I have an iPhone 13, would this phone be a worthy update?
4gb ram vs 8gb ram
A15 vs A19
Of course it's a considerable upgrade
iPhone 17e
501–510 of 517 posts
Re: iPhone 17e
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
It took about three years to get all the features in your bulleted list. It's been another fifteen and a half years since. Touch/faceID is cheap, wireless charging is cheap, the free tier of iCloud is cheap, water resistance is cheap. Yes the specs have increased a ton. When asking for a model under $500, the idea would be giving up some of those specs. And that's clearly possible; even low end phones these days are…
Yes it was the iPhone 4 and it was $649, or $968 in today's money for 16gb of storage. That mean's today's cheapest iPhone is 40% cheaper than this base model you're referring to, as well as being tons better. If you don't think 40% is a hefty price drop then idk what to tell you. That's for the 16gb by the way, the next year's 64gb would've constituted a 53% price drop today. And that's still for a wildly different…
> If you don't think 40% is a hefty price drop then idk what to tell you.
For 15 years of tech product, it's not.
For a tech product to stay the same price in dollars for so long is not great. And remember that the 17 itself is $799. This is the discount model and it's still way over the $500 bar.
> The idea Apple should be going even beyond that to make low-end new phones for a company that positions itself at the top of the market, is just silly.
It's silly because you took the thing being complained about, the positioning, and made it part of the premise. Anything sounds silly if you do that.
> you can't please everyone with a lineup of 5 phones
5 phones is plenty to cover a big range if they wanted to. Pro and Pro Max isn't needed, and the Air is totally unnecessary with how close it is to a normal model.
Though for market coverage I wouldn't say low end first, I would say new SE model. I bet a 4.3 inch screen would sell a lot better than the Air's thinness.
Re: iPhone 17e
#503256GB? My laptop has 8TB. Why is Apple so stingy?
I'm using less than 100 GB of total storage on my phone. I'm not sure how your laptop is supposed to come into that but 256 GB is already plenty for the smallest possible option to select, doubly so since this is the budget variant. The bogus part with the storage here is instead on needing to pay $200 more just to get to 512 GB.
My 256GB phone is already almost full because of all this app bloat. 6 different parking apps, 17 messaging apps because nobody uses the same thing, 13 different financial apps, EV charging apps, ...
I have one messaging app eating 40GB
On the other hand, a terabyte is cheap, they should just put a terabyte in the phone, it's what we apparently need in 2026
Re: iPhone 17e
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it was the iPhone 4 and it was $649, or $968 in today's money for 16gb of storage. That mean's today's cheapest iPhone is 40% cheaper than this base model you're referring to, as well as being tons better. If you don't think 40% is a hefty price drop then idk what to tell you. That's for the 16gb by the way, the next year's 64gb would've constituted a 53% price drop today. And that's still for a wildly different…
> If you don't think 40% is a hefty price drop then idk what to tell you. For 15 years of tech product, it's not. For a tech product to stay the same price in dollars for so long is not great. And remember that the 17 itself is $799. This is the discount model and it's still way over the $500 bar. > The idea Apple should be going even beyond that to make low-end new phones for a company that positions itself at the t…
Alright I guess we simply disagree, it's getting a bit out of hand to argue this case, and to be honest also a bit silly. Apple's best selling phones are the Pro and Max, which you want to scrap, and you advocate for a 4.3 inch screen when the iPhone mini was Apple's biggest flop phone. I'm not really interested fleshing out why that doesn't make sense if it isn't obvious.
You also think a 50% discount is not much which we just have a disagreement about, no point arguing that further. But to expect an even cheaper lineup with lower specs just doesn't make sense and we've covered the obvious reasons already. For one, Apple has tons of competition at that price/spec level. And secondly, Apple already made hundreds of millions of such phones (they're called years-old models) which anyone can buy with new batteries at the price level you're talking about (<$400). To bring out additional new models that compete with its old models and other brands brings little additional revenue and even smaller margins, the opposite of what drives Apple's market cap. With respect it looks to me like there's a reason you're not CEO of Apple and that Apple isn't taking your advice to bring out another iPhone mini flop or low-budget competitor.
Re: iPhone 17e
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't think 40% is a hefty price drop then idk what to tell you. For 15 years of tech product, it's not. For a tech product to stay the same price in dollars for so long is not great. And remember that the 17 itself is $799. This is the discount model and it's still way over the $500 bar. > The idea Apple should be going even beyond that to make low-end new phones for a company that positions itself at the t…
Alright I guess we simply disagree, it's getting a bit out of hand to argue this case, and to be honest also a bit silly. Apple's best selling phones are the Pro and Max, which you want to scrap, and you advocate for a 4.3 inch screen when the iPhone mini was Apple's biggest flop phone. I'm not really interested fleshing out why that doesn't make sense if it isn't obvious. You also think a 50% discount is not much wh…
> Apple's best selling phones are the Pro and Max, which you want to scrap
I was suggesting combining them, not scrapping them.
> you advocate for a 4.3 inch screen when the iPhone mini was Apple's biggest flop phone
I'm referring to the SE, not the Mini.
Even when they released 13 Mini and SE (3rd) at the same time, I think both of them sold more than the Air, and combined they were way ahead.
At this point it's been 4 years since either an SE or a Mini, so a new SE would sell lots.
> With respect it looks to me like there's a reason you're not CEO of Apple and that Apple isn't taking your advice
The $500 thing was never supposed to be advice. It was a pricing complaint.
Re: iPhone 17e
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to +1 every comment in this thread. Phones are too big now. I don't understand Apple's weird obsessions, first trying to make all the phone so thin you cut your hand holding it, and then making it too big to fit comfortably in your pocket unless you are walking around in camo pants. You know what I would like? When I tap on the search and type the first few letters of an app on my phone, and the app appears, a…
Until you hit 'Search' at the bottom right it shows you a preview result set - that can differ completely from the one you get then. Because two are not enough, they added a third with 'Siri suggestions' as top row. Which is not in the Search settings but in the ones for Siri. The iOS docs[1] misname it as 'Suggest App' when it is called 'Suggest Apps Before Searching' which only the iPadOS docs [2] get right. Did I…
The silver lining if ai takes all of our jobs will hopefully be that the people responsible for all of this become destitute as well
Re: iPhone 17e
#507Re: iPhone 17e
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Running deepseek 6B on the Private LLM app on the iPhone 13 basically set my phone on fire Hey, I’m the author of Private LLM. I hope you’re joking about the phone catching fire. Btw, there’s no DeepSeek 6B model, you’re likely talking about the DeepSeek Distill 7B model.
Yes thank you for the correct correction The last model I tried to run was Dolphin 3B but even Zephyr1.6B kills the phone pretty fast even with a full battery Even Dolphin completely killed my phone so yeah I can’t really use the Private LLM app for anything heavier than the default 1.6B
Yeah, I agree. Really hard to fit anything larger on the 4GB of RAM on the iPhone 13 of which, only about (depending on what iOS version you're on) 2.1-2.5GB is usable by apps.
Re: iPhone 17e
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyway; hit recognition of the keyboard is so far behind where it was in the iPhone 4/5 generation that I doubt modern iOS would even be functional; even if you excused the padding issues that would inevitably be an issue Right?? It is worse than I remember right? I'm not crazy.
Using the iOS 26 keyboard on an iPhone SE 2/3 is a truly miserable experience now. Upgrading from 18 was a terrible mistake
POS Apple just made me upgrade my iPhone Mini to 26 so that I could pair my new Apple Watch, because I just broke the old one.
I wasn't sure I wanted another Apple Watch, but it was the easiest thing to buy, and I don't have to figure out how to transfer all the data and set it up somewhere else.
But I definitely regret going the "easy" way; iOS 26 is truly awful, what the fuck.
I'm going to figure out what fitness/sport watch I really want to use next because I doubt I'll be sticking to iPhone with what they have on offer these days...
Re: iPhone 17e
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an obsession. Its calculation. They noticed bigger phones lead to customers buying more services and apps.
That’s an entertaining construction of “people are more likely to buy things they get more utility from” that somehow removes agency from consumers.
Yes. It's the Apple's product first philosophy that Steve Jobs repeated again and again:
"A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them."
"Some people say, 'Give the customers what they want.' But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do."
"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."
"If I had asked customers what they wanted, they would have said 'a faster horse."