Apple's Cheapest iPhone Now Starts at $599

[Unregistered 4U]

Who is this phone for? It’s too expensive for those who want a budget phone. And everyone else will buy something better.

I recently googled “Budget phone”. Anything over $200 is too expensive for those who want a budget phone.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It’s for people who may be looking to "save" $230 and don’t want/need some of the features found with the 16.

A similar question can be asked about the 16. Who is the 16 for when you can get a 16 Pro for only $170 more with same storage?

People with vast disposable income see this as “See! For just a couple hundred more I could get more features. They’re always pushing people to buy the more expensive devices!” They can’t fathom how someone would buy a less expensive option when a more expensive option exists.

 

[webkit]

The price increase of 40% is just extraordinary.

Not really when you are talking about such different devices. The iPhone SE 3 was based on the iPhone 8 which dated back to 2017, and had a chip that dated back to 2021. Given that the 16e is much larger, has twice the base storage, increased RAM, better camera setup, better chip, better modem, better battery, increased max brightness, super retina XDR display, Apple Intelligence, emergency SOS via satellite, crash detection, Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos, ceramic shield, greater water resistance, etc., I don't think the price increase is that bad.

Speaking of the iPhone 8, the price difference between it and the iPhone X was even greater at 43% and that was with both having the same chip, base storage and water resistance rating.

 

[widestload]

To cover the 10% tax on goods from China? Promises of price reductions going well.

 

[Sami13496]

In summary,
1. It doesn’t have 120hz screen which $300 Androids have
2. It doesn’t have mag-safe
3. It doesn’t have Wifi 6e/7
4. It doesn’t have more than 1 camera
5. It doesn’t have dynamic island
6. It doesn’t have mmWave
7. It doesn’t have same SOC cores as iPhone 16
8. It doesn’t have time-tested Cellular from Qualcomm

So what the F does this trash tier device have to justify $600+ price?

Not all users care about these features—I’m one of them. Let’s break it down:

1. Don’t care.

2. Don’t care.

3. No idea what that is, don’t care. As long as the Wi-Fi works, great.

4. This is a big plus for me—I don’t like multiple cameras or bulky camera bumps.

5. Couldn’t care less about the notch or pill.

6. No idea what that is, don’t need it, don’t even know what it does.

7. Don’t care. Is it as fast as an iPhone 15? Perfect.

8. This might be the only thing I’d question, but as long as it works, that’s fine.

My point is, some of us just want an iPhone—something that runs iOS smoothly, lets me use iMessage, browse the web, check my email, and snap a photo of a receipt. If we can get one for less, even better!

Sure, it would be nice to get it even cheaper. But it’s already progress that I can get a good iPhone with a big screen for $200 less, without having to pay iPhone 16 prices for features I don’t need.

Plus, comparing an iPhone to an Android is completely pointless for me. I wouldn’t switch to Android even if I got a flagship phone for free.

 

[frownface]

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)

Your projections would be in line with what i'd have guessed assuming nothing else changes.

$100 is too narrow a gap between the 16 & 16E and would make the 16E a very hard sell to everyone except for those that really do want the cheapest possible.
There's nothing the 16E does better than the 16 that could help justify such a small price gap. In this scenario the 16E is only relevant for 6 months; which is way too short for a product line that has typically had a long lifecycle.

Which is why i'm starting to think that the 17 will see a price increase, the 16E will see a price decrease, and the 16 will see a smaller decrease than the usual $100; or some combination of the three.

 

[paradox00]

Your projections would be in line with what i'd have guessed assuming nothing else changes.

$100 is too narrow a gap between the 16 & 16E and would make the 16E a very hard sell to everyone except for those that really do want the cheapest possible.
There's nothing the 16E does better than the 16 that could help justify such a small price gap. In this scenario the 16E is only relevant for 6 months; which is way too short for a product line that has typically had a long lifecycle.

Which is why i'm starting to think that the 17 will see a price increase, the 16E will see a price decrease, and the 16 will see a smaller decrease than the usual $100; or some combination of the three.

I don't see an issue with a $100 gap between the 16 and 16e at all. I take more issue with the current $100 gap between 15 and 16e. But yeah, a price hike seems likely, we'll see where the cards fall after that.