If 2025 is the year of anything, it is the year of the tariff. Ever since President Trump unleashed his “Liberation Day” tariffs on the world in April, consumer confidence has slumped, businesses have laid off workers, and economic uncertainty has risen sharply.
But economic uncertainty isn’t the only thing rising. Prices of consumer goods, especially those manufactured in some of the highest-tariffed countries, including China, Vietnam, and India, are up, or are likely to be before the end of the year. And that’s bad news for iPhone fans because Apple manufactures a majority of its most popular devices—or at least the components that go into them—in those countries.
Will the new iPhone 17 models that Apple is on track to debut next month cost more due to Trump’s tariffs? Unfortunately, the answer is likely a big “yep”—though some uncertainty remains. Based on what we know today, here’s how much you could be paying for your next iPhone 17.
How much could a tariffed iPhone 17 cost?
It’s important to note that just because there is a 30%, 40%, or even 50% tariff on goods from select countries, it doesn’t mean that consumer items shipped in from those countries will automatically be 30%, 40%, or 50% more expensive. This is because large companies often have some leverage in reducing the impact of tariffs on their bottom lines. Yes, they can, and often will, pass some of the tariff costs onto their customers. But they can also reduce some tariff costs in other ways.
I’ve previously written about how Apple is likely to do this, including by pressuring its suppliers in tariff-affected countries to absorb some of the costs themselves (by lowering the rates they charge Apple). Why would the suppliers agree to it? Apple is one of their biggest customers and is likely to remain so long after Trump leaves office. Therefore, it’s better to keep Apple happy by taking a short-term financial hit.
Yet it’s still very likely that Apple will also raise prices on consumers for its iPhone 17 family this year. By how much? Well, that depends on which of two likely scenarios play out.
First, here’s what consumers in the United States currently pay for the base storage model of iPhone 16:
- iPhone 16 (128GB): $799
- iPhone 16 Plus (128GB): $899
- iPhone 16 Pro (128GB): $999
- iPhone 16 Pro Max (256GB): $1199
And here are the two ways it might go.
Possible scenario #1:
This scenario is floated by Jefferies analyst Edison Lee (via 9to5Mac), who expects that Apple will raise the price of most iPhone 17 models by $50. The entry-level iPhone 17 would be spared a price increase, while the other models would all see a $50 bump. If that’s accurate, then these are the starting prices that you’ll be paying for the iPhone 17 family next month:
- iPhone 17 (128GB): $849
- iPhone 17 Air/Slim (128GB): $949
- iPhone 17 Pro (256GB): $1,049
- iPhone 17 Pro Max (256GB): $1,249
Possible scenario #2
However, there’s an alternative scenario making the rounds, too. In this one, Apple will keep the “regular” iPhone 17 models at the same price as their iPhone 16 counterparts, and only raise the prices of its Pro models. If this is accurate, then here’s what you can expect to pay for the iPhone 17 family next month:
- iPhone 17 (128GB): $799
- iPhone 17 Air/Slim (128GB): $899
- iPhone 17 Pro (256GB): $1,049
- iPhone 17 Pro Max (256GB): $1,249
If I had to choose between the two scenarios, I’d predict that Apple will opt for the first scenario, meaning that the company will only spare the “regular” iPhone 17 model a price increase.
Consumers who buy the iPhone Pro models are usually willing to spend more for better tech. In other words, these consumers prioritize capabilities over costs. They probably wouldn’t balk at an increase of $50 as much as “regular” consumers would—and Apple likely knows that.
A user known as Instant Digital on the Chinese social media network Weibo also claims that Apple will increase the base storage of its iPhone 17 Pro model from 128GB to 256GB. If this happens, Apple could argue that the iPhone 17 Pro consumer is actually getting more for less. Currently, an iPhone 16 Pro with an option of 256GB of storage costs $1,099—$50 more than the 256GB iPhone 17 Pro is likely to cost.
As for the new, supposedly “thinnest ever” iPhone, the 17 Air/Slim, which will reportedly replace the iPhone 16 Plus, I can see Apple bumping its originally planned price up by $50, too. Most consumers probably wouldn’t even notice the price point shift for the device, considering that they will likely view the iPhone 17 Slim/Air (or whatever its final name will be) as a new device entirely.
What about the “budget” iPhone 17e?
You’ll notice that the “budget” iPhone 17e is absent from the lists above. This is because Apple is not expected to introduce the iPhone 17e until next Spring.
The budget iPhone 16e only came out in February, and it seems reasonable to assume that its price will likely remain the same. (Though starting at $599, the iPhone 16e can barely be considered a true “budget” phone already).
Will Apple blame iPhone 17 price hikes on Trump’s tariffs?
As for whether Apple will blame its iPhone 17 price rises on President Trump’s tariffs . . . don’t bet on it. Doing so would likely be tantamount to tariff suicide for the company. As I’ve written before, Apple CEO Tim Cook is one of the most adept chief executives in America when it comes to dealing with Trump. His good relationship with and handling of the president have helped the company navigate extremely rough economic waters.
If Apple were now to outright blame its iPhone price increases on Trump’s tariffs, it would likely lead to—at best—a strained relationship with the president and, more likely, the possible elimination of some of the tariff exemptions Apple and other tech giants have managed to finagle. I mean, look at how well the proposed tariff cost labels went for Amazon.
In other words, you will likely be paying more for at least some iPhone 17 models next month. You can blame Trump if you want—but Apple won’t.
Connectez-vous pour ajouter un commentaire
Autres messages de ce groupe
Look, I’m not gonna lie to ya’: I’ve got a bit of a love-hate relationship with PDFs. And, more often than not, it veers mostly toward the “hate” side of that spectrum.
Don’t get m
When the U.S. government signs contracts with private technology companies, the fine print rarely reaches the public. Palantir Technologies, however, has at
Bad news for morning routines everywhere: The New York Times has put its Mini Crossword behind a paywall.
On Tuesday, instead of their usual puzzle, players were met with a paywall. The
China’s Alibaba has developed a new chip that is more versatile than its older chips and is meant to serve a broader range of
Mount Fuji hasn’t erupted since 1707. But for Volcanic Disaster Preparedness Day, Japanes
When an influencer gets married, it’s safe to assume much of the cost, from venue decor to personalized invitations, has been comped in exchange for content. Now brides with smaller, more modest f
Welcome, and thanks for reading this issue of Fast Company’s Plugged In.
On August 22, President Donald Trump announced via Truth Social that the U.S. federal government had acq
