Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I am that old that I value a laptop much higher than a phone, hence willing to shell out much more for it.
I get that. And I, too, value my Mac more than my phone. My real point was that there is a lot of noise here on MR (as is typical with new product announcements, from people who weren't going to buy in the first place and merely using the soul-crushing, should have been $499 price tag as the talking point to justify the bashing of a phone that wasn't going to be purchased in the first place.

I don't know why it is so hard for many here to just say they won't be buying, instead of making up a phoney reason.
 
imho, expensive for the kids, give the parents a break.

Back in 2013, parents were buying the new entry "plastic" iPhone 5C for their kids and it started at $549 which is around $745 in today's dollars. I find $599 a pretty good price for an iPhone with 16e specs. If that's too much for some, there is always still the used/refurb market or parents can give kids their old phone.
 
I don't get who this iphone is for, its not cheap its not full fledged. Buying the iphone 16 on installments on 2 years will add a measily $10 to your monthly payments. Is it really worth it to pay $10 less?

In that case, can't a similar question be asked about the 16? Who is the 16 for when for just $170 more (which is even less than the $230 gap between the 16e and 16) someone can get a 16 Pro?

Same with storage size. Who is 128GB storage for when for just $100 more, someone can get 256GB?

Just because something may only be $100, $170 or $230 more doesn't mean people will or should want to pay up for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Expos of 1969
I don't get who this iphone is for, its not cheap its not full fledged. Buying the iphone 16 on installments on 2 years will add a measily $10 to your monthly payments. Is it really worth it to pay $10 less?
It’s for people who need that $10 per month more than they need the added specs. My first iPhone was a 5c: it was the only iPhone I could afford and I needed the $x per month for food more than I needed higher specs in my smartphone.
 
Why does the entire store have go down for hours?

Does Temu disappear for hours every time they add a new item?
It’s all part of the Timmy suspense show. Make something common a special thing. It’s part of the exclusive lifestyle experience Apple is trying to lure you in.

When your products aren’t special anymore and falling behind on specifications, you have to find creative ways to sell.

Smoke, mirrors, our newest member… the refurbished/eh… minimalistic iPhone 14 E /s
 
People that buy on price alone and corporate buyers. My company is going to order around 200 next week to replace some aging 2020 SEs. I have the 2022 SE so I'm not in line for an upgrade yet.

Maybe you have specific reason to buy iphones but if going on price alone, we bought a $350 Samsung A3 i believe and it performs just as well as the high end model if you are not into 3d games and super camera options.

In that case, can't a similar question be asked about the 16? Who is the 16 for when for just $170 more (which is even less than the $230 gap between the 16e and 16) someone can get a 16 Pro?

Same with storage size. Who is 128GB storage for when for just $100 more, someone can get 256GB?

Just because something may only be $100, $170 or $230 more doesn't mean people will or should want to pay up for it.

Because the iphone 16 is supposed to be base and the rest is supposed to be upgraded options. The 16E is not base, its supposed to be the budget phone. I find it ludicrous to have a model line for every $200 price increase. Usually products are split in cheap, medium, and high end not a spectrum.

It’s for people who need that $10 per month more than they need the added specs. My first iPhone was a 5c: it was the only iPhone I could afford and I needed the $x per month for food more than I needed higher specs in my smartphone.

If you are in need of that $10 monthly then buying an android that is probably $300-400 cheaper makes more sense. It performs just as well.
 
Because the iphone 16 is supposed to be base and the rest is supposed to be upgraded options. The 16E is not base, its supposed to be the budget phone.

The 16e is supposed to be the entry iPhone, which it is.


I find it ludicrous to have a model line for every $200 price increase. Usually products are split in cheap, medium, and high end not a spectrum.

If by "model line" you mean e, regular, Plus, Pro and Pro Max, it isn’t a $200 increase for every line. The starting prices for each "model" are 16e at $599 followed by the regular 16 at $829 ($230 higher) followed by the 16 Plus at $929 ($100 higher) followed by the 16 Pro at $999 ($70 higher) followed by the 16 Pro Max at $1,199 ($200 higher).

Based on how Apple typically prices iPhones, the increased storage (+$50) and size (+$100) alone would bring the price to $579. For just $20 more (bringing the price to $599), you are getting quite a few new or upgraded features with the 16e including increased RAM, better camera setup, better chip, better modem, better battery, increased max brightness, super retina XDR display, Apple Intelligence, emergency SOS via satellite, roadside assistance via satellite, Messages via satellite, crash detection, Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos, ceramic shield, greater water resistance, etc.

Given all of this, I find the 16e to be a pretty good entry iPhone value at $599 versus the comparatively much smaller and archaic SE.
 
The 16e is supposed to be the entry iPhone, which it is.




If by "model line" you mean e, regular, Plus, Pro and Pro Max, it isn’t a $200 increase for every line. The starting prices for each "model" are 16e at $599 followed by the regular 16 at $829 ($230 higher) followed by the 16 Plus at $929 ($100 higher) followed by the 16 Pro at $999 ($70 higher) followed by the 16 Pro Max at $1,199 ($200 higher).

Based on how Apple typically prices iPhones, the increased storage (+$50) and size (+$100) alone would bring the price to $579. For just $20 more (bringing the price to $599), you are getting quite a few new or upgraded features with the 16e including increased RAM, better camera setup, better chip, better modem, better battery, increased max brightness, super retina XDR display, Apple Intelligence, emergency SOS via satellite, roadside assistance via satellite, Messages via satellite, crash detection, Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos, ceramic shield, greater water resistance, etc.

Given all of this, I find the 16e to be a pretty good entry iPhone value at $599 versus the comparatively much smaller and archaic SE.

we are not talking price to features ratio. The price is too high as entry point. A lot of people can do without the Apple intelligence, road side assistance, Dolby Atmos, Dolby vision, better camera if it means $200 off the price making it a $400 phone as an entry model. I have iphone SE 2022 and I can not see anything wrong with the image the camera takes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmadsen3
we are not talking price to features ratio. The price is too high as entry point. A lot of people can do without the Apple intelligence, road side assistance, Dolby Atmos, Dolby vision, better camera if it means $200 off the price making it a $400 phone as an entry model. I have iphone SE 2022 and I can not see anything wrong with the image the camera takes.

The original 3.5" 16GB SE was $399 which is around $535 in today's dollars. If an extra $64 for a phone people are likely to keep for two to three years or more is too much then perhaps this is a sign they shouldn't be considering iPhones, at least not new ones. We're not talking about much of a jump in price here (adjusting for inflation) especially considering its larger size and many new or updated features.

These same people may also want to rethink their current carrier/plan as they could potentially save far more than $64 (over two to three years or more) by switching to a different carrier or plan.
 
The original 3.5" 16GB SE was $399 which is around $535 in today's dollars. If an extra $64 for a phone people are likely to keep for two to three years or more is too much then perhaps this is a sign they shouldn't be considering iPhones, at least not new ones. We're not talking about much of a jump in price here (adjusting for inflation) especially considering its larger size and many new or updated features.

These same people may also want to rethink their current carrier/plan as they could potentially save far more than $64 (over two to three years or more) by switching to a different carrier or plan.

you are right, they shouldn't consider the iphone. The whole argument is Apple is going to lose big time on a huge user base for Android because trust me , people in the 3rd world are in the 100s of millions and won't justify paying $600 when they can get an android for $350 that can do 90% the same thing.

Think of kids, schools, employee devices, backup phones, and 100s of millions in Indonesia, China, India, and Africa.
 
you are right, they shouldn't consider the iphone. The whole argument is Apple is going to lose big time on a huge user base for Android because trust me , people in the 3rd world are in the 100s of millions and won't justify paying $600 when they can get an android for $350 that can do 90% the same thing.

Think of kids, schools, employee devices, backup phones, and 100s of millions in Indonesia, China, India, and Africa.

But that's nothing new. There have always been way cheaper Android alternative than Apple and this is a reason Android has long had greater usage share in countries/regions you mentioned like Indonesia (Android has around 93% share), China (Android has around 76% share), India (Android has around 95% share) and Africa (Android has around 85% share). Apple's target simply isn’t the low end market so whether their entry phone starts at $450, $500, $550 or $600 isn’t likely going to make a great deal of difference to low end market buyers anyway.
 
we are not talking price to features ratio. The price is too high as entry point. A lot of people can do without the Apple intelligence, road side assistance, Dolby Atmos, Dolby vision, better camera if it means $200 off the price making it a $400 phone as an entry model. I have iphone SE 2022 and I can not see anything wrong with the image the camera takes.
Apple could offer the 16E for $ 400 and still make a decent profit. The modem is cheaper than the ones from Qualcomm, so are the 60hz displays. It’s pure greed what’s driving them and to compensate the losses they make in China because they’re losing marketshare and aren’t able to compete over there.
 
Apple could offer the 16E for $ 400 and still make a decent profit. The modem is cheaper than the ones from Qualcomm, so are the 60hz displays. It’s pure greed what’s driving them and to compensate the losses they make in China because they’re losing marketshare and aren’t able to compete over there.

Given Apple's market position, why would they price it that low? Apple markets itself as a "premium" brand and is not necessarily trying to compete in the low end of the market similar to how companies like BMW market themselves as "premium" brands and are not necessarily trying to compete in the low end of the market.

Apple, BMW and other premium brands aren't necessarily looking to have the largest overall market share, they are more focusing on market share and position at the premium level. A premium brand pricing its products too low could cheapen their image and hurt sales and profits of their pricier, higher margin products.

Apple seems quite content letting low end Android-based brands have the low end of the market.
 
Given Apple's market position, why would they price it that low? Apple markets itself as a "premium" brand and is not necessarily trying to compete in the low end of the market similar to how companies like BMW market themselves as "premium" brands and are not necessarily trying to compete in the low end of the market.

Apple, BMW and other premium brands aren't necessarily looking to have the largest overall market share, they are more focusing on market share and position at the premium level. A premium brand pricing its products too low could cheapen their image and hurt sales and profits of their pricier, higher margin products.
The difference between BMW and Apple are big. BMW is offering the latest in tech and all premium materials even with their smallest cars. Apple on the other hand is wants you to believe its premium while not offering the premium technologies you should expect from a “premium” brand.

That’s something what Apple sets apart years ago. Best in technology and it just works. That’s something from the past and they still rely on that image. It might work in the USA but definitely not in China. People are much more technologically driven and do compare.

The so called cheap brands you mention do offer better technology for half the price and even Android got years ahead of Apple in software.
 
The difference between BMW and Apple are big. BMW is offering the latest in tech and all premium materials even with their smallest cars

Incorrect. BMW absolutely has offered and does offer lesser or cheaper tech and materials on their less expensive vehicles. BMW has used cheaper and less complex FWD platforms with their less expensive cars, has used cheaper materials (e.g., more rubber and plastics) with their less expensive cars, has used older or less advanced/sophisticated components with their less expensive cars, and so on. Same is true with other premium car brands. This was not supposed to be a discussion about cars but rather how companies market and position their brands.


Apple on the other hand is wants you to believe its premium while not offering the premium technologies you should expect from a “premium” brand.

That’s something what Apple sets apart years ago. Best in technology and it just works. That’s something from the past and they still rely on that image. It might work in the USA but definitely not in China. People are much more technologically driven and do compare.

The so called cheap brands you mention do offer better technology for half the price and even Android got years ahead of Apple in software.

Again, Apple markets itself as a premium brand and has little interest in serving the low end market so discussions about whether Apple "could" sell the 16e for $400 (or less) are silly. It could hurt their image to do so. Unless you don’t think Apple already makes enough money and profits, targeting the premium segment seems to be working quite well for them. Their market share goal would be tied to the premium market not the total market and in that sense, they've been successful.
 
Incorrect. BMW absolutely has offered and does offer lesser or cheaper tech and materials on their less expensive vehicles. BMW has used cheaper and less complex FWD platforms with their less expensive cars, has used cheaper materials (e.g., more rubber and plastics) with their less expensive cars, has used older or less advanced/sophisticated components with their less expensive cars, and so on. Same is true with other premium car brands. This was not supposed to be a discussion about cars but rather how companies market and position their brands.




Again, Apple markets itself as a premium brand and has little interest in serving the low end market so discussions about whether Apple "could" sell the 16e for $400 (or less) are silly. It could hurt their image to do so. Unless you don’t think Apple already makes enough money and profits, targeting the premium segment seems to be working quite well for them. Their market share goal would be tied to the premium market not the total market and in that sense, they've been successful.
Whatever. We just see it differently.
 
But that's nothing new. There have always been way cheaper Android alternative than Apple and this is a reason Android has long had greater usage share in countries/regions you mentioned like Indonesia (Android has around 93% share), China (Android has around 76% share), India (Android has around 95% share) and Africa (Android has around 85% share). Apple's target simply isn’t the low end market so whether their entry phone starts at $450, $500, $550 or $600 isn’t likely going to make a great deal of difference to low end market buyers anyway.

Thats up to them, but they are losing big time. They do not have to be the cheap entry model but a more reasonably entry model. Samsung A15 starts at like $150 and the higher end in that cheap lineup is $400. Apple could release their entry model at $400-450 they do not have to go as cheap as $150.

maybe I live under a rock but I never saw iphone as a "premium" smartphone. Its not cheap but nothing to show off, even teenagers got them. A rolex watch is a premium product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9081094
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.