Other iPhone 17 Air: Innovation or Strategic Containment? A Rational Look

[huanbrother]

Update and closing thoughts:​

Why the iPhone Air Isn’t Really Meant for You

A lot of people miss the point of models like the old Plus or the new Air. They weren’t designed to be bestsellers. They existed to anchor your perception of value—to make that extra $100 for the Pro model feel justifiable, even smart.

It’s a common marketing tactic: create a mid-tier product that feels “almost good enough,” so buyers naturally stretch their budget for the better one. Nvidia did this with its endless variants of the GTX 1060—3GB, 5GB, 6GB—not because each version was necessary, but because it gave people more price points to rationalize a purchase.

The Plus stayed in the lineup for three years—even with weak sales—because it helped position the base model and Pro better. It made the Pro look premium, and the base look budget, without having to change much year to year.

Had the iPhone 17 Plus remained, it likely would've become a genuinely compelling phone:

• 256GB base storage
• ProMotion finally
• Upgraded cameras
• A19 chip
• Large battery (even if slightly trimmed)

It would've been the first time the Plus wasn’t “neutered.” A quiet but solid choice. But it was cut—because a stronger mid-tier model undermines the Pro.

Now we have the iPhone Air in its place.

Yes, it brings some new elements. Yes, it’s branded differently. But functionally? It’s filling the same role. A bridge that nudges people upward, not a product meant to stand on its own.

Will it last? Likely not. The rumored removal of the Capture Button by iPhone 18 already shows how fast "new ideas" can fade. And when Apple’s foldables arrive, a device like the Air—essentially a half-step between designs—won’t have a place.

Even if we call it innovation, let’s be honest: these models exist more to shape our buying behavior than to genuinely expand choice.

I’m not saying don’t buy the Air. I’m saying: understand why it’s there.

—

Closing thought:
In the end, the smartest purchase isn’t always about specs—it’s about knowing who the product is for, and why it exists. Once you see the strategy, you choose more clearly. Not just cleverly.

SEP12,2025

​

Original Post​

------

TL;DR – iPhone 17 Air, in Five Quick Points​

• Plus was getting too good. With big battery and screen, a high-refresh Plus would've threatened the Pro Max.
• Air looks new, but it’s a strategic downgrade. Ultra-thin body hides cutbacks: small battery, single cam, mono speaker.
• Apple’s protecting the Pro line. Air is deliberately capped to steer you toward higher-end models.
• Efficiency gains are rationed. C1 modem goes only to Air (not base or Pro), and batteries are kept smaller than needed.
• It’s not a bad product — just carefully positioned. The Air is psychology, not revolution — designed to look fresh, not be disruptive.

------

With all the buzz surrounding iPhone 17 Air’s design, it’s tempting to see this as Apple once again “redefining the iPhone.” But beneath the marketing language, a more calculated logic appears—one that’s less about breakthrough innovation and more about reinforcing product segmentation and safeguarding the Pro lineup.​

This post isn’t trying to convince anyone not to buy the Air, or to bash Apple. Instead, it outlines a pattern that’s consistent with Apple’s past behavior: using internal competition and strategic restraint to maximize lineup control.

1. The Plus Was Becoming a Threat to the Pro Max​

Last year’s 16 Plus quietly became a great deal for certain types of users: a large screen, exceptional battery life, and a lower price point than the Pro Max. Its only major omission was 120Hz.

Had Apple added high refresh rate to the Plus, many users might’ve opted for it over the Pro Max, especially those who don’t care much about the telephoto lens or LiDAR. In that sense, the Plus was evolving into an unintentional “Pro Max killer”—not because it was better, but because it was good enough for a lower price.

2. Air Is Not an Upgrade — It’s a Redirection​

Enter the iPhone 17 Air. Instead of giving the Plus a natural upgrade (e.g., high refresh rate + battery retention), Apple replaced it with a new class of product that is visually striking, but functionally constrained:

• Single rear camera
• 2800mAh battery — the smallest in a big-screen iPhone in years
• Single speaker
• Ultra-thin body

Yes, it adds 120Hz. But everything else about the hardware is a study in limitation—possibly even intentional bottlenecking.

Of course, Apple might frame this as the Plus not selling well, and use that to justify removing it. But in reality, the Plus was never designed to satisfy—it functioned as a psychological anchor, nudging users toward the Pro or Pro Max by being “just shy” of ideal. It was a gentle push toward upgrades, not a standalone solution. The Air simply inherits this role—with new wrapping.

3. Why Cap It So Hard? To Protect the Pro Line​

Apple's product strategy is built on internal funneling. Each model is tuned to be appealing—but not too appealing—to avoid cannibalizing higher-margin options.

The Air is an elegant example: it introduces a new aesthetic niche (ultra-thin and light), but it's deliberately hobbled where it counts:

• Reduced camera capabilities
• Smaller battery
• Audio cutbacks

The result? A device that looks new, but avoids threatening the Pro lineup. It gives users “something different,” but not “something better.”

4. Power Efficiency Gains Could've Uplifted the Whole Line — But They're Being Held Back​

This year, Apple’s silicon and modem development brought real gains in power efficiency. With the rumored A18 and Apple’s C1 modem, they had all the tools to dramatically improve real-world battery life across the board.

Take the iPhone 17 base model. It could have inherited the 4000mAh battery from the 16e, paired with a power-efficient display and C1 modem. That would’ve resulted in strong battery life and a compelling mainstream package.

But that’s not what’s happening.

Instead, Apple reportedly capped the battery at ~3500mAh, and may even be using Qualcomm modems again in base models—possibly just to retain better peak connectivity specs (which aren’t noticeable day-to-day), while also conveniently drawing more power.

The smaller Pro faces a similar story: C1 modem could’ve extended its battery life dramatically, but instead, it’s apparently reserved for the Air, as compensation for the 2800mAh battery. It’s like Apple is saying: “Yes, the battery is tiny, but the modem is more efficient—so maybe physics won’t matter!”

These are not technical limitations—they’re allocation decisions, designed to preserve gaps between models.

5. The Conclusion: The Air Is Not a Mistake—It's a Controlled Variable​

The iPhone 17 Air isn’t an accident. It’s not even a bold new experiment. It’s a calculated redirection—a way to retire the Plus without letting it evolve into a real alternative to the Pro Max.

It introduces a new “cool factor,” but with deliberate limitations that protect the higher-end offerings. And when Apple has a chance to uplift the whole lineup with efficiency gains, it instead chooses selective distribution, to ensure differentiation survives.

That doesn’t make the Air a bad product—it will suit some people well. But it’s important to see it for what it is: a strategic buffer, not a revolution.

Apple’s real innovation here isn’t hardware—it’s product psychology.

One More Thing...​

Of course, much of this still rests on speculation, especially regarding modem assignments across the lineup and how Apple will handle silicon diversification this year (A19 vs A19 Pro, if it follows last year’s pattern). We’ll know more in time.

But one thing stays consistent:

You will never feel fully satisfied unless you buy the Pro Max with 1TB or 2TB storage — and even then, next year’s launch will make it feel outdated.

That’s just how the cycle works.

Still, things could be better. It would honestly be refreshing to see the base model get meaningful upgrades, like:

• An anti-glare lens
• Vapor chamber cooling (rumored for all models)
• And maybe, just maybe, the efficient C1 modem as standard

If that happens, and you manage to grab one through carrier deals or decent discounts, you’ll probably walk away feeling happier and more rational than dropping full price on a product that—let’s be honest—even Kaiann Drance would have a hard time convincingly pitching on stage.

 

[cigz]

That might be unpopular opinion on Macrumors but I personally do think they'll release Air just to raise base prices in the whole lineup.
17 - $899, 17 Air - $999 (or even $1099), Pro - $1199, Pro Max - $1299

They'll pretend like the Air is some major innovation so there's no way they'll make it the same price as 16 Plus.
Also the Air's competitor - S25 Edge costs $1099.

 

[blairh]

Disclaimer:​

This post isn’t about bashing Apple or convincing anyone not to buy the iPhone 17 Air. It’s a personal analysis based on past product strategy patterns and rumored specs. If the Air fits your needs, that’s great. This is just an attempt to understand why it exists and how it fits into Apple’s broader lineup philosophy — from a rational, not emotional, perspective.

------

TL;DR – iPhone 17 Air, in Five Quick Points​

• Plus was getting too good. With big battery and screen, a high-refresh Plus would've threatened the Pro Max.
• Air looks new, but it’s a strategic downgrade. Ultra-thin body hides cutbacks: small battery, single cam, mono speaker.
• Apple’s protecting the Pro line. Air is deliberately capped to steer you toward higher-end models.
• Efficiency gains are rationed. C1 modem goes only to Air (not base or Pro), and batteries are kept smaller than needed.
• It’s not a bad product — just carefully positioned. The Air is psychology, not revolution — designed to look fresh, not be disruptive.

------

With all the buzz surrounding iPhone 17 Air’s design, it’s tempting to see this as Apple once again “redefining the iPhone.” But beneath the marketing language, a more calculated logic appears—one that’s less about breakthrough innovation and more about reinforcing product segmentation and safeguarding the Pro lineup.​

This post isn’t trying to convince anyone not to buy the Air, or to bash Apple. Instead, it outlines a pattern that’s consistent with Apple’s past behavior: using internal competition and strategic restraint to maximize lineup control.

1. The Plus Was Becoming a Threat to the Pro Max​

Last year’s 16 Plus quietly became a great deal for certain types of users: a large screen, exceptional battery life, and a lower price point than the Pro Max. Its only major omission was 120Hz.

Had Apple added high refresh rate to the Plus, many users might’ve opted for it over the Pro Max, especially those who don’t care much about the telephoto lens or LiDAR. In that sense, the Plus was evolving into an unintentional “Pro Max killer”—not because it was better, but because it was good enough for a lower price.

2. Air Is Not an Upgrade — It’s a Redirection​

Enter the iPhone 17 Air. Instead of giving the Plus a natural upgrade (e.g., high refresh rate + battery retention), Apple replaced it with a new class of product that is visually striking, but functionally constrained:

• Single rear camera
• 2800mAh battery — the smallest in a big-screen iPhone in years
• Single speaker
• Ultra-thin body

Yes, it adds 120Hz. But everything else about the hardware is a study in limitation—possibly even intentional bottlenecking.

Of course, Apple might frame this as the Plus not selling well, and use that to justify removing it. But in reality, the Plus was never designed to satisfy—it functioned as a psychological anchor, nudging users toward the Pro or Pro Max by being “just shy” of ideal. It was a gentle push toward upgrades, not a standalone solution. The Air simply inherits this role—with new wrapping.

3. Why Cap It So Hard? To Protect the Pro Line​

Apple's product strategy is built on internal funneling. Each model is tuned to be appealing—but not too appealing—to avoid cannibalizing higher-margin options.

The Air is an elegant example: it introduces a new aesthetic niche (ultra-thin and light), but it's deliberately hobbled where it counts:

• Reduced camera capabilities
• Smaller battery
• Audio cutbacks

The result? A device that looks new, but avoids threatening the Pro lineup. It gives users “something different,” but not “something better.”

4. Power Efficiency Gains Could've Uplifted the Whole Line — But They're Being Held Back​

This year, Apple’s silicon and modem development brought real gains in power efficiency. With the rumored A18 and Apple’s C1 modem, they had all the tools to dramatically improve real-world battery life across the board.

Take the iPhone 17 base model. It could have inherited the 4000mAh battery from the 16e, paired with a power-efficient display and C1 modem. That would’ve resulted in strong battery life and a compelling mainstream package.

But that’s not what’s happening.

Instead, Apple reportedly capped the battery at ~3500mAh, and may even be using Qualcomm modems again in base models—possibly just to retain better peak connectivity specs (which aren’t noticeable day-to-day), while also conveniently drawing more power.

The smaller Pro faces a similar story: C1 modem could’ve extended its battery life dramatically, but instead, it’s apparently reserved for the Air, as compensation for the 2800mAh battery. It’s like Apple is saying: “Yes, the battery is tiny, but the modem is more efficient—so maybe physics won’t matter!”

These are not technical limitations—they’re allocation decisions, designed to preserve gaps between models.

5. The Conclusion: The Air Is Not a Mistake—It's a Controlled Variable​

The iPhone 17 Air isn’t an accident. It’s not even a bold new experiment. It’s a calculated redirection—a way to retire the Plus without letting it evolve into a real alternative to the Pro Max.

It introduces a new “cool factor,” but with deliberate limitations that protect the higher-end offerings. And when Apple has a chance to uplift the whole lineup with efficiency gains, it instead chooses selective distribution, to ensure differentiation survives.

That doesn’t make the Air a bad product—it will suit some people well. But it’s important to see it for what it is: a strategic buffer, not a revolution.

Apple’s real innovation here isn’t hardware—it’s product psychology.

One More Thing...​

Of course, much of this still rests on speculation, especially regarding modem assignments across the lineup and how Apple will handle silicon diversification this year (A19 vs A19 Pro, if it follows last year’s pattern). We’ll know more in time.

But one thing stays consistent:


That’s just how the cycle works.

Still, things could be better. It would honestly be refreshing to see the base model get meaningful upgrades, like:

• An anti-glare lens
• Vapor chamber cooling (rumored for all models)
• And maybe, just maybe, the efficient C1 modem as standard

If that happens, and you manage to grab one through carrier deals or decent discounts, you’ll probably walk away feeling happier and more rational than dropping full price on a product that—let’s be honest—even Kaiann Drance would have a hard time convincingly pitching on stage.

The Plus hasn't been selling well. This has nothing to do with Apple being worried it would eat into Pro Max sales.

I think the simple answer is that they can offer us a super slim and light iPhone that has serious compromises. Eventually, hopefully, the rest of the iPhones can be just as slim in light in the lineup, when tech advancements will allow for it.

I truly have no idea if people will embrace a gimped iPhone 17 Air. I do think consumers want a super slim and light iPhone, but I'm not sure if the (current) compromises will be dealbreakers or not.

 

[huanbrother]

The Plus hasn't been selling well. This has nothing to do with Apple being worried it would eat into Pro Max sales.

I think the simple answer is that they can offer us a super slim and light iPhone that has serious compromises. Eventually, hopefully, the rest of the iPhones can be just as slim in light in the lineup, when tech advancements will allow for it.

I truly have no idea if people will embrace a gimped iPhone 17 Air. I do think consumers want a super slim and light iPhone, but I'm not sure if the (current) compromises will be dealbreakers or not.

I mean, not selling well is still acceptable — if it helps push more users toward the Pro models. It works as an anchor to fill the gap.
If people do buy it, that’s still revenue.
If people skip it and go for the Pro or Pro Max instead, then that’s even better for Apple.
But as I said, this is just speculation on my part. Let the Air’s future sales data prove whether it’s merely an anchor, or a genuine new product tier Apple actually wants people to buy into.

 

[blairh]

I mean, not selling well is still acceptable — if it helps push more users toward the Pro models. It works as an anchor to fill the gap.
If people do buy it, that’s still revenue.
If people skip it and go for the Pro or Pro Max instead, then that’s even better for Apple.
But as I said, this is just speculation on my part. Let the Air’s future sales data prove whether it’s merely an anchor, or a genuine new product tier Apple actually wants people to buy into.

Not selling well is never acceptable. Apple makes iPhones with the intention of selling them. Not to steer the sales of other models. Yes they want people to buy the Air.

 

[ofarlig]

To me the Plus was the worst buy in the lineup and provided nothing appealing at all while the leaks for the Air makes it look very appealing. I think the Air makes more sense to slot in under the Pros as it offers something unique instead of just being a worse Pro Max for a cost saving.

 

[aperfectcircle]

There is certainly a segment of buyer who will see the Air as an attractive option. Many will be the kind of customer that doesn’t look much at the spec sheet, probably doesn’t know that Pro devices have 120hz over 60hz on the non-Pro models. My sister fits this profile well - she chose her 15 over the Pro purely on colour choice not even realising the camera differences, which she later came to have some regret over when she thought my 14 Pro Max took better photos. I can guarantee if she sees the Air she’ll want it as she’s always complaining her phone is too bulky.

 

[maerz001]

To me the Plus was the worst buy in the lineup and provided nothing appealing at all while the leaks for the Air makes it look very appealing. I think the Air makes more sense to slot in under the Pros as it offers something unique instead of just being a worse Pro Max for a cost saving.

To me the Air is a worse plus model at probably higher costs. Worse camera and battery life for a bit lighter phone. The plus was already quite light compared the the max. So not sure why it should drive sales.

I guess it will me a short hype from early adopters and sell even worse in the long term.

 

[ab2c4]

The Air is for all the people that want a light weight iphone. Spend anytime online and you hear a lot of people complaining that phones have become too heavy so the Air is one of the answers to that problem. People seem to only have praise for the Samsung S25 Edge and love its thin light weight design so I would expect the same for the Air.

There was an article I want to say on this website (maybe it wasn't this website, can't remember exactly )if I remember correctly saying the Air was the first of its design and Apple is expected to slowly transition the rest of the iphone lineup to something similar to the Air. I wish I could find that article.

If I personally wanted a phone with a display as big as the Air I would absolutely chose it over the Plus or Pro Max. I'm hoping they also come out with an Air eventually that is in the 6.1" to 6.3" range, that would be fantastic for me. Bring back John Ive!

 

[ofarlig]

To me the Air is a worse plus model at probably higher costs. Worse camera and battery life for a bit lighter phone. The plus was already quite light compared the the max. So not sure why it should drive sales.

I guess it will me a short hype from early adopters and sell even worse in the long term.

The point is that if you care about camera and battery over a lighter phone the Pro Max would already give you a better camera. The Air has something unique to offer the lineup.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

To me the Air is a worse plus model at probably higher costs. Worse camera and battery life for a bit lighter phone. The plus was already quite light compared the the max. So not sure why it should drive sales.

but I think those weight savings you are completely brushing aside.
The difference between the weight of the ProMax and plus is only 28G (199 G vs 227G).
The iPhone air is rumored to be around 150G.
that’s not just a 28G difference, now it’s close to a 80G difference.
And at 3 MM thinner, the difference in feeling in your hand is absolutely going to be noticeable.
it will be like going from holding an iPhone 4 to an iPod Touch.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Disclaimer:​

This post isn’t about bashing Apple or convincing anyone not to buy the iPhone 17 Air. It’s a personal analysis based on past product strategy patterns and rumored specs. If the Air fits your needs, that’s great. This is just an attempt to understand why it exists and how it fits into Apple’s broader lineup philosophy — from a rational, not emotional, perspective.

------

TL;DR – iPhone 17 Air, in Five Quick Points​

• Plus was getting too good. With big battery and screen, a high-refresh Plus would've threatened the Pro Max.
• Air looks new, but it’s a strategic downgrade. Ultra-thin body hides cutbacks: small battery, single cam, mono speaker.
• Apple’s protecting the Pro line. Air is deliberately capped to steer you toward higher-end models.
• Efficiency gains are rationed. C1 modem goes only to Air (not base or Pro), and batteries are kept smaller than needed.
• It’s not a bad product — just carefully positioned. The Air is psychology, not revolution — designed to look fresh, not be disruptive.

------

With all the buzz surrounding iPhone 17 Air’s design, it’s tempting to see this as Apple once again “redefining the iPhone.” But beneath the marketing language, a more calculated logic appears—one that’s less about breakthrough innovation and more about reinforcing product segmentation and safeguarding the Pro lineup.​

This post isn’t trying to convince anyone not to buy the Air, or to bash Apple. Instead, it outlines a pattern that’s consistent with Apple’s past behavior: using internal competition and strategic restraint to maximize lineup control.

1. The Plus Was Becoming a Threat to the Pro Max​

Last year’s 16 Plus quietly became a great deal for certain types of users: a large screen, exceptional battery life, and a lower price point than the Pro Max. Its only major omission was 120Hz.

Had Apple added high refresh rate to the Plus, many users might’ve opted for it over the Pro Max, especially those who don’t care much about the telephoto lens or LiDAR. In that sense, the Plus was evolving into an unintentional “Pro Max killer”—not because it was better, but because it was good enough for a lower price.

2. Air Is Not an Upgrade — It’s a Redirection​

Enter the iPhone 17 Air. Instead of giving the Plus a natural upgrade (e.g., high refresh rate + battery retention), Apple replaced it with a new class of product that is visually striking, but functionally constrained:

• Single rear camera
• 2800mAh battery — the smallest in a big-screen iPhone in years
• Single speaker
• Ultra-thin body

Yes, it adds 120Hz. But everything else about the hardware is a study in limitation—possibly even intentional bottlenecking.

Of course, Apple might frame this as the Plus not selling well, and use that to justify removing it. But in reality, the Plus was never designed to satisfy—it functioned as a psychological anchor, nudging users toward the Pro or Pro Max by being “just shy” of ideal. It was a gentle push toward upgrades, not a standalone solution. The Air simply inherits this role—with new wrapping.

3. Why Cap It So Hard? To Protect the Pro Line​

Apple's product strategy is built on internal funneling. Each model is tuned to be appealing—but not too appealing—to avoid cannibalizing higher-margin options.

The Air is an elegant example: it introduces a new aesthetic niche (ultra-thin and light), but it's deliberately hobbled where it counts:

• Reduced camera capabilities
• Smaller battery
• Audio cutbacks

The result? A device that looks new, but avoids threatening the Pro lineup. It gives users “something different,” but not “something better.”

4. Power Efficiency Gains Could've Uplifted the Whole Line — But They're Being Held Back​

This year, Apple’s silicon and modem development brought real gains in power efficiency. With the rumored A18 and Apple’s C1 modem, they had all the tools to dramatically improve real-world battery life across the board.

Take the iPhone 17 base model. It could have inherited the 4000mAh battery from the 16e, paired with a power-efficient display and C1 modem. That would’ve resulted in strong battery life and a compelling mainstream package.

But that’s not what’s happening.

Instead, Apple reportedly capped the battery at ~3500mAh, and may even be using Qualcomm modems again in base models—possibly just to retain better peak connectivity specs (which aren’t noticeable day-to-day), while also conveniently drawing more power.

The smaller Pro faces a similar story: C1 modem could’ve extended its battery life dramatically, but instead, it’s apparently reserved for the Air, as compensation for the 2800mAh battery. It’s like Apple is saying: “Yes, the battery is tiny, but the modem is more efficient—so maybe physics won’t matter!”

These are not technical limitations—they’re allocation decisions, designed to preserve gaps between models.

5. The Conclusion: The Air Is Not a Mistake—It's a Controlled Variable​

The iPhone 17 Air isn’t an accident. It’s not even a bold new experiment. It’s a calculated redirection—a way to retire the Plus without letting it evolve into a real alternative to the Pro Max.

It introduces a new “cool factor,” but with deliberate limitations that protect the higher-end offerings. And when Apple has a chance to uplift the whole lineup with efficiency gains, it instead chooses selective distribution, to ensure differentiation survives.

That doesn’t make the Air a bad product—it will suit some people well. But it’s important to see it for what it is: a strategic buffer, not a revolution.

Apple’s real innovation here isn’t hardware—it’s product psychology.

One More Thing...​

Of course, much of this still rests on speculation, especially regarding modem assignments across the lineup and how Apple will handle silicon diversification this year (A19 vs A19 Pro, if it follows last year’s pattern). We’ll know more in time.

But one thing stays consistent:


That’s just how the cycle works.

Still, things could be better. It would honestly be refreshing to see the base model get meaningful upgrades, like:

• An anti-glare lens
• Vapor chamber cooling (rumored for all models)
• And maybe, just maybe, the efficient C1 modem as standard

If that happens, and you manage to grab one through carrier deals or decent discounts, you’ll probably walk away feeling happier and more rational than dropping full price on a product that—let’s be honest—even Kaiann Drance would have a hard time convincingly pitching on stage.

Easy disagree. A lot of people want thin/light, so your self-alleged "cutbacks" will not matter to many buyers. Many folks will consider thin/light worthwhile and find camera, speaker and battery performance totally acceptable.

Different folks prefer different devices, it is that simple.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

I mean, not selling well is still acceptable — if it helps push more users toward the Pro models. It works as an anchor to fill the gap.

It certainly wasn't acceptable with the iPhone mini 🙄

 

[anthonymoody]

For my part I just hope when they release the foldable next year it's less than 2x the thickness of the Air. The Air is rumored to be 5.5mm. 1.1cm isn't going to cut it in 2026 when the best-in-class foldables in 2025 are all 8.x mm when folded. I mean I'm sure Apple could've made the Air thinner, but didn't want to further sacrifice the battery life.

 

[klasma]

The Plus didn’t sell well. Not as bad as the mini, but still below Apple’s expectations. So they were looking for an alternative. There is a section of the market that values light and/or thin, and doesn’t care that much about “Pro” features. Apple is into “thin” anyway with the iPad Pro and the upcoming iPhone Fold. So the Air is part of that technological basis. I think they have to make it larger than the regular iPhone to have sufficient volume for the battery. Otherwise they maybe would have made the Air regular-sized. Again, I believe they are genuinely going into the light & thin direction with the Air, despite the compromises it entails at iPhone size, because that’s a market (and marketing) they can expand into.

 

[klasma]

For my part I just hope when they release the foldable next year it's less than 2x the thickness of the Air. The Air is rumored to be 5.5mm. 1.1cm isn't going to cut it in 2026 when the best-in-class foldables in 2025 are all 8.x mm when folded.

The rumored thickness for the iPhone Fold is 2 x 4.8 mm, so 9.6 mm.

 

[blairh]

There was an article I want to say on this website (maybe it wasn't this website, can't remember exactly )if I remember correctly saying the Air was the first of its design and Apple is expected to slowly transition the rest of the iphone lineup to something similar to the Air. I wish I could find that article.

I remember that article, and I think that's the obvious plan moving forward. If Apple could offer everything from the future 17 Pro/Pro Max, but at the thinness of the 17 Air, they would. But they can't. For now.

I fully expect all future iPhones to be as thin as the Air. But it's just a question as to how long that will take.

For now, if you want something super thin and light, you will have to accept some pretty heavy compromises.

I personally think the 17 Pro is a far better choice than the 17 Air. I will be curious to see what other consumers think.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

for anyone who was around for the original 2008 MacBook Air, the strategy should be pretty familiar.
•start between the bass and the pro, with several compromises compared to both in the embrace of thin and light.
• steady improvement in price drops over the next two years until…
• inevitably the iPhone air replaces the standard iPhone, matching or succeeding all of its specifications in a much more appealing design. this has already kind of started, the iPhone 17 base model already stands out from the rest of the lineup by not getting a new design, not getting the increase to 12 GB of RAM and possibly (depending on which rumor you believe) might not even get a chip upgrade. and then next year the base iPhone isn’t even supposed to be announced until the spring. I think it’s pretty clear it will eventually be phased out in place of just the air, maybe eventually in two different sizes. I think the introduction of the 16e also points to this, it is literally almost identical to the regular 16.

 

[xxray]

No one's going to say anything about this post being AI?

 

[anthonymoody]

The rumored thickness for the iPhone Fold is 2 x 4.8 mm, so 9.6 mm.

If that turns out to be correct then I'm going case-less and will likely take advantage of AppleCare along the way.

 

[GioGiusi]

The Air doesn't exist to sell more Pro models. That's nonsensical.

The Air is serving a need in the market while also serving as the first product to boast some of the design principles of the 2026 foldable.

The Pro Max is super chonk. It's way too big and heavy to be comfortable to use. I'm very much tired of it. The Air is attractive because it is thin and light and still has a decent sized 120Hz display. At this point, I may very well be willing to trade multiple cameras and some battery life for a device that is actually comfortable to hold and use.

And this exact design principle is going to be applied to the foldable, so I'm sure Apple is hoping to get this product out there in advance to uncover any possible unforeseen issues with their design before going headlong into foldable.

 

[4sallypat]

The Air doesn't exist to sell more Pro models. That's nonsensical.

The Air is serving a need in the market while also serving as the first product to boast some of the design principles of the 2026 foldable.

The Pro Max is super chonk. It's way too big and heavy to be comfortable to use. I'm very much tired of it. The Air is attractive because it is thin and light and still has a decent sized 120Hz display. At this point, I may very well be willing to trade multiple cameras and some battery life for a device that is actually comfortable to hold and use.

And this exact design principle is going to be applied to the foldable, so I'm sure Apple is hoping to get this product out there in advance to uncover any possible unforeseen issues with their design before going headlong into foldable.

Yes, ^^^ this!

I had the 14+ and loved the huge battery life, albeit never had to use it that much to recharge in the same day.

Currently have a 16 Pro and love it - smaller size is perfect for my smaller hand.

I was looking at the 17 base or 17 Pro but now I am seriously looking at the Air.

Since I don't use the phone's camera, except for an occasional normal snapshot (no video, no special picture formats, none of the advanced features, etc..).

Never use the built in sound features of the iPhone as I don't listen to music, YT, TikTok, or other social media. Instead I opt for better audio from my EV or 5.1 at home.

Looking forward to the lighter weight and thinner profile than my very heavy Pro Max work phone I also carry during the day. Carrying 2 iPhones can really drag a person's belt way low....

Silicon Anode chemistry battery should be interesting as it's a step above my EV battery technology!

 

[ayephoner]

To me, it seems like they're guessing what people might actually want. Or maybe rotating between a few different form factors. I don't see much appeal with the air, but what do I know? I honestly think they don't really know either, but the mini and the plus really weren't doing much, so now they're trying this. If/when the air doesn't sell well enough, they might switch back to the mini for a couple years or maybe try a thicc with a big battery or something else?

 

[AndreyOrekhov]

Not selling well is never acceptable. Apple makes iPhones with the intention of selling them. Not to steer the sales of other models. Yes they want people to buy the Air.

No. The goal is to increase sales of the whole product line.

 

[AndreyOrekhov]

To me the Air is a worse plus model at probably higher costs. Worse camera and battery life for a bit lighter phone. The plus was already quite light compared the the max. So not sure why it should drive sales.

I guess it will me a short hype from early adopters and sell even worse in the long term.

I’m sure IP17Air will be a major hit. 99%. Too many good things come together. And only one small gripe - battery life, which can be nicely mitigated.