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 16e iPhone launched in 2007 for $499. How is $599 a budget phone?
- Thread starter Yr Blues
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the government keeps printing money you’ll soon pay $9999 for a budget phone
Out of all the things left out, I’d never thought people would feel strongly about MagSafe.
It's the pre-Steve Jobs return dilemma. Tim Cook has brought Apple back to too many variants of too many variants of product. All the iOS/iPadOS lineup has the same issue. Luckily for the Mac teams, they've kept a lid on variants and the M-chip saved them.
There's little to no purpose for the 16E. Even as an entry phone, the non-Pro versions of iPhone exist to compete with it. Even the iPhone 15 is still around officially.
As rightly claimed by Luke Miani, it's a very confusing phone unless Apple are experimenting with the C1 chip on a lower customer base. If it isn't very good, they can bin the 16E quickly.
There's little to no purpose for the 16E. Even as an entry phone, the non-Pro versions of iPhone exist to compete with it. Even the iPhone 15 is still around officially.
As rightly claimed by Luke Miani, it's a very confusing phone unless Apple are experimenting with the C1 chip on a lower customer base. If it isn't very good, they can bin the 16E quickly.
Back in 2007 there werent any tariffs on semicon products like chips, phones and other electronics.
The 16e doesn’t even have MagSafe support which I consider a shocking omission. I am pretty reliant on my MagSafe accessories (Apple battery pack & charger) so I think I’ll be waiting on one of the iPhone 17’s as my next phone.
Samsung A series come with 5000 batteries, great OLED screens, fast refresh rates, descent cameras, android (which has many more app options compared to Apple). Oh yes…..Samsungs cost half the price.
I understand that technology and phones were really expensive back in the 90ies and 2000s due to technology being cutting-edge and productions in low numbers.
But now it's all commodity, they left out the expensive pieces like hardware keyboard, exchangeable batteries, interfaces, card slots, deglared screens etc., so it should be cheaper. Even grandparents and kids have smartphones now.
But now it's all commodity, they left out the expensive pieces like hardware keyboard, exchangeable batteries, interfaces, card slots, deglared screens etc., so it should be cheaper. Even grandparents and kids have smartphones now.
Its one of those tiny (cost wise) things that is huge.
I have a mount in my car that uses magsafe
I have a charger on my bedside that uses magsafe
I have a magsafe wallet
I have 2 magsafe battery packs (one apple, one other brand)
This 16E can't use ANY of that stuff.
I'm coming from a 13 mini, magsafe is literally THE deal breaker for this phone for me. It's not just charging. its also the magsafe wallet and mounting it places.
Here in australia the difference between 16e and base 16 is $400 AU.
Like... +40% of the cost of the 16E to get magsafe. For like $5 worth of magnets.
I'll bitch about it, but I'll pay it because over the 2-3 years I own the phone, if I DON'T I will be regretting not having it for 2-3 years.
Samsung also have crappy integration with enterprise wireless networking, crappy integration with the rest of the ecosystem, objectively bad physical device security, and if you are talking alternative ecosystems to integrate with, windows is crap.
If you have a disposable income that extends to the iPhone being a viable purchase, very few people care about Samsung and most of those who do are irrational.
It's $600 because Apple can get away with it. Look at TVs - in the same period, the technology has vastly improved and prices have steadily dropped due to competition.
Even Samsung charged too much. Xiaomi/Poco offers better display/battery at similar or even lower price, and it has MediaTek/Snapdragon processor.
It "matters" in the sense that some people are comparing U.S. prices without potential sales tax against other countries' prices with GST, VAT or whatever. I was simply trying to make a fairer comparison which excluded purchase taxes (GST, VAT, sales tax, etc.) from both countries as comparing prices with purchase tax against those without can be misleading. Discussions about price on an Apple forum like this should be more about what Apple charges not what Apple charges plus what local governments charge in purchase taxes.
Also, the post I had responded to stated "Try $999aud" which seem to imply that that price in Australia was much higher. As I noted, the starting price (excluding purchase taxes) for the 16e in Australia in USD is actually less than the starting price (also excluding purchase taxes) for the same phone in the U.S.
The 16e is for people who may be looking to save $230 and don't want/need some of the features found with the 16.
If you are asking what the purpose of the 16e is then what is the purpose of the 16 when you can get a 16 Pro for only $170 more with same storage? $170 is even less of a price difference than $230.
No no. The 16E is a sheep in wolves clothing to expand the 16 range (16 "should" be the latest stuff - every piece of hardware). Bringing the 16 name to a device that its unrelated to makes it a gimmick. It's a confusing device that's had engineering done to it that is not beneficial to the user.
The SE badge was a clear differentiator for people to know it's an older device with newer processing (CPU/GPU/Memory). Apple are ignoring why people bought it (TouchID, it's smaller size etc).
The $230 difference is not enough of a jump. Apple closed the door to entry points into the iOS ecosystem. Apple has done this before. To it's Mac Pro users (cheese grater Mac Pro to the Mac Pro bin).
The 16e is no more "confusing" than the original iPhone SE was when it first launched nine years ago. People will get used to the "e" identify the phone as a "stripped down", lower priced version of the current model (16 in this case).
If Apple is "ignoring" them, it may because their internal data/research showed that the number of people wanting a small phone, Touch ID, etc. wasn't sufficient enough to justify offering one.
Not enough of a jump in what sense? Many people buy the 16 over the 16 Pro and that "jump" is only $170.
Hardly. For $170 more (or just $120 more with same storage) the 16e offers quite a bit over the SE including increased RAM, Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos, emergency SOS via satellite, crash detection, better camera setup, better chip, better modem, better battery, increased max brightness, super retina XDR display, Apple Intelligence, ceramic shield, greater water resistance, larger display, and more.
You're ignoring what the 16e is. A non-16 phone, labelled as a 16. SE was relatively easy to understand. Older physical casing (cut cost) with newer hardware. The 16e isn't that. The fact they've introduced the C1-chip in a "budget" device is confusing to start with.
For those who want the iOS experience in older hardware to flood out the mid-range Android competition, that's gone.
I know you'll have a response to this. But have a good day trying to convince us that 16e this is "stripped down" 16. It isn't even in a 16th generation hardware chassis. Hence the bad naming.
Lipstick on a pig.
The 16e is far from from lipstick on a pig as it offers quite a bit over the very dated SE for only $120 (with same storage) more. It also offers value over the 16 as it is $230 (with same storage) less.
A few points:
1. Nowhere did Apple say "budget" in their marketing, nor do I expect them to do so at any time.
2. Inflation and the lack of automatic carrier subsidies mean this is still a better deal than $499 was for the original iPhone.
3. An iPhone built to a lower price point would be considered useless, as it would have similar specs to a 2-3 year old flagship iPhone. This one has been updated where it counts (screen, Face ID, processor, USB-C) to differentiate it from just buying a 13 or 14.
4. "Not for me" is not the same as "not for anyone."
1. Nowhere did Apple say "budget" in their marketing, nor do I expect them to do so at any time.
2. Inflation and the lack of automatic carrier subsidies mean this is still a better deal than $499 was for the original iPhone.
3. An iPhone built to a lower price point would be considered useless, as it would have similar specs to a 2-3 year old flagship iPhone. This one has been updated where it counts (screen, Face ID, processor, USB-C) to differentiate it from just buying a 13 or 14.
4. "Not for me" is not the same as "not for anyone."
A $2000 big screen TV from 2007 should be over 3000 now if you consider inflation and ignore technology advances and moores law but I can see big screen TVs over the holiday season going for under $500.
For a higher tier mid-range phone it should have 90Hz and the regular iPhone should receive 120Hz or just merge the regular with the Pro line, this is getting ridiculous Mr. Tim Cook.