submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by to c/apple_enthusiast@lemmy.world
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

The Air does not have a less powerful processor compared to the base.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's the same processor as the Pro but it doesn't have the vapor chamber or aluminum chassis, and it has less thermal mass, which will inevitably cause thermal throttling and decreased performance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And technically one fewer GPU core than the Pro phones. But you said compared to the base; while you’re right that the Air won’t match the Pro (owing in part to thermals), it’s not going to underperform the base 17.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments