The OnePlus 13R is same price but has 12 GB ram and 256gb storage + free wireless buds, how is the 16e a "steal" ?
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
In the U.S., the contract requirement had been dropped by the time the 3GS came out. I believe pricing was $199 to $299 with contract or $599 to $699 without.
Not unusual. It has long been common to see used/refurb phones for a lower price than a lesser new one. Same can be said about cars, boats, planes and other products sold in the resale market. That doesn't necessarily make the new retail price bad. Some people are ok buying used, some aren't.
The real consideration of whether this is a budget phone will depend on what the monthly cost of a 3-year plan is - and whether budget-sensitive people looking for an iPhone think it's affordable or not.
While there seems to be many people on MacRumors who buy their phone hardware up-front, I think this is not most people's experiences in the outside world, especially not so at the budget end of the iPhone market.
this is the entire point of the SE line
it just happens to be a little cheaper than whatever the flagship phone is but "budget" has never been the point
The $599 price sets up three possible scenarios:
1. The 16e price is a temporary hike to scalp adopters until the entire range gets shifted down by $100 to accommodate the 17. From September you'd have the 16e at $499, the 16 at $699 and the 17 starting at $799. If there was only $100 seperating the e from the reg, they really wouldn't sell any.
2. The 16e price hike will be reflected across the entire 17 lineup with the base model starting at $899 but likely including 256gb base storage and ProMotion as a compromise. The 16 would stay at $799 for another year.
3. Apple is preparing to 'iPad' the entire iPhone lineup. The 16e will now become the base model with an $849 iPhone Air completely taking the place of the regular iPhone going forward. If you want the bells and whistles, better stump for the Pro.
1. The 16e price is a temporary hike to scalp adopters until the entire range gets shifted down by $100 to accommodate the 17. From September you'd have the 16e at $499, the 16 at $699 and the 17 starting at $799. If there was only $100 seperating the e from the reg, they really wouldn't sell any.
2. The 16e price hike will be reflected across the entire 17 lineup with the base model starting at $899 but likely including 256gb base storage and ProMotion as a compromise. The 16 would stay at $799 for another year.
3. Apple is preparing to 'iPad' the entire iPhone lineup. The 16e will now become the base model with an $849 iPhone Air completely taking the place of the regular iPhone going forward. If you want the bells and whistles, better stump for the Pro.
Nobody needs to purchase Apple products. You have a choice, buy a phone from a competitor if you don't like the price point.
These scenarios are all plausible. I think the should have priced the 16e at $499 and reduced the 15 to $649. Especially if the 15 isn’t sticking around after the 17 is announced (because Apple wants all their phones to support Apple Intelligence) then reducing it $50 makes sense. But if Apple is planning to hike everything $100 then I get why they priced it at $599. If they do raise prices on the entire line that will suck.
A fourth possibility is Apple stops offering new one and two year old phones going forward. When the 17 lineup comes out, the 15, 16 and 16 Plus could all be discontinued leaving the 16e, 17, 17 Air, 17 Pro and 17 Pro Max.
The lineup could look something like the following, assuming no price increases*:
16e starting at $599 (same as it is now)
17 starting at $829 (same as 16 is now)
17 Air starting at $929 (same as 16 Plus is now)
17 Pro starting at $999 (same as 16 Pro is now)
17 Pro Max starting at $1,199 (same as 16 Pro Max is now)
*As far as pricing goes, that may depend on how the trade/tariff situations play out.
Except Apple had windfall cash during COVID that has offset inflation for a decade, but hey, let's pretend they need the money.
No. You are implying that there was a different cost at the beginning without a contract, and there wasn't. 2 months after the launch, they got things straightened out with AT&T and it was $199 with a 2 year contract, $499 with a prepaid plan.
There is no way that Apple allows a $200+ price gap to exist in the lineup without filling it. Not this Apple. The iPhone market is so massive that every $100 increment is a market unto itself. Apple will fall over itself to find a way to have a $700 model in play too.
Interesting take. So Apple, as a company, is immune to the price of basically everything going up over the years. It impacts every other company, but them. Damn, Tim Cook is good.
and carriers have done wonders convincing people that it is better now to pay $1199 for a phone over 3 years than it is to by a phone for $399 and be in a binding contract for 3 years for service
Tim Cook is a greedy hog. He no longer puts the product and the customer first, which is what built Apple from near bankruptcy to the most valuable company in the world. He puts revenue first, and that can be seen in nearly every new product today and every decision being made at Apple. Apple does not need to raise prices the way they do to offset inflation. They already did. Apple raises prices as a thought experiment to see what they can get away with. To see what their brand loyalty can buy. Vision Pro was Cook's ultimate gambit, and it failed.
$200+ price gaps are not that unusual for Apple. A $230 price gap already exists between the 16e and 16. For the last couple of years, there have been $200 price gaps between Pro and Pro Max models too.
No. The Apple starting price for the SE 3 had been $429 since it launched in 2022. The original SE and SE 2 were $399 but not the SE 3.
People used to absolutely freak out about service contracts and I honestly never understood it. All the carriers suck equally. The idea of constantly switching carriers is idiotic. The idea of needing a way out is idiotic. I don't care who my carrier is, nor do I want to spend any amount of time or thought on them. If a 3 year "contract" for something I know I am absolutely going to use for 3 years and beyond gets me the same thing for cheaper, that is a no brainer. Somehow we got here, where we now have to pay through the nose for the device, and can now stop using it at any time after paying through the nose. Wow. What a victory.
You say this now, then Apple makes it standard and then the voices chime the other way. Cannot have it both ways, friend.
He is the CEO of a publicly held company. You know that, right?
His costs to operate go up pretty significantly and you believe that he shouldn't pass those costs on? Tim Cook isn't sitting there saying "Let me price a product at XYZ to see if the market will pay that because we are Apple" That is an incredibly comical assumption/opinion.
A few simple yes or no questions. Do you own Apple products? Still buy Apple products?
The majority of people buying iPhones don't care about a refresh rate. They care about text messages, camera, surfing the web and email. Those are the people that Apple is focused on, not the crazy fringe who will pick apart every decision Apple makes when releasing a new product with certain features and hardware.