The iPhone 17 series could cost $50 more than the iPhone 16 line, and tariffs are apparently to blame
The iPhone 17 series could cost $50 more than the iPhone 16 line
This is reportedly due to tariffs, though the impact has apparently been reduced thanks to Apple negotiating lower component costs
We've also seen photos of many possible iPhone 17 series colors
It's looking increasingly likely that the iPhone 17 series will cost more than previous models, because while we haven't seen many price leaks yet, most of the ones we have seen point in that direction – including the latest one.
According to leaker @Jukanlosreve, the iPhone 17 series will cost roughly $50 (around £40 / AU$75) more than the iPhone 16 series.
If that's the case, the starting price of the iPhone 17 would be around $850 / £850 / AU$1,475, the starting price of the iPhone 17 Pro would be roughly $1,050 / £1,050 / AU$1,875, and the starting price of the iPhone 17 Pro Max would be approximately $1,250 / £1,250 / AU$2,225.
We're also expecting an iPhone 17 Air, and this has previously been said to cost around the same as the iPhone 16 Plus, which would mean $899 / £899 / AU$1,599, though possibly around $50 / £40 / AU$75 more if this latest price leak is right.
In any case, this $50 increase claim echoes a recent report from Jefferies analyst Edison Lee (via @DeItaone), who claimed that all models except the standard iPhone 17 would see this increase.
@Jukanlosreve for their part claims to have reached this figure through modeling how tariffs, 'the weak dollar effect', and Apple's own efforts to reduce the cost of components will impact the price.
A full selection of shades
Potential price rises are never fun, but in more positive news, leaked photos of potentially every iPhone 17 series shade have emerged.
Shared by leaker Majin Bu, these show the iPhone 17 in black, white, pink, blue, and green shades, the iPhone 17 Air in black, white, blue, and a pale yellow, and the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max in black, white, blue, gray, and brown.
These colors largely match what we saw in another recent iPhone 17 colors leak, but the green and gray shades weren't included there, and the color that looks brown here appeared more orange in that leak – so there's still plenty of uncertainty around exactly which colors will be on offer.
We should know exactly what will be on offer fairly soon though, as the iPhone 17 series is likely to launch in the first half of September, so around a month from now.
You might also like
The foldable iPhone could have much smaller screens than the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7
The iPhone 17 Air might come in these 4 colors – and there's an interesting claim about its chipset too
These are the best phones you can buy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour dealt major blow as petrol and diesel drivers take same action
The Labour Party government has been dealt a major blow as motorists 'hold off' going electric. Experts have warned that drivers will only be able to get the £3,750 Electric Car Grant on certain vehicles. Mike Thompson, chief operating officer at Leasing Options, said "there's been a lot of confusion around vehicles that will qualify for the new scheme, and we really hope the Government clears things up soon". He added: "What we do know is that to qualify, the car needs to have a recommended retail price of £37,000 or less. That means straight away, popular models like the Tesla Model Y are off the table. READ MORE State pensioners 'caught off guard' after becoming 'casualty' of HMRC "On top of that, the size of the grant will depend on how sustainable the vehicle is. The greenest models could get up to £3,750, while band two models could be eligible for £1,500." "There's also a safety element involved, and some brands won't qualify if they don't meet certain standards," he added. "And when you consider that 54 per cent of people say cost is still the biggest thing holding them back from going electric, it's clear support like this is needed to make EVs more affordable for everyone," Thompson added. Thompson said: "Right now, with the details of the Government scheme still up in the air, there have been reports of a lot of drivers holding off on EV purchases, hoping to take advantage of any discounts when the rules are clearer." One motorist said: "I can buy an electric Mini made in Oxford and shipped to China for £6000 less than I can buy a similar car in UK. Electric cars in China are half the cost of similar cars here but the infrastructure is in place there for charging cars whereas in uk we are a decade behind especially in the rural communities. To charge an electric car in China costs between 10p - 20p but in Rip off Britain it's 9p a kw at home and sometimes up to £1 a kw in public…" "Many people are waking up to that electic vehicles are not as economical and cheap to run as the government and car manufacturers have told us, and are still buying diesel and petrol car's," another wrote.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bills' Brandon Beane says James Cook practice holdout was a surprise
Pro Bowl running back for the Buffalo Bills, James Cook, said he is holding out from training camp because of "business." That's the only word we've gotten from the player as his sit out has now reached five workouts. Cook wants a contract extension. On the team side of the ledger, head coach Sean McDermott did say he expected Cook to practice on the final day of training camp on Thursday... then he did not... making the situation all the more curious. In terms of general manager Brandon Beane, he spoke earlier in the week and admitted the team was surprised at Cook's hold out after he did appear at practices early on in camp. Even so, Beane still said communication is happening. Beane's full thoughts can be found in the clip below: This article originally appeared on Bills Wire: Bills' Brandon Beane says James Cook practice holdout was a surprise
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new trade world is built around recent deals. The problem: We still don't know many details.
This past week saw Donald Trump move forward with a suite of new tariffs built around recent pacts that set headline rates of 10% to 20% for major partners who came to the table. But in recent days, there's also been confusion about what exactly many of these nations agreed to. As trade teams have moved through Washington, D.C., the issues have taken various forms, from how overlapping sectoral tariffs will work to the details of how foreign nations will invest billions in the US — not to mention an ongoing scramble for exemptions. It's been a clear snag for anyone looking for certainty after months of negotiating ups and downs. The larger problem, for now at least, is that nearly all these pacts remain in a sort of handshake phase. The confusion is a reflection of agreements that are still not finalized, and publicly announced elements are being interpreted differently by each side. Indeed, recent high-profile announcements alongside the European Union, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Vietnam all remain short of a joint statement from both sides — a key step in laying out areas of agreement. Not to mention legally binding texts. The dynamic has been in evidence on a nearly daily basis, and perhaps nowhere are the various sides talking past each other more than on plans for foreign nations to invest billions in the US. Trump has often described the agreements as akin to a cash handover — a "signing bonus," in his view. But with a very different view of the deals from the other side of the table. It's just one front likely to weigh on importers — including those importing from other countries facing higher "bespoke" rates as high as 50% — as companies may want certainty. But all sides are well aware that Trump has repeatedly reserved the right to raise rates if he feels these deals aren't working out to his liking. Two exceptions are recently struck deals, which have seen a few more formal details, including a joint statement with Indonesia and more technical language on an agreement with the United Kingdom, but with plenty of open questions there as well. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet A series of disputes over sectoral tariffs Sector-specific tariffs that Trump is also in the process of enacting on key industries have been a key point of contention, from how existing auto tariffs will overlap to forthcoming duties on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. On the semiconductor front, Trump paired his Wednesday enactment of "reciprocal" tariffs with the floating of a plan for 100% tariffs "on all chips and semiconductors coming into the United States." Within hours, trade officials in the European Union and South Korea followed up with an announcement that they would instead be exempt because of their deals. The dynamic had also been in evidence on pharmaceuticals, where Trump has also promised triple-digit rates. Left unclear is how these forthcoming duties — set to be levied under separate national security tariff powers in Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — will impact countries that have struck deals, if at all. Even a White House fact sheet, despite Trump's comments, says that "the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15%, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors." Another point of contention this week is auto tariffs, which are already facing these so-called 232 tariffs of 25%. The terms of recent deals apparently include lowering those rates to 15% for the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, but this has not been enacted yet. That fact led Japan's top trade official to travel to Washington in recent days to see why the currently verbal agreement on autos hadn't been enacted. Ryosei Akazawa met with Trump's team and told reporters Thursday that he'd received assurances that the situation would soon be remedied. But there remains no official comment from the US side on when action, which would likely require executive action from the president, will be forthcoming. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances Additional confusion around foreign investment deals The confusion has perhaps been most noticeable around agreements for increased foreign investment — $600 billion in potential money from Europe, $550 billion from Japan, and $350 billion from South Korea — which the White House has touted as key elements of these respective agreements. These varied investment promises have been backed up by only the sketchiest details and have taken different shapes between different countries. The Europeans say their $600 billion is simply a reflection of companies that "have expressed interest." Meanwhile, the South Korean and Japanese agreements have been sketched out as more akin to a fund to help spur private investments with additional financing resources. The formal White House fact sheet describes the Japanese agreement as a "Japanese/USA investment vehicle." But Trump has again and again — including Tuesday on CNBC — described it very differently. "I got a signing bonus from Japan of $550 billion," he said of that deal, adding, "It's our money to invest as we like." He was then pressed on Europe and the lack of details there and shot back, "Well, there are no details: The details are $600 billion to invest in anything I want." The president then reiterated, as he often does, that he plans to enforce these agreements through the constant threat of raising tariffs again. That got a response from Akazawa, the Japanese trade negotiator who was already in Washington over auto issues, who reportedly offered a very different description of the plan to reporters as "a commitment to invest in the US where there are benefits for Japan as well." He added: "We can't cooperate on anything that does not benefit Japan." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
