Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

iPhone SE: $429, 4.7-inch display, 5.45 x 2.65 x 0.29, 5.09 ounces

iPhone 16e: $599, 6.1-inch display, 5.78 x 2.82 x 0.31, 5.88 ounces

This is a major downgrade in every way for people who want the smallest possible iPhone.

I would rather at this point have a watch with good cellular comms, that could use bluetooth for calls and let me tether a tablet for web use.

But I have to say, I was more annoyed by the loss of touch ID than by the increase in screen size. While I like the smallest possible iPhone, my SE has not been very nice to use lately. Developers aren't testing their sites/apps on that screen size, and many sites/apps are getting really janky when run on a screen that small.

Not to mention the damn TouchID. So much better of an experience on my old SE than on my 15 pro with FaceID.

I hear this and I do not relate at all. Face ID is so much more reliable than Touch ID ever was for me.

As somebody who wears a mask almost all day long I am glad that fingerprint unlocking is an option

It's basically 6% longer, wider, and thicker.

I like small phones. 6% doesn't seem all that different from the current SE.

The fact that all that space seems to be going to battery life does seem nice...

Those 6% increases compound together though to create something with 20% more volume, that is pretty substantial

I've never heard anybody complain about volume. Just width/height.

I mean, isn't everyone here on HN always making fun of Apple's supposedly unnecessary obsession with thinness? Now it's a teensy bit thicker.

You've never heard of people complaining about how "big" phones are, and wishing for a "smaller" phone? How would you measure "big" and "smaller" other than volume?

Volume would be a terrible metric for phones.

You don't make a phone half as tall and twice as thick and claim it's the same size...

The 2D surface area, which affects holding and pocketing, is 13% larger.

Weight also matters.

I honestly still prefer the form factor of the iPhone 3GS. (I have an old one in a drawer for comparison.) 4.8 ounces, 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.48 with a rounded back. The thickness wasn't a problem.

Well it's 11% longer, wider, and thicker than the 13 mini, which has better everything than the SE.

The SE is not the smallest possible modern iPhone, just the smallest screen. The 13 mini has a larger screen but is physically smaller.

The 13 mini was discontinued in 2023.

The smallest possible iPhone ever was possibly the original iPhone.

You can still buy a pristine 13 mini on the secondary market. The original iPhone is not a viable device today, but the 13 mini is better across every tech axis (better processor, battery life, screen, camera, ...) than the SE and is worth comparing to.

This is missing the point. I have a 3rd gen SE and am not currently in the market for a new phone. The issue is that Apple is no longer selling anything to people who want a small iPhone. Moreover, the used market will dry up eventually, and iOS support will be dropped even sooner.

>but the 13 mini is better across every tech axis (better processor, battery life, screen, camera, ...) than the SE and is worth comparing to.

They have the exact same A15 Bionic, with the same 4GB of memory. The 13 mini has an extra 400maH of battery.

I've had both and the iPhone SE (2022) lasted longer in my personal use. (sold the 13 in an antiapple mood only to come back and get an SE later)

However, as the iPhone 12 and 13 mini demonstrated, the people who like small phones are a very vocal but extremely small minority (only 3% of US sales were the mini). They both sold so badly, it serves as a reality check for how small voices on the internet are compared to the market.

I feel like the 12 mini was objectively a subpar device, and maybe if 13 mini had come out first (after a long hiatus of not having smaller phones), then there might have been a chance. But probably not.

You're assuming most people even read the spec sheet and knew it was inferior on paper. I assure you, most did not. Most just looked at it, decided "too small," and that's about it.

I meant the people who wanted a small phone experienced it, and were disappointed, and it gained a bad reputation, potentially turning off others who also wanted a small phone.

There was a big gap (5+ years?) between the small iPhone SE and the 12 mini, so a lot of people jumping on 12 mini and being disappointed by the small phone may have resulted in disappointing sales of 13 mini.

But I’m sure the phone sellers know what they are doing, it just would have been nice to even be able to still buy a 13 mini. None of the new phones have any capabilities I care about.

Edit to respond to below:

I am not assuming that, I am actually assuming the opposite. There may have been pent up demand due to the long gap between the small iPhone SE and 12 mini, so when the 12 mini came out and disappointed, people who had been waiting to upgrade chose a non mini reducing the total number of minis sold. And then the 13 mini was discontinued by the time those people needed a new phone.

But again, probably wishful thinking on my part.

You're assuming that people upgrade phones every year, which (again) most do not. A badly received 12 mini would have almost no broad market effect on the sales of the 13 mini. Not unless most iPhone sales are by word of mouth.

In what universe would you leave that market share on the table?

If they're going to buy a regular iPhone for $100 more anyway, and the likelihood they buy a small Android instead is near zero (what small Android?), then yes, I absolutely would say to cut it and simplify the engineering, manufacturing, and checkout process.

If you start serving every 4% of needs in each product category, watch the portfolio balloon to catastrophic proportions. The very principle of the thing is anti-Apple; they would quickly become Samsung, complete with Samsung level naming schemes and weird decision making. Next thing you know, we'll have the Apple Vacuum Cleaner, the Apple Door Lock, the Apple Ice Cream Scoop, the Apple Exterior Camera, and so on.

This slippery slope argument doesn't click for me. They obviously perceive the value of segmenting the market by device size. I'm just asking for the smaller size to be actually small.

Or maybe opportunity cost is a real thing. They have decided it isn’t worth it to pursue that niche. I think Apple believes it has addressed a lot of the small screen needs with the watch.

This is all relative. In absolute terms, the iPhone SE alone would be one of the most successful products in the world, more successful than the original iPhone back in the day.

iPhone as a category is so massive now that small percentages are still millions of people.

It's kind of sad that Apple itself has become so huge, because now the company ignores people it used to care about.

I guess a lot of people don't really have a computer or laptop anymore, their phone is their computer which they use for everything, so it makes sense to want as big a screen as possible.

For the kinds of people who frequent HN, I'd wager we all do have a computer, heck there's probably a laptop in your backpack right now, so it makes sense to have a smaller phone for 'phone stuff' and whip out your laptop to do anything more involved.

Still though, surely Apple made money from the mini, even 3% of iPhone sales is a lot of phone sales! I wish they would keep it around.

Does anyone know how much of the razr 40/50 sold in millions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com