iPhone 16e Could Apple have priced the 16e at $499?

[Rogifan]

Good thread on Reddit comparing the 16e to the 15 and 16.

https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/1itt3cb/the_iphone_16e_isnt_a_bad_phone_its_a_bad_value

There are rumors that the Pixel 9a is going to start at $499 128Gb: https://www.androidheadlines.com/google-pixel-9a-pricing

The specs look compelling too: https://www.ndtvprofit.com/technology/google-pixel-9a-big-benefit-coming-at-budget-friendly-price

I think Apple should have made a phone with a starting price of $499 in mind. You can get an entry level Apple Watch for $249; an entry level iPad for $349. An entry level iPhone is now $599. I think that’s too high, especially when competitors are making really good phones now. Would a $499 16e really cut into margins or was Apple worried it would cannibalize 16 sales too much?

 

[dave006]

Sure they could have priced it at $499 or even $99 but why would they do it? The carriers will offer the discounts.

Dave

 

[Rogifan]

Sure they could have priced it at $499 or even $99 but why would they do it? The carriers will offer the discounts.

Dave

Were carriers discounting the SE? Are the discounting the 15 or 16?

 

[BigBlur]

Were carriers discounting the SE? Are the discounting the 15 or 16?

Carriers have deals all the time. Three years ago, I bought a 6S for $40 from a marketplace and traded that in for a free 13. The XS I had at the time became my spare/backup device. I did need to change my plan, but it actually worked out in my favor. Last year, I traded in the XS for a free 16, and the 13 is now my spare/backup. No plan changes were needed this time. If you plan to keep your phone for two to three years, carrier deals are generally the way to go.

 

[webkit]

Were carriers discounting the SE? Are the discounting the 15 or 16?

Carriers commonly "discounted" the SE and are doing the same for the 16e, just as they do for other iPhones.

AT&T, for example, is offering a 128GB 16e for $215.64 ($5.99/month for 36 months) with $60.99+ plan.

 

[Pezimak]

Sure they could have priced it at $499 or even $99 but why would they do it? The carriers will offer the discounts.

Dave

This.

Sorry I really don’t get all the hate the 16E is getting? Spec wise it’s actually pretty good for an Apple product. And nice and light too, lighter then the 16. I’ll check it out when I get the chance.

 

[Rogifan]

Carriers commonly "discounted" the SE and are doing the same for the 16e, just as they do for other iPhones.

AT&T, for example, is offering a 128GB 16e for $215.64 ($5.99/month for 36 months) with $60.99+ plan.

If the SE at $429 was commonly discounted then I don’t get the argument that it’s fine for the 16e to be $599 because it will get discounted (or that Apple intentionally priced it that way so it would get discounted).

 

[Rogifan]

This.

Sorry I really don’t get all the hate the 16E is getting? Spec wise it’s actually pretty good for an Apple product. And nice and light too, lighter than the 16. I’ll check it out when I get the chance.

I don’t think the phone is getting hate, I think the complaints are Apple’s entry level iPhone used to start at $429 and now it starts at $599. Of course Apple never said the 16e was a replacement for the SE (based on the price it’s replacing the 14) but they killed off the SE so to get into the ground floor of iPhone is now $170 more expensive.

 

[webkit]

If the SE at $429 was commonly discounted then I don’t get the argument that it’s fine for the 16e to be $599 because it will get discounted (or that Apple intentionally priced it that way so it would get discounted).

How does the fact that iPhone are "discounted" by carriers change anything? It's long been that way with iPhones at all levels. The same is also true for others including Samsung, Motorola, Google, etc. For better or worse, it's simply how the carrier/phone business has worked for decades. You didn't know that?

Are you now going to complain about how Samsung, Motorola, Google and others price their phones since those are also "discounted" by carriers?

 

[russell_314]

Sure they could have priced it at $499 or even $99 but why would they do it? The carriers will offer the discounts.

Dave

Exactly this. Apple could’ve priced it at $1 but why. If anyone has basic understanding of how things are priced, you price them at the market value. If you can get a job that pays you $20 an hour would you work for $10 an hour? Answering this will answer your question as to why Apple didn’t price it lower.


It’s $200 lower than the regular iPhone. That’s plenty enough to give differentiation between it and the regular iPhone.

 

[Chuckeee]

Could they - yes. But this is Apple we are talking about so of course they didn’t.

 

[Chuckeee]

The carriers will offer the discounts.

Carriers have deals all the time.

Carriers commonly "discounted" the SE and are doing the same for the 16e, just as they do for other iPhones.

How does the fact that iPhone are "discounted" by carriers change anything? It's long been that way with iPhones at all levels. The same is also true for others including Samsung, Motorola, Google, etc. For better or worse, it's simply how the carrier/phone business has worked for decades. You didn't know that?

Carrier discounts are usually just a fallacy. They lock you into a more expensive premium monthly plan, and then use part of those monthly premium profits to offset any discounts they provide you for the cost of the phone. So there are no net savings unless you really need the benefits of those premium phone plan.

 

[Yr Blues]

I think it's about right for the tech they squeezed into a 6.1 screen phone, but a 16E mini would have been nice at $499.

 

[Rogifan]

How does the fact that iPhone are "discounted" by carriers change anything? It's long been that way with iPhones at all levels. The same is also true for others including Samsung, Motorola, Google, etc. For better or worse, it's simply how the carrier/phone business has worked for decades. You didn't know that?

Are you now going to complain about how Samsung, Motorola, Google and others price their phones since those are also "discounted" by carriers?

No I’m arguing against the notion that the 16e was priced at $599 so it can be discounted by retailers, because the SE which was $170 cheaper was also discounted by retailers.

 

[Rogifan]

Exactly this. Apple could’ve priced it at $1 but why. If anyone has basic understanding of how things are priced, you price them at the market value. If you can get a job that pays you $20 an hour would you work for $10 an hour? Answering this will answer your question as to why Apple didn’t price it lower.


It’s $200 lower than the regular iPhone. That’s plenty enough to give differentiation between it and the regular iPhone.

Apple had a phone in the lineup that was priced starting at $429. Why did they remove that price point? Does that mean we’re likely to see prices of the 17 go up? Where does the rumored ‘Air’ fit into the lineup?

 

[Rogifan]

I think it's about right for the tech they squeezed into a 6.1 screen phone, but a 16E mini would have been nice at $499.

I’m not understanding why Apple chose to get rid of a sub $500 phone in their lineup. Unless they’re planning to raise the price for the 17 family and that’s easier to do if the cheapest model is now $599?

 

[menist]

I get it for the Vision Pro, but the 16e, they cut so many corners. I think it could have been $499 easily.

 

[russell_314]

Apple had a phone in the lineup that was priced starting at $429. Why did they remove that price point? Does that mean we’re likely to see prices of the 17 go up? Where does the rumored ‘Air’ fit into the lineup?

$429 was five years ago. Adjusted for inflation that’s $528. That means the 16e is $71 more than the SE2.

I think that’s more than reasonable, especially with it not using the antiquated OG iPhone design. I know some people loved it, but it needed to go.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the iPhone 17 lineup increased in price slightly. We can’t just pretend that inflation applies to everything but iPhones.

The iPhone Air really makes me want to wait because it might be the perfect phone for me. I want something much lighter than the Pro Max. I’ve held other people’s regular iPhones and they feel so much better in my hand. Sure the screen is a little smaller, but I’d be willing to give up some screen. Of course there could be no iPhone Air. To my knowledge, Apple has never officially said anything confirming it so the whole thing could be a hoax.

 

[Yr Blues]

I get it for the Vision Pro, but the 16e, they cut so many corners. I think it could have been $499 easily.

They said they'd take my SE 3 for $100 trade in (hopefully), so that might be good enough to feel like $499. But I think I want a 13 mini.

 

[drugdoubles]

Carriers have deals all the time. Three years ago, I bought a 6S for $40 from a marketplace and traded that in for a free 13. The XS I had at the time became my spare/backup device. I did need to change my plan, but it actually worked out in my favor. Last year, I traded in the XS for a free 16, and the 13 is now my spare/backup. No plan changes were needed this time. If you plan to keep your phone for two to three years, carrier deals are generally the way to go.

I spent $30 usd for a yearly plan per year, how much money does your carrier earn from you each year so you get phone “discount”?

 

[drugdoubles]

I’m not understanding why Apple chose to get rid of a sub $500 phone in their lineup. Unless they’re planning to raise the price for the 17 family and that’s easier to do if the cheapest model is now $599?

Yes very likely all $100 more for 17 lineup

 

[Pezimak]

I don’t think the phone is getting hate, I think the complaints are Apple’s entry level iPhone used to start at $429 and now it starts at $599. Of course Apple never said the 16e was a replacement for the SE (based on the price it’s replacing the 14) but they killed off the SE so to get into the ground floor of iPhone is now $170 more expensive.

People are not considering the facts then IMO. You are getting a LOT more than the old SE, plus inflation, plus this IS Apple, they are not exactly known for cheap pricing are they. I mean you could argue the 16E spec wise is better the then IPhone X which was a 1000 phone.

 

[drugdoubles]

$429 was five years ago. Adjusted for inflation that’s $528. That means the 16e is $71 more than the SE2.

I think that’s more than reasonable, especially with it not using the antiquated OG iPhone design. I know some people loved it, but it needed to go.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the iPhone 17 lineup increased in price slightly. We can’t just pretend that inflation applies to everything but iPhones.

The iPhone Air really makes me want to wait because it might be the perfect phone for me. I want something much lighter than the Pro Max. I’ve held other people’s regular iPhones and they feel so much better in my hand. Sure the screen is a little smaller, but I’d be willing to give up some screen. Of course there could be no iPhone Air. To my knowledge, Apple has never officially said anything confirming it so the whole thing could be a hoax.

It was available for $429 few days ago. That is 40% inflation in few days.

 

[JSRinUK]

For me, a sub-£500 price would have meant a sale. £599 means it’s a no-sale. I bought the SE, then SE2020 on price. Last year I bought the 12-mini from Apple refurb on price (£399, I think). Currently there’s no iPhone from Apple, either new or refurb, in my price bracket.

That doesn’t mean I won’t buy another iPhone. It means I won’t buy a replacement so frequently. Or I’ll be looking at refurbs from outside Apple. I don’t like the idea of taking a £600 “big screen” iphone to work where it risks being damaged.

 

[Rogifan]

People are not considering the facts then IMO. You are getting a LOT more than the old SE, plus inflation, plus this IS Apple, they are not exactly known for cheap pricing are they. I mean you could argue the 16E spec wise is better the then IPhone X which was a 1000 phone.

But do people looking for a cheaper phone need a LOT more than they were getting with the old SE?