Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yeah but we also have some manufacturers making the chassis thicker just so it would be uniform with no camera bump. I feel like that gets lost in stats
I guess it depends what’s important to people. A lighter, generally thinner phone with a decent camera and all day battery life, or a thicker, heavy phone with a smaller bump and 1 1/2 days battery life.

My 15 Pro goes on a nightstand every night so 2 days isn’t interesting to me. I bet 99% of people also their phones nightly as well, no matter how long they can last.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1
This iPhone might be portless because it's so thin. Only wireless charging.
The coil for wireless charging increases the needed thickness, as does the necessary glass back. They should rather get rid of that.
 
I love my M4 iPad Pro 13” in large part because of its thinness (and battery life), and would likely buy the iPhone 17 Air as long as it offers good battery life. I’m currently using a 15PM, and can say I certainly don’t need more performance from the chip, so having a lesser version in the Air isn’t a negative to me. Frankly I would probably pay more if they made an iPhone 17 Pro similar to the M4 iPad Pro, where they focused on thinness, battery life and screen performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1
iPhones are way too heavy nowadays. iPhone 16 pro weighs almost twice as much as iPhone 5S. These are portable devices that are meant to be light. It makes sense to create lighter phone people just want trade portability for standard camera and little bit worse battery life.
Agreed. Whether you like foldables or not, the fact that my Honor Magic V3 Global weights 1 gram less than the iPhone 16 PM and it has a 6.3" outer display and a 7.92" inner display is truly sad on Apple's part. The V3 is also less than 1mm thicker than the iPhone 16 PM when folded.
 
  • Love
Reactions: iGüey and snipr125
Apple is all about form over function.
That’s true for their hardware, but where they actually shine is software. People buy iPhones, iPads and Macs not because the hardware is great - it’s bleh, but because the ecosystem of inter-connectivity of software that allows only Apple products to work monopolistically well due to anticompetitive-own everything-and charge-everyone practices they have implemented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect
I suspect Apple’s research and experience tells them otherwise.

Or the beancounters like how "thinner" needs less aluminum for unit cost savings, less battery for unit cost savings, etc... AND know that a segment of the market LOVES form factor changes so they can show total strangers they have the latest. 💰💰💰

Isn't another key part of THIS rumor cutting the camera to a single lens but maintaining the "same great price" or so as the Pro model it is expected to replace in the lineup? If that's true, there's cost savings over some kind of consumer gain/want fulfillment. Keeping same great price would then imply margin expansion. Did Research say that a gripe is "Too many/much camera?"... "We want ONE corner lump for improved wobble on countertops instead of two or three"???

The play on Research leading to thinner should have anecdotal proof in countless threads showing complaints about how current iPhones are "too thick." Until there are rumors of a thinner phone that start becoming plausible, we see no such posts. There is abundant voices ready to complain about anything around here. Where are broad complaints from last few years about the phone being too thick? That should be obvious and yet, nothing shows.

What is visible in abundance is desire for some option to make the camera bump flush and if that involves creating more space inside by adding a few millimeters instead of subtracting them, fill that space with more battery. If we see a LOT of that, I'd think this Apple Research would see a lot of that too.

Let's ask ourselves what have we seen more of: calls for thinner phones vs. calls for flush cameras/more battery? And if we clearly know the answer to that question- and I believe just about ALL of us do- so should Apple Research.

The BIG PROBLEM with giving the market what it wants in this topic is it might involve adding a little more aluminum for a little more cost and more battery for a little more cost. Modern Apple seems increasingly focused on fattening the sky high margin even more than it already is... which is accomplished by reducing cost of products and/or charging more for them... or BOTH!. 💰💰💰

But let's suppose that Apple Research sees at least an equal market want for "thinner" and "flush cameras/more battery." Even at a 50:50 split assessment of market wants, why only choose to develop the "thinner" option? If the research shows the market wants phone evolutions to both, why not make BOTH to feed market demands? Why be drawn to only "thinner?" Again, one plausible answer to that question is that "thinner" is more profitable per unit sold... while the other option might require spending another dollar or three to deliver THAT new iPhone.

Apple has a long history of just doing whatever Apple wants to do and "we" buy anyway... even rationalize sometimes bad choices to each other like they are genius choices (until Apple finally fixes errors themselves)... so perhaps they are just going with the more profitable option vs. actually delivering on what the research shows as bigger wants... because that may add a few bucks to cost of each unit. That has to seem as plausible as this idea that in spite of not seeing a large wall of "too thick" gripes around here, Apple Research has somehow found that that is indeed a big issue among iPhone owners to address... again.

I'll conclude with a "what if" question: What if Apple rolled out this thinner iPhone AND rolled out a modestly thicker one that flush-fit the cameras and fills the added space with more battery? Which phone would probably get the most buyers? I suspect we all at least think we know the answer to that question too. Is it this one?
 
Last edited:
I won’t be buying another phone for 2-3 years… but if I was next cycle. I’m honestly not that interested in a thinner phone at all which would likely have a heavier throttled CPU and smaller battery
 
So a thinner phone, same or less battery capacity, and a much fatter camera bump, vs a very slightly barely noticeable difference in thickness phone, bigger battery capacity, and smaller bump.

I'll take the "fatter" phone.
 
Our thinnest iPhone yet at 5mm but with thickest camera bump of any phone out there at 15mm. Because…courage!!
 
I missed the part where they said 55 minutes of battery life. I guess if ya wanna place to make up bs, this is the place to do it.
Girl... the only thing you missed is learning what sarcasm is. I'm saying the same "BS" (your words) as Macrumors with this article.
But let's keep it 💯 for a second - they can barely put 3500mah battery in a 6,3" phone that's more than 8mm thick, while there are companies that can fit almost 5000mah battery in a phone that's (almost) the same size as iPhone 16 Pro. What do you think the battery size would be in a phone that's 5,5mm "thick"?
And the whole "iOS and apple silicon is more efficient" argument is starting to not be valid anymore. A18 and A18 Pro draw more power than A17 Pro (when under load) and iOS 18 is... let's say questionable.

If they finally don't introduce new battery technology in that "slim" iPhone and if they don't optimize iOS 19 properly, that phone will have one of the worst battery life in years.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.