Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPhone 17 Air Design, Specs, and More: All the Rumors So Far

Excited to see the new iPhone. Think it will be a nice phone. Only disappointing thing will be the single lens. Shift to only e-sim will not be good but expecting Apple to follow that path and go e-sim only for all devices internationally within a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: number16 and mganu
lotzosushi said:
This has been rumored for so long Samsung already threw together a super thin phone just to scream "first" like they usually like to do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Haha probably true, plus whatever Apple does come up with next you can be sure Samsung will blatantly rip it off. If they weren’t important component suppliers Apple would probably still be attempting to sue them out of existence on multiple counts of plagiarism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macvicta
ksec said:
The 17 Air will likely have the same battery life as 17. Where previously the Plus used to get bigger battery. So unless people are used to Plus or Pro Max battery it should be fine.

I am just thinking if it will be all new design where it feels like the old 4th Generation iPod touch with curve around the edges making it "feels" a lot thinner when holding it.

The part I dont understand, is Apple will charge $100 more than 17 for a larger screen iPhone 17 Air with no extra battery life, and one less camera? Had they keep 2 Camera if might have make sense. But one less just feels inferior.
Click to expand...

Just answering myself. I am wondering if Apple would use Silicon Carbon Battery that are already being used by Chinese Phone companies for the past 2 years, and likely 3 by the time they launch 17. Shrinking the devices from 7.8 to 5.8mm that 2mm difference could mean 1/3 of battery gone.
 
After upgrading year after year, I refuse to buy the current iPhone with its awkward Camera Control button.

Going forward if Apple fails to offer a new phone without that hideous button, I will migrate to an Android phone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: macvicta
I'm waiting for the day when Apple starts selling a "heavy duty" iPhone, thicker by as many millimeters as it takes for the iPhone to work without charging for 3 days
 
citysnaps said:
Also... I don't need three rear cameras. One excellent camera whose lens is close to the focal length I like, 35mm, would be ideal for me.
Click to expand...
I get that some don’t care for all the cameras and the huge bump on the back.

But after years of training consumers to consider three cameras as premium, two as mid-tier, and one as budget, there ain’t no way Apple is selling a single camera iPhone 17 Air at >$799 if the regular, mid-tier $799 iPhone 17 has two.

You can’t sandwich a semi-budget-semi-premium option in between the mid-tier and the premium options.

Consumers would (rightfully) get very confused about its value/$ and steer confidently away from iPhone 17 Air.

Thinness, like iPhones mini’s smaller footprint, is not a higher spec or an easily measurable added value to the average buyer. It’s an ergonomic and aesthetic “feature” that’s bordering on the abstract when compared to things like better battery life, larger display, more RAM, etc.

With iPhone, you pay more, you get more value, and vice versa. That’s not going to change. We’re not getting a >$799 single camera iPhone 17 Air.
 
ApplesAreSweet&Sour said:
I get that some don’t care for all the cameras and the huge bump on the back.

But after years of training consumers to consider three cameras as premium, two as mid-tier, and one as budget, there ain’t no way Apple is selling a single camera iPhone 17 Air at >$799 if the regular, mid-tier $799 iPhone 17 has two.

You can’t sandwich a semi-budget-semi-premium option in between the mid-tier and the premium options.

Consumers would (rightfully) get very confused about its value/$ and steer confidently away from iPhone 17 Air.

Thinness, like iPhones mini’s smaller footprint, is not a higher spec or an easily measurable added value to the average buyer. It’s an ergonomic and aesthetic “feature” that’s bordering on the abstract when compared to things like better battery life, larger display, more RAM, etc.

With iPhone, you pay more, you get more value, and vice versa. That’s not going to change. We’re not getting a >$799 single camera iPhone 17 Air.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're right. I was just expressing what's important to me in a phone.
 
ApplesAreSweet&Sour said:
I get that some don’t care for all the cameras and the huge bump on the back.

But after years of training consumers to consider three cameras as premium, two as mid-tier, and one as budget, there ain’t no way Apple is selling a single camera iPhone 17 Air at >$799 if the regular, mid-tier $799 iPhone 17 has two.

You can’t sandwich a semi-budget-semi-premium option in between the mid-tier and the premium options.

Consumers would (rightfully) get very confused about its value/$ and steer confidently away from iPhone 17 Air.

Thinness, like iPhones mini’s smaller footprint, is not a higher spec or an easily measurable added value to the average buyer. It’s an ergonomic and aesthetic “feature” that’s bordering on the abstract when compared to things like better battery life, larger display, more RAM, etc.

With iPhone, you pay more, you get more value, and vice versa. That’s not going to change. We’re not getting a >$799 single camera iPhone 17 Air.
Click to expand...
The Thinness is its main USP, but its also a new iPhone design so this may also tempt customers who are sick of the same 4 models we have had for the last few years. It will also have a 6.6" Promotion screen compared to the regular models 6.1", so again those who want a larger screen for less will opt for this model even if it has one camera. Then there is also the possibility that this 17 Air is actually a flip phone which will be its biggest USP over anything else.
 
poematik13 said:
Lol, you guys literally whined for years for devices to be thicker and bigger for "more battery life" and more "ports". And now you're complaining?

Childish. You literally don't know what you want, you're just addicted to the dopmaines from arguing online
Click to expand...
Only people with no personal responsibility whatsoever want iPhone to be thicker so the battery can last 2 days.
 
dan110 said:
The only way this makes sense is if you're a "little person" with anatomically smaller hands.
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense if you've ever held an iPhone. It is about as far away as being a product designed to be held in the hand as they could get at this point.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dan110
Warped9 said:
With my use my basic iPhone 14 will go easily two days on a charge. For my hands it’s also a “just right” size.
Click to expand...
None of the iPhones are "just right" for being held in the hand. They are a slab of aluminum and glass. The worst possible design and construction for something that is meant to be handheld.
 
Warped9 said:
Your opinion.
Click to expand...
Nope. Literal fact. If you were designing a product today and the first requirement were that it would be handheld and portable, making it into a slab of aluminum and glass would be the furthest thing from your mind. iPhone isn't designed to be held. It is simply designed to operate. Earlier iPhones were much closer to a compromise on this aspect, but that has long since been lost in favor of pure function of the iPhone.

A product designed to be held in the hand would be lightweight and ergonomic. It would be balanced, not top heavy, and would be made of a material that can be dropped without immediately shattering. All of the things a handheld product should be, iPhone is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EedyBeedyBeeps
Cirillo Gherardo said:
Nope. Literal fact. If you were designing a product today and the first requirement were that it would be handheld and portable, making it into a slab of aluminum and glass would be the furthest thing from your mind. iPhone isn't designed to be held. It is simply designed to operate. Earlier iPhones were much closer to a compromise on this aspect, but that has long since been lost in favor of pure function of the iPhone.

A product designed to be held in the hand would be lightweight and ergonomic. It would be balanced, not top heavy, and would be made of a material that can be dropped without immediately shattering. All of the things a handheld product should be, iPhone is not.
Click to expand...
Still just your opinion. It’s an evolving device that was not created today, but decades ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back