Best thing Tim Cook can do to help this country is to announce a $300 price hike and blame tariffs. We need a big wake up call before we head into the 2026 midterm elections.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 17 Models 'Likely' to Have Higher Prices, Another Analyst Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tariffs are exceptionally political.
The guy that just got on his knees and assuaged the mad king with a gold and glass trinket is not going to turn around and immediately irritate the mad king.
This is a huge part of the problem here. Everyone is living minute to minute, waiting on the whims of a demented old child molesting convicted felon.
Oh, I know. Just dreaming that Cook will grow a backbone. But instead he is going to do what is best for shareholders at the expense of his (and his company’s) values.
As disgusting and embarrassing as what Cook did, there is the tiniest part of me that is saying perhaps the 24 karat piece of glass that he gave trump is bugged and Cook will be able to hear every word Trump says. Yes I know it's far fetched, but it's all I have to hope for.
"Hey Siri ... tell me what Trump is saying is next for the markets and tariffs"
If I was running Apple, I would really take the opportunity to significantly raise prices this year. They don’t even have to blame tariffs. New features, no price raise since iPhone X despite high inflation for a few years, etc.
- $599 16e
- $899 iPhone 17 (probably nearly just as cheap to produce as a 16, so raises margins, but close enough to the 17 Air price for people to consider spending another $100)
- $999 iPhone 17 Air (new base model, like with MacBook)
- $1299 iPhone 17 Pro
- $1499 iPhone 17 Pro Max
Not that I would want higher prices, but for Apple this would be logical. The Air model is the ‘starter model’, just like with MacBook. It’s also brand new so at $999 they won’t even have to say it’s more expensive. It’s just a new model, elegantly placed in between the 16e and the 17 Pro.
For those on a budget there’s the 16e (like the iPad A16 and the MacBook Air M2 that’s unofficially still being sold).
As for the 17 Pro, yeah, that’s a steep increase. But let’s face it: the majority of people that buy the Pro will see many feature upgrades over the 17 Air and, most importantly, are less price sensitive. They just want the best - and don’t care if the price is $100 more or less.
The $1499 price also is a good spot for next year’s iPhone Fold which will likely be something like $1999. Mentally, a $500 gap is more acceptable compared to a $800 gap (compared to the current price of the 16 Pro Max).
Now, as a customer I obviously wouldn’t want this. But if I were the CEO of Apple, I’d see a golden opportunity to raise prices without too much resistance.
- $599 16e
- $899 iPhone 17 (probably nearly just as cheap to produce as a 16, so raises margins, but close enough to the 17 Air price for people to consider spending another $100)
- $999 iPhone 17 Air (new base model, like with MacBook)
- $1299 iPhone 17 Pro
- $1499 iPhone 17 Pro Max
Not that I would want higher prices, but for Apple this would be logical. The Air model is the ‘starter model’, just like with MacBook. It’s also brand new so at $999 they won’t even have to say it’s more expensive. It’s just a new model, elegantly placed in between the 16e and the 17 Pro.
For those on a budget there’s the 16e (like the iPad A16 and the MacBook Air M2 that’s unofficially still being sold).
As for the 17 Pro, yeah, that’s a steep increase. But let’s face it: the majority of people that buy the Pro will see many feature upgrades over the 17 Air and, most importantly, are less price sensitive. They just want the best - and don’t care if the price is $100 more or less.
The $1499 price also is a good spot for next year’s iPhone Fold which will likely be something like $1999. Mentally, a $500 gap is more acceptable compared to a $800 gap (compared to the current price of the 16 Pro Max).
Now, as a customer I obviously wouldn’t want this. But if I were the CEO of Apple, I’d see a golden opportunity to raise prices without too much resistance.
Last edited:
Not in Europe and Asia is hasn't. Here in Belgium the iPhones X, XS, 11 Pro, 12 Pro, 13 Pro all had the same 1159€. Then we had the iPhone 14 Pro at 1329€ (because of "inflation", which they brought back to a lower price later in the cycle). Then we got the 15 Pro which was the first to start from and stay more expensive than its predecessors at 1229€. So please keep in mind there's a world outside of the United States, where Apple often raises prices.
This might be controversial, but you don't actually HAVE to buy a new iphone! For what? A slightly better camera. Who can tell looking at the pictures? An ever so slightly bigger battery? Maybe. Same old rectangle made from aluminium instead of titanium. Sorry, super aerospace grade ultra amazing aluminium. Yeah ok.
Looking more and more likely my 15 Pro will be getting a battery replacement to go another year
The 15 Pro had a lower MSRP than the 14 Pro in Europe. €1229 vs €1329. The MacBook Air also got cheaper in Europe. Apple does drop Euro prices - it’s all based on the value of the currency.
Also, Apple doesn’t do specific Euro prices. They only do USD prices and convert them based on exchange rate.
In the past they did match Euro prices. For example, $499 = €499. They did that when the value of a single euro fluctuated consistently around $1.25-$1.35, basically offsetting VAT and small import costs.
The reason we’ve been seeing higher Euro prices is solely because of excessive spending by many European governments (including Belgium) and radical fiscal policy (extreme quantitive easing/money printing) by the ECB. Unfortunately, it was not Apple that raised the (USD) prices. It are the Europeans devaluing their own currency, resulting in higher prices.
Just have to be careful ... what if sales tank?
I'm sure they've modeled all this out. It's not like Tim wants to leave money on the table.
They surely have, but I think last year and this year they've also factored in the political climate (risk of public anger about raising prices in an economy that already has high inflation, risk of angering Trump with his tariffs). Inflation has somewhat dropped (to below 3%) and Cook kinda made a 'tariff deal' last week, so that's also cleared.
I think that the reality is that people nowadays just blindly get a new phone. Their 2 year contract is over, so let's get the next model. And than, people generally fall in two categories: "give me the newest model that has the lowest price" (e.g. the base iPhone 16) or "I want the latest and greatest" (16 Pro/Pro Max).
The first category is more price sensitive, so I think that's why Apple has decided to also keep a base iPhone 17 around (in addition to the 17 Air). For the 17 Pro and Pro Max? A $100 more or less likely doesn't do too much.
Now if they go from $999 to $1299, than that's a 30% increase. Even if 1 in 10 people then instead opt for the $999 17 Air, that model would probably have much better margins than the current $999 iPhone 16 Pro AND the remaining 9/10 that still buys the 17 Pro models would still bring in more money.
Like you said, surely Apple has models for this. I'm not saying they're going to increase the prices as much as I suggested. But I think economically and politically, the time is ripe for at least some price increases. Could be $50, could be $100. Could also be $0, but dropping the 128 GB model (effectively increasing price). Or any variant on that.
I wouldn't be surprised by a $999 iPhone 17 Air though. Could even follow Apple's classic "$100 strategy"* that they did for years: $899 iPhone 17, but for just $100 more you get the $999 iPhone 17 Air. Oh, another $100 more? You're in $1099 iPhone 17 Pro territory. But damn, that display is a little bit smaller than on the Air... but luckily for just another $100 more there's the $1199 Pro Max.
* Or $130, $150 or $200. You see this strategy across their entire line-up (like also for storage upgrades). Regardless, the idea is clear: something that's a little bit better is always 'for just a little extra $xxx' away.
It’s not black and white though. The fact apple doesn’t allow a 1-1 $ to £ conversion irks me but not enough for me to switch to Android again. Just been there for an enjoyable few months but missed the inter connectedness so came back. Phone/tablet depreciation cost me about £700
What's sad is Americans don't know only Congress is allowed to set tariffs, "trade deficits" are not an emergency that should be able to negate current laws.
And if Congress did its job as one of the triumvirate (Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS) there wouldn’t be an issue but the Republicans in there just don’t have a backbone at all. Trump can do what he likes and they will vote it through or ignore it rather than “Hang on a minute that’s not good for the country/people or is just out and out corrupt”. SCOTUS is as bad.
Tariffs are being set to initiate fairer trade deals, which is clearly happening and POTUS has the authority to do. In the end, SCOTUS may rule against his tariff authority but the trade deals will all be done by then and it will be a moot point. Someone trying to balance out trade and bring jobs and manufacturing back to the USA is a good thing, even Dems have to admit this privately. More jobs means less people on govt welfare and that's good for the people and the country.
How will the inevitable higher prices benefit the US? Even if, and it’s not guaranteed, companies move production over the next 5-10 years they won’t be able to match their current labour costs resulting in inflation. At the moment companies will likely get away with it due to tariffs but a non-US customer who finds out an Indian iPhone costs $400 less to produce than an American one will start to question their choices.
And face it, Trump isn’t doing it for trade deals, he’s shorting the market that’s why he keeps changing his mind. Nothing to do with taco, it’s making sure someone is raking in billions on his behalf
Last edited:
The US Constitution grants Congress, not the POTUS to impose tariffs.
So what has changed about what you are describing as Econ 101? Nothing. What has changed is that some narcissist pol in the world's richest nation has been blathering about tariffs for months just because well, he is a narcissist.
Usually manufacturers efficiently purchase just enough components and materials on a timely basis for just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing. But when some powerful moron POTUS starts blathering about tariffs, smart manufacturers try to stockpile key components and materials. No longer JIT and therefore manufacturing inefficiencies around the world.
The moronic narcissist need not even implement the tariffs he babbles about; the damage is done because manufacturers will try to shield themselves against possible tariff-caused component shortages by moving to less efficient supply practices (hoarding). Thanks to long-term inefficiencies introduced by the blatherings, costs (and therefore prices) will be higher than they otherwise would be.
Many other things are also pushing costs/prices, so such worldwide inefficiencies are not readily measurable; worldwide some prices might even be falling for other reasons. However the logic is incontrovertible: tariff talk raises costs/prices to be higher than they otherwise would be.