Apple’s iPhone 16e, priced at $600/€700/£600/₹60,000, faces criticism as a disappointing entry-level model, especially compared to previous iPhone SE generations that started around $400. A poll indicated that 39% of respondents found the price too high, making the 16e unattractive. Many potential buyers prefer the iPhone 15 or 16, as upcoming models like the iPhone 17 promise enhancements like a 120Hz refresh rate. The 16e, which features a 60Hz display and single camera, seems out of place in 2025. Without a price drop, most consumers may opt for alternatives rather than the 16e.
As the sole producer of iOS devices, Apple has the responsibility to offer entry-level models. However, as a brand that positions itself in the premium segment, it’s challenging for Apple to fulfill this role effectively. The Apple iPhone 16e unfortunately falls short as an entry-level option.
Before we delve into its features as a smartphone, we need to highlight the glaring issue – its pricing. At $600/€700/£600/₹60,000, it significantly surpasses the starting price of $400/$430 for the last two generations of the iPhone SE, despite offering double the storage (which, at 128GB, is still not substantial).
A staggering 39% of respondents in last week’s poll indicated that the price makes the 16e completely unattractive. This figure likely increases if we consider those who are simply not interested in any iPhone; excluding them would elevate the “it’s too pricey” vote even further.
Apple iPhone 16e
For those who desire an iPhone, opting for the standard iPhone 15 or 16 seems to be a more favored choice. Some commenters noted that the upcoming iPhone 17 is expected to feature a 120Hz refresh rate and Always-on Display for the standard model. Once the 17 series is launched, it’s anticipated that the price of the iPhone 16 will decrease to $700, filling the gap currently occupied by the iPhone 15. While there aren’t many differences between these two, the 16 offers Apple Intelligence (for those who prioritize that), quicker MagSafe charging, and improved battery life (15:42h Active use score compared to 13:20h).
Many comments reflected disappointment over the discontinuation of the iPhone mini. There was once hope that the fourth iPhone SE would be based on the mini form factor rather than the design similar to the iPhone 14. The previous SE models were smaller and lighter than the iPhone 16e, but now that option is gone, leaving fans of compact iPhones without a choice. This concern only affected a minority (just over 2% of voters), yet it remains notable.
Regarding the iPhone 16e itself, offering a device with a 60Hz display and a single camera in 2025 seems questionable at any price point – at $600, it becomes particularly baffling. Should the price drop, the 16e could warrant a reevaluation. For now, however, it appears that the majority will bypass it in favor of alternative devices.