Unpopular opinion: does iPhone 16e even make sense?
The iPhone 16e arrives as Apple’s new “budget” option, starting at $599, yet it costs $170 more than the discontinued iPhone SE. It shares the A18 chip with the iPhone 16 but skips advanced camera features, MagSafe, and Dynamic Island, relying on older design elements like the notch. For a device marketed as modern, these compromises feel like recycled ideas rather than genuine progress.
Apple claims the 16e’s 48MP camera rivals flagship models, but it lacks sensor-shift stabilization, macro photography, and next-gen portrait controls found in the iPhone 16. The absence of an ultra-wide lens and spatial video recording further limits its appeal, making it inferior to cheaper Android rivals like the Google Pixel 8a. Even Apple’s older iPhone 15 offers better camera versatility at similar prices, undermining the 16e’s value.
The iPhone 16e’s “upgraded” battery life—26 hours of video playback—is a rare bright spot, but this stems from Apple’s in-house C1 modem, not a larger battery. Meanwhile, the iPhone 16’s brighter display, faster GPU, and MagSafe support justify its higher cost for many users. The 16e’s existence seems less about innovation and more about segmenting the market to upsell buyers to pricier models.
Apple’s decision to reuse the A18 chip in the 16e is strategic, ensuring compatibility with Apple Intelligence features like ChatGPT integration and Visual AI. However, the 16e’s underclocked 4-core GPU versus the iPhone 16’s 5-core GPU reveals a performance gap, however slight. This creates artificial differentiation, pushing budget-conscious users toward costlier models for full functionality.
The environmental impact of frequent, minor upgrades is another concern. While the 16e uses recycled materials, its release adds to e-waste by phasing out older models like the iPhone 14 and SE. Apple’s carbon-neutral claims clash with a business model reliant on yearly releases, which strain resources and consumer wallets alike. The 16e’s “sustainability” feels contradictory when paired with its disposable lifecycle.
The iPhone 16e’s limited color options (black and white) and lack of Camera Control button further highlight its status as a stripped-down variant. By contrast, the iPhone 16’s vibrant hues and additional hardware features cater to users seeking a premium experience. Apple’s approach here feels less about choice and more about creating a hierarchy that nudges buyers toward higher-priced devices.
Critics argue the iPhone 16e’s $599 price tag is steep for a device that omits basics like Wi-Fi 7 and Ultra Wideband connectivity, which are standard in the iPhone 16. Even Apple’s trade-in offers—up to $170 for an iPhone 12—feel calculated to lock users into its ecosystem rather than reward loyalty. This reinforces the perception that Apple values recurring revenue over groundbreaking technology.
In markets like India, the 16e’s inflated pricing ($700) makes it less competitive against brands like OnePlus and Oppo, which offer superior specs at lower costs. Apple’s reliance on brand loyalty overshadows genuine value, leaving budget buyers with fewer reasons to choose the 16e. The phone’s existence seems tailored to exploit Apple’s reputation rather than innovate within the mid-range segment.