This is a weird way of saying that Apple offers a phone at every price point.

How is it consumer-hostile to offer upgrades at an increased cost?

It isn't as bad as some practices, for sure. The question is how likely are the 'upgrades' actually upgrading anything for the user? Will the extra camera on the Pro be $100 of utility for the user over the lifetime of the device? Or are they using the uncertainty that the user _might_ get a use out of that camera to push to a higher model.

It seems mostly an exercise in price discrimination. You always have a slightly higher price point, and some extra functionality to justify it, and the customer will likely push themselves up to the maximum they are willing to spend instead of settling on the cheapest option that meets their needs.

▲

hbn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the only one I could agree with exists for upselling is the 16e. I really don't know who that phone is for, it's missing some of the most basic features like MagSafe that will probably disappoint customers who bought it not knowing their iPhone won't work with accessories that previously you could trust work with every iPhone. I guess maybe a grandparent who barely uses their phone it would be fine, but other than that it seems like it just exists so Apple can say the iPhone lineup starts at $599 and then sell you a 15/16.

	▲	ProfessorLayton a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My dad uses his phone to answer phone calls, texts, maps to travel to job sites, and play music in his work truck. He might also open a link someone texts him. And that's it. Literally no 3rd party apps on his phone. Once his 11 finally goes, I'm getting him an E.
	▲	Lammy a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I really don't know who that phone is for That phone isn't “for” any customer, it's for Apple to be able to real-world test their homegrown C1 cellular modem on a non-flagship product.