Well, sort of. It is a survey after all.
Change Wave did a survey that asked 153 iPad owners what they most often utilized their iPads for. Each respondent was allowed to choose up to 5 uses. The results were -
- Surfing the Internet – 83%.
- Checking Email – 71%.
- Apps from Apple App Stores (whatever that means) – 56%.
- Watching Videos – 48%.
- Reading eBooks – 33%.
- Playing Games – 29%.
- Reading Magazines/Newspapers – 28%.
- Listening to Music – 18%.
It’s impressive that ebooks beat out games (almost to the point that it makes you wonder about the accuracy of the survey).
It’s also worth noting that for all the hype of the iPad being an eReader and Apple trying its best to force the iPad into the eReader niche only 33% of users listed reading books as one of the main things they do. They had up to 5 slots and only 33% of them chose reading ebooks.
The numbers add up to 356%. Not sure exactly how those 5 choices were tallied up – Guessing they just counted a vote for ebooks if it was listed in any of the 5 slots.
33% of 1 million? 33% of a couple million?
The Press not only wrongly categorize the iPad as an eReader they also compare iPad sales figures against eReader sales figures.
If this survey is correct (and it’s positive about the iPad so the Press will assume it is) then it means only 33% of iPad owners are actually reading books on it.
Let’s say 2 million iPads have been sold so far. And that 5 million sell this year.
That would mean 660,000 people reading books on their iPad so far and 1.66 million iPads that are used for reading books by the end of the year. That brings up 3 questions -
- If only 33% of iPad owners read books – That’s 1.66 million by end of 2010. How significant is that? Obviously not as significant as pretending every iPad owner reads ebooks.
- Do people who read on the iPad buy and read books as often as Kindle owners (and owners of other dedicated eReaders)? If not, what is the difference?
- Are these people who weren’t reading and now are reading because they can get ebooks on the iPad? Are these people who would have bought a dedicated eReader - If so, are they reading less or more?
The figure of 33%, if correct, gives us a starting point for guessing lost eReader sales.
Guesstimating lost eReader sales
Assuming 2 million iPads have been sold so far we get 660K people who read ebooks on the iPad.
- Let’s say half of them did not consider an eReader. That leaves 330K.
- Let’s say 50% of the remaining would have ended up buying an iPhone or iPod touch or some other multi-purpose device. Simply because being able to do multiple things appealed to them.
- We’re left with 165K lost sales.
It’s fashionable (as in this survey) to refer to ‘so many iPad sales in just a couple of weeks’. However, we had -
- January 27th to April 3rd. When people were delaying their purchases.
- April 3rd to May 21st. When iPads were actually available.
That’s over 3 months and 3 weeks. Let’s say 3.75 months. So eReaders lost 165K units of sales in 3.75 months. That’s 44,000 lost ereader sales a month.
What eReader sales might we lose over the course of 2010?
So far we’ve had 165,000 lost sales at the rate of roughly 44,000 sales lost a month.
Over the next 7 months in the best case scenario sales losses occur at the same rate – which equates to an additional 308,000 lost. That means a total loss of 473,000 sales. A significant loss but not a huge one.
In the worst case scenario the rate of lost sales keeps going up and we’re losing an average of 100,000 sales a month. That would mean 865,000 eReader sales lost to the iPad in 2010. Pretty significant – However, it still wouldn’t kill eReaders. In fact, they’d probably sell more than they did last year (assuming 5 million in 2009).
That 865,000 sales lost number is pretty much the upper limit. It’s assuming 100,000 sales lost a month from here on out.
In the worst case the iPad will eat up 20% of eReader sales
It’s obviously a very different figure for ‘lost eReader sales’ if you compare number of iPads sold against number of eReaders sold. However, as this survey shows, only 33% of people read ebooks on their iPad. So it’s pretty unrealistic to count the other 67% of iPads as ‘lost eReader sales’.
In the realistic worst case scenario we lose 865,000 eReader sales to the iPad which would be less than 20% of eReader sales for 2010.
If you want to play games with numbers you could claim that all 33% of iPads that are used for reading books are lost eReader sales (even though they’d probably have been iPhone and iPod sales if the iPad wasn’t around). If we do go with that and we have 5 million iPad sales, then we get 1.66 million iPads sold that were lost eReader sales.
If 5 million eReaders were supposed to be sold this year then a loss of 1.66 million is 33%. A huge number but it’s still not a big enough number to kill the eReader. Also, with this we’re assuming that just 3.34 million eReaders sell this year. That’s unlikely – Amazon alone might sell that many Kindles.
Basically, the iPad is doing exactly what you’d logically think it would – stealing chunks of various markets (iPod, Mac, Netbook, Laptop, Kindle, etc.) and combining those to get big numbers – at least so far.
What’s the benchmark for the iPad to be considered a huge success?
If you’re thinking ‘revolutionary and magical’ and a new paradigm of computing then it’s probably tens of millions of units. That would mean hitting 5 million or more in its first year.
If Apple persists in going with the eReader route then it can keep claiming it has huge comparative numbers even though only 33% of them actually read ebooks. This is probably what Apple is going to do. Pick markets like Tablet PCs and eReaders that are small and try to show that the iPad dominates them. It’s hoping that the buzz gets lots of people into buying the iPad.
That in turn would let Apple hit economies of scale and sell the iPad at a more compelling price point.
The 33% number is really surprising. Guess the Apple reality distortion field had affected me too because it seemed like 75% of the people who bought an iPad talked about reading lots of books on it.