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

Edit: 1 week later and the Air underperforms the base model as well (as expected)

Also someone pointed out below that the 16e is only 2 grams heavier and is $400 cheaper.

  • Ulrich@feddit.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    the base iPhone is not performant enough

    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).

    • Petter1@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.