I travelled around Iceland and Central Asia with a Pixel 6a and had no real problems. I had some very unwanted attention with my 13 Pro on a previous trip.
The point is more that Apple should have competitive pricing and specifications. They don't.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Cheapest iPhone Now Starts at $599
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I travelled around Iceland and Central Asia with a Pixel 6a and had no real problems. I had some very unwanted attention with my 13 Pro on a previous trip.
The point is more that Apple should have competitive pricing and specifications. They don't.
In New Zealand the SE3 was NZ$849. The new 16E is $1199. That's a big jump for entry level phones here.
Every photo my kids show me from their high school, including ones taken by all of their mates, uses the 0.5 lens. I doubt kids will flock to the 16e.
They've missed the mark with the pricing.
They'll axe this product in 24 months citing that "it didn't sell well and users don't actually want amini E series phone"
When just like the mini before it, the issue is they've missed the mark and priced it wrongly.
They'll axe this product in 24 months citing that "it didn't sell well and users don't actually want a
When just like the mini before it, the issue is they've missed the mark and priced it wrongly.
It's a good price, and a much better deal than the 15 is now. The cheapest available iPhone will always sell well; especially when the next option is $100 more for an older phone with a slower chip (1 gen for the phone,2 generations older for the CPU by the marketing numbers) and no AI. The lineup is missing a true low end option, but that required a different phone than the rumored and now released one... $499 was always unrealistic based on the phone we were rumored to be getting. The rumored specs vs the existing lineup made that obvious. $599 was the low end of my expectations. I said as much many times, and still think the 15 at $599 and 16E at $699 would be the more logical price structure.
Now that this officially isn't the SE, maybe a 13 mini based SE can be put back on the table (wishful thinking I know). It could launch this time next year (or even this fall) with an A18 at $499 (assuming no fall price drop for 16e).
Funny how many comments on MacRumors are still trying to justify this pricing by claiming it’s mostly because of inflation and how much more advanced the technology in this device is than the devices from 5 years ago.
Compare it to pretty much any other device in Apple’s line up.
The MacBook Air still starts at $999 (which is it’s price since 2010), or 1199 which still isn’t as big of a jump.
The first MacBook Air started around $1,800.
Apple Watch in it’s 10 year lifetime went from $349 to $399.
Apple TV 4 was introduced in 2015 for $149 and the far more advanced model is now available at Apple for only $129.
AirPods were introduced in 2016 for $159. AirPods 4 now start at $129.
The current iPad starts and $349, while having far more advanced technology inside compared to the iPad 2 which was introduced with a $499 price tag.
iPhone is just Apple’s cash cow, that’s the reason for the price increase. Because Apple thinks people will pay in anyway.
Compare it to pretty much any other device in Apple’s line up.
The MacBook Air still starts at $999 (which is it’s price since 2010), or 1199 which still isn’t as big of a jump.
The first MacBook Air started around $1,800.
Apple Watch in it’s 10 year lifetime went from $349 to $399.
Apple TV 4 was introduced in 2015 for $149 and the far more advanced model is now available at Apple for only $129.
AirPods were introduced in 2016 for $159. AirPods 4 now start at $129.
The current iPad starts and $349, while having far more advanced technology inside compared to the iPad 2 which was introduced with a $499 price tag.
iPhone is just Apple’s cash cow, that’s the reason for the price increase. Because Apple thinks people will pay in anyway.
Last edited:
It's a fair price for a phone released today. If they're still going to be selling it in 2 years time; then it'd be a stretch to say it's worthwhile.
If they follow previous years trends, then in 7 months when the iphone 17 comes out, the 16 & 15 will get discounted $100 (though the 15 will likely just be outright discontinued like the 14) A $100 price gap between the 16E and 16 is pretty marginal in value.
Next year when the iphone 18 comes out, (assuming they're still selling the 16E) and the 17 gets a price drop, then the $100 price gap between the 16E and the 17 will be laughable.
Of course this predicates that the 17 & 18s will get released at the current price point, which after this morning is looking a lot less likely. I feel like they're more likely to up the price of the 17 by $100-150 which may justify the price gap to the 16E
If the rumors on the new Air model are correct, then I wouldn't bet on an increase. If Apple tries to sell the Air as a luxury upsell ot the 'plain' 17 then that higher price point already has a model. Like the initial MacBook Air , pay more for the thinnest bragging rights.
Decent chance the 18 will be just an incremental tweak. ( faster processor , better modem but not much else). Nothing that will drive a price spike.
More likely the 16e will get more discounts applied to it as it becomes older. Fewer will be sold directly by Apple Stores but the volume will won't shrink much as other outlets get more at lower prices.
I suspect Apple expect/expected Apple Intelligence to be a major upgrade cycle at some point and are trying to distance themselves from the flood of very useful , but don't have AI on them phones that would soak up more of the affordable market so they are running away. Then isn't going to move th top 'half' of the market. As long as their is substantive competitive in the 'top half' they don't have pure price elasticity there to keep jacking prices.
If Apple Intelligence doesn't become a substantive value proposition increase , they all of these price hikes will be on thin ice.
P.S. Apple has jumped $100 past the Pixel 8a normal list price ($499). They are leaving the $400 range phone market.
The Pixel 6a should have had also.
Having the latest SoC was a very good specification. The Pixel 6a SoC was three years behind its competitors.
Should Apple have put a fingerprint reader under the screen instead of having a button on the face? Yes, of course. They could have provided a slab of a display then and still not push people into using Face ID.
The more I think about it, the 16e exists so Apple can get rid of the 15 (which doesn’t support Apple Intelligence) sooner. I still think it’s a problem that they no longer sell a sub $500 phone.
Europe has incredible consumer laws compared to the US. Those laws allowed me to get my 2011 MacBook Pro gpu repaired when it was out of warranty before Apple launched the repair program for the same issue.
And since the gpu broke 2 more times after that those same laws forced Apple to return my money or replace the machine with something that is at least just as good. So I got a free 2014 MacBook Pro 15”.
The laws are to complicated to explain over here but as someone in Europe you should spend a day of your life reading into them, as you will most likely need them at least once in your lifetime.
This is so stupid.
An iPhone 16 which is cheaper than an iPhone 15... Should have been the SE 4th gen... or the 15E.. or something.
I can't believe the 'cheapest' iPhone is now over $1000... Could they not have kept the SE around with an A18 at a cheap price?
Personally I think iPhone Air will come in at $999 this fall and lead to a price hike of the iPhone 17 Pro to at least $1099. That could be the end of the changes (probably not) but to keep it simple I will assume the iPhone 17 price does not change and present this hypothetical scenario:
Fall 2025
iPhone 17 - $799
iPhone 16 - $699
iPhone 16e - $599
iPhone 15 (discontinued, would have been $599)
Fall 2026
iPhone 18 - $799
iPhone 17 - $699
iPhone 16 - $599
iPhone 16e - $499
Spring 2027 (maybe)
iPhone 18 - $799
iPhone 17 - $699
iPhone 16 - $599
iPhone SE - $499
I'm not saying this is right. I think the prices may be wrong from Fall 2025 onward (aka all of it), just demonstrating a simple scenario where the iPhone 16e effectively becomes and replaces the iPhone 15 in the lineup and everything can just continue as normal. I agree with you that the iPhone 15 may be discontinued next time it's due for a price drop. Which may or may not be this fall depending on iPhone 17 pricing.
The iPhone 16e presents no pricing issues unless we introduce assumptions that make it an issue. There's only a problem if a) we assume $599 is Apple's price floor and b) that the 16e's price won't change. There's no reason to believe either.
First, all the rumor sites said Apple's target was $499 with extreme confidence. I called BS on this phone being $499, but there could still be something real about that number (just not this phone and this year). I think there's no $499 iPhone right now because of two Apple mishaps, more shortly. Second, the 16e is not called the SE. Apple did that on purpose, yet it seems that we can't shake the assumption that its lifecycle will match the previous SE generations. There's no reason to make that assumption. It's literally not an SE. It has a number, so like other numbered (non-pro) phones it is not unreasonable to expect annual price drops and a fairly predictable discontinuation date. We should not expect it to hang out at the bottom of the lineup for years on end with no price changes. At the risk of repeating myself too much, it's not an SE.
So why isn't there a $499 iPhone? This is my guess. Apple made two mistakes/issues they couldn't resolve.
1) Apple transitioned to USB-C one year too late. I don't know why, but they screwed up. They were forced to discontinue the iPhone 14 one year ahead of schedule in Europe, and just decided to pull the bandaid off everywhere else as well. The iPhone 14 should be on the market (for $599) until the iPhone 17 launches this fall. It isn't on the market because Apple didn't ship it (or update later versions) with USB-C.
2) Apple planned an A17 (with 8 GB ram and AI support) for the iPhone 15, but shipped it with an A16 (6 GB RAM, no IA support). The iPhone 15 Pro had an A17 Pro SOC and no device to date has an A17 SOC. The process node apparently had yield issues, but I can only speculate on why there was been no A17.
The iPhone 16e exists to address the problem in 2 (iPhone 15 has no AI support when Apple planned for it to have it), and it's priced at $599 to address 1 (the iPhone 14 can't fill the $599 price point because it's missing USB-C).
Ok. But if 1) and 2) were resolved we'd still only have a $599 iPhone 14 and $699 iPhone 15, where's the $499 iPhone?
Simple answer is that the $499 SE4 was a real project, but because of 1) and 2) Apple had to redirect those resources to making a higher performing 16e. That explains why a phone numbered 16 ended up in an iPhone 14's case.
Same here. I bought a refurbished 12mini (it cost £399, I think) as a stop-gap until the new SE came out. Had it been £499, I’d have been okay with that. But £599? Nope, not going to happen.
I watched the 12 minute Apple video for the 16e and saw no compelling reason to buy. They seemed to spend 10+ minutes extolling the virtues of iOS 18, having very little to say about the phone itself.
This is the real reason they changed the name, they didn’t want a direct price comparison.
The price increase of 40% is just extraordinary.
I appreciate that there are significant spec improvements over the SE, but I don't think they come anywhere near to justifying such an increase.
The A18 chip is their pre-existing chip already used on the existing contemporaneous devices. The manufacturing cost to produce more of something they have already created is negligible.
The RAM storage increase from 4 to 8GB is significant, but also inevitable on a newer device intended to have a shelf-life of several years. The cost of memory chips is not increasing, it is falling.
The same points apply to the increase in memory from 64GB to 128GB.
The new C1 chip is something they are clearly going to be using for multiple devices for years to come. It relieves their reliance on Qualcomm. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to invent, but it is not a feature users will notice (I'm sure it will help the battery life, but new phones have good batteries anyway). This is not something that budget customers should bear the financial brunt of.
I have two teenagers with aging iPhones whose batteries are falling into uselessness. They both need new devices, but I won't be buying two of these at this price point.
I appreciate that there are significant spec improvements over the SE, but I don't think they come anywhere near to justifying such an increase.
The A18 chip is their pre-existing chip already used on the existing contemporaneous devices. The manufacturing cost to produce more of something they have already created is negligible.
The RAM storage increase from 4 to 8GB is significant, but also inevitable on a newer device intended to have a shelf-life of several years. The cost of memory chips is not increasing, it is falling.
The same points apply to the increase in memory from 64GB to 128GB.
The new C1 chip is something they are clearly going to be using for multiple devices for years to come. It relieves their reliance on Qualcomm. I'm sure it wasn't cheap to invent, but it is not a feature users will notice (I'm sure it will help the battery life, but new phones have good batteries anyway). This is not something that budget customers should bear the financial brunt of.
I have two teenagers with aging iPhones whose batteries are falling into uselessness. They both need new devices, but I won't be buying two of these at this price point.
It’s $200 less/25% cheaper than the 16. Of course it’s going to give up some features. The ones on this list generally seem like compromises that will mostly not be missed by non-techie users.
This phone gets the a18 chips that didn’t qualify for the previous models since they have 1 less gpu core.
So it’s not even more expensive for Apple in any way, those chips would have been destroyed or used in cheaper products.
It’s common practice to do this, it’s just weird Apple still calls it the a18 and specifies the amount of cores somewhere else.
I think we get a 1 year warranty from Apple but there maybe some further consumer law protections (mentioned earlier in the thread) which last longer.
I am kinda surprised Apple didn't come up with a way to keep this at $499 or less, for older people and people in less affluent countries. We got my wife's mom an iPhone last year, we went with a refurb. iPhone 14, and I think we paid something like $399 for it. I was a bit skeptical of buying her a phone that was already a couple years old, but she rarely uses the camera at all, and mostly just uses it for FaceTime with her kids (she has an iPad too). We considered a cheapo Android, but I decided it was worth the extra $150 to not have to figure out a whole new OS.
Very big increase for the entry level iPhone. But considering the specs, I would recommend spending another $100 more and getting the base 15 model. The added camera itself is a bonus.