in the hopes of a good return on that investment. If you want them to produce something that doesn't give them a good return, you'd have to pay to compensate, ie the price would rise but people wouldn't be ready to pay that. Otherwise you're asking people to subsidize for your enjoyment some luxury product as if it was charity. Willingly foregoing profit for the sake of someone else is subsidy or charity.

    • Long tail works well when the marginal cost is near zero and most of the upfront costs are born by someone else.

  • I don't get that mentality. Millions of units, shares many parts with other models, OK margin. This is no reason to kill a product.

    For comparison, that's roughly like Ford killing the Bronco Sport, or VW killing the ID.7.

    • > I don't get that mentality. Millions of units, shares many parts with other models, OK margin. This is no reason to kill a product.

      At 2% of sales, the opportunity cost is the reason to kill the product. Keep in mind this still needs design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution resources.

      I say all of this as a fan of the Mini series.

      2 replies →

    • this is exactly what Steve Jobs did after coming back from Next. Simplifying is very useful, especially in a big corp that want to be differentiated

      1 reply →

  • 6/230 seems closer to 3%. And while the number is relatively low, it seems to be a niche where they might lose customers to other platforms. It must have been unprofitable/very expensive to maintain that they killed it.

    OTOH, it's Apple, so users would rather buy a bigger iPhone and complain than switching brands (see other comments here), in which case Apple loses nothing.