Maybe I’m just out of touch, but I don’t understand who this is for, and I think it’s going to flop.
First of all…who is asking for thinner phones?
Secondly, the price. This is not an Air SE. This thing is only $100 less than a full-fat iPhone Pro, and $200 more than iPhone base (which is a particularly good value this year).
And what do you get for that price?
- 2 fewer lenses than the pro, and 1 fewer than the base
- Titanium frame, I guess?
- Less powerful processor than the base
- Inherently more fragile frame
- Less battery life than even the base model (this was often cited as the shortcoming of the iphone Mini)
- Slower charging speed than both models
- no cinematic video mode
Are people really clamoring for thinner phones so badly that they’ll spend more money for less features?
https://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/?modelList=iphone-17-pro%2Ciphone-air%2Ciphone-17
It’s for people that think the base iPhone is not performant enough, but don’t care about cameras on the pros. I briefly considered the Air, but was turned away by the less powerful processor vs the pro. For me, the camera is the least important feature on a phone, and if this had the same processing capabilities over the pro, I’d get the air solely because it’s cheaper than the pro. The air is literally a way for Apple to move people up the pricing ladder past the base models (especially now that the plus phones are gone).
I’d bet when you benchmark them, the Air will run into thermal limitations such that it’s insignificant. I feel like if people cared at all about performance they would just spend the extra $100 for the Pro (among the other features).
Most People who buy that don’t want the cheaper chip
It is relevant that they have the chip called pro in it, even when they only use a fraction of its power.