Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I just don't see the value of the 16 (or 17) over the 16E for, like, 80+% of users.

"main" camera is used 90% of the time, nobody cares about the camera control or the dynamic island, everything else about the 16E is "same/good-enough." Enthusiasts get the Pro model. It feels like an empty middle to me.

The market seems to disagree, as the 16 was widly more popular, despite costing more.
🤷‍♂️
 
The market seems to disagree, as the 16 was widly more popular, despite costing more.
🤷‍♂️

It’s also what deals are available and what carriers push people towards. The majority of people still get their iPhones from their carrier.

I would personally be fine with the 16e, because I know about, but almost no mainstream carrier highlighted or promoted it, and Apple doesn’t advertise it, at all.
 
From an Apple standpoint (for the 16 series), it's in last place, and it did very poorly relative to the normal 16 in your chart there.


The jury is still out on that device over the long term.
From an Apple standpoint, it's still a huge success, since it beat all the other non-Apple devices.

It means that they have covered the spectrum of the users' needs better than any other manufacturer. In fact, without the 16e, they would have sold less phones in Q3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
I just don't see the value of the 16 (or 17) over the 16E for, like, 80+% of users.

"main" camera is used 90% of the time, nobody cares about the camera control or the dynamic island, everything else about the 16E is "same/good-enough." Enthusiasts get the Pro model. It feels like an empty middle to me.
When the 16 was the "middle" I agreed with you, but clearly we were in the minority.

All that changed with the 17, however. Getting the pro display, two upgraded cameras, double the storage and up to 50% more battery life (versus the 16) is huge. I can see no earthly reason to buy a 16 now when the 17 costs just US$100 more.

I never thought I would use the ultra wide camera, but I've surprised myself. I actually take ultra wide shots often enough that I would miss it if I went to an 'e' model with just the one camera. I'll still be getting a real camera with a long zoom lens when I retire, but the phone will suffice for most wide shots.
 
I’ve seen someone using a foldable Galaxy. It already showed wear and slightly deteriorated image quality in the fold area.
 
I just don't see the value of the 16 (or 17) over the 16E for, like, 80+% of users.

"main" camera is used 90% of the time, nobody cares about the camera control or the dynamic island, everything else about the 16E is "same/good-enough." Enthusiasts get the Pro model. It feels like an empty middle to me.
I would suspect that a lot of people, when their old 'default/regular' iPhone dies, just ask their carrier/apple/whoever for the new 'default/regular' iPhone!

It's pretty amazing that the regular 16 is so popular - not on these forums though!

And the 17 is a way way better deal, so it'll be interesting to see how that does - very very well, I would expect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarmWinterHat
From an Apple standpoint (for the 16 series), it's in last place, and it did very poorly relative to the normal 16 in your chart there.


The jury is still out on that device over the long term.
YoY the 16e has more than done its job. The 14 was the 2024 midrange choice and the 16e held itself better in 2025 against the Android competition, probably because just it brought in just enough "new" content to attract buyers, who at that price range are more likely to settle for less. It has a slot and filled it.
 
I bet a mini would've done crazy numbers.
1765221000585.png
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.