Connect with us

Technologies

The iPhone 17 Will Get a $50 Price Hike, Says Jefferies Analyst. Here’s Why He’s Right

Commentary: Turns out that Apple is overdue for a price increase on the iPhone.

The iPhone 17 series will get a $50 price increase, according to a Jefferies analyst Edison Lee. Since what President Donald Trump touted as “Liberation Day,” the possible effect of tariffs on the iPhone’s price has been widely discussed. And yet, despite tariffs and politics, iPhone prices have remained the same so far this year.

Lee expects that to change this fall. He says that the iPhone 17 Air (17 Slim), 17 Pro and 17 Pro Max will get a $50 price increase to offset the higher costs of components and tariffs, as reported by Business Insider. He didn’t mention the regular iPhone 17 getting a price hike. If true, that would mean that the starting prices for the iPhone 17 series will be:

  • iPhone 17 – $829
  • iPhone 17 Air – $979
  • iPhone 17 Pro – $1,049
  • iPhone 17 Pro Max – $1,249

News on the price hikes follows a May report by The Wall Street Journal that Apple is considering a price increase and could attribute the rise to new and updated features instead of tariffs. But the launch of the rumored iPhone 17 this fall will likely come with a higher price, no matter what Trump says or does.

Apple is the third-largest company in the US, and most of its products are manufactured in China. Clearly, the iPhone’s ubiquity has made it a symbol for the ongoing uncertainty of the US economy and politics. But even without higher component costs or tariffs, the iPhone has been overdue for a price increase. The last price hike was five years ago.

Historically, five years is the longest stretch of time Apple has gone without an increase since the five years between the iPhone 5 and the iPhone 7, which ended with the iPhone 8 launching at a higher cost. We can learn a lot by looking at how the company has handled earlier price hikes (and a one-time drop) and what that means for the iPhone 17. 

To figure out how likely we are for a price hike, I grouped iPhone models into a few categories: the standard, the flagships and the behemoths. The standard includes models like the original iPhone, the iPhone 8, the iPhone XR and the iPhone 16. The flagships include variants like the iPhone X, iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro. And the behemoth’s designation is for phones like the iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone XS Max and iPhone 16 Pro Max. There are other versions that Apple sold, like the iPhone 5C, the SE series, the iPhone Mini line and the current iPhone Plus line, that don’t factor into this analysis. Also, I use the US starting price for each iPhone before any carrier discounts are applied. Let’s dive in.

Standard iPhone prices

Since its debut in 2007, the standard iPhone has had four price increases and one correction. Many folks might remember paying $199 for the original iPhone, but in reality, the phone cost $499 off-contract. In 2008, Apple raised the price $100 with the launch of the iPhone 3G to $599, where it would stay for four years. Then, in 2012, the iPhone 5 was introduced with a taller, 4-inch screen and a higher $649 price tag.

Fast-forward to 2017, the 10th anniversary of the iPhone, and the iPhone 8 debuted at a cost of $699, a $50 increase. Every year between 2017 and 2019, the price for the standard iPhone changed. In 2018, the iPhone XR launched at $749. The following year, the iPhone 11 came out, and the price dropped back to $699. And what makes that drop interesting is that the iPhone 11 was the first standard Apple phone with two rear cameras: a wide-angle and ultrawide. Up till then, all other standard iPhone models had only a single rear camera. From 2007 to 2019, when Apple increased prices, it was in $50 increments, except between the first and second iPhone models.

Then 2020 happened. It was a wild year for the iPhone and everyone because of the pandemic. But Apple managed to launch the iPhone 12, which cost $829, marking the largest increase for the standard iPhone: $130. Subsequent models all had the same price: The iPhone 13, 14, 15 and 16 all cost $829.

If Apple follows its previous pattern, then the standard iPhone is due for a price increase. The last raise was in 2020, five years ago, and Apple has never gone six years without a price hike on the standard model. But will the company slowly raise the price over a few years like it did between the iPhone 7, 8 and XR? Or will it go all in like it did with the iPhone 12?

The standard iPhone is Apple’s most popular, and it’s safe to expect that the iPhone 17 will cost more (and would’ve even if Trump hadn’t been elected). Now we just need to wonder how much tariffs and politics might drive the price up even more.

The flagship: iPhone Pro model prices

Apple hasn’t always had an iPhone Pro variant, but it did starting in 2017 with the launch of the iPhone X, which had a starting price of $999. The phone debuted next to the $699 iPhone 8, making the 8’s $50 increase seem like nothing.

But here’s where things get interesting. Apple has never raised the price on the iPhone Pro model. The iPhone X, XS, 11 Pro, 12 Pro, 13 Pro, 14 Pro, 15 Pro and 16 Pro all cost $999. That’s eight years without a price increase!

What’s even more shocking is when you correct for inflation: the 2017 iPhone X’s $999 price would be $1,298 in 2025, according to the Consumer Price Index Inflation calculator. The iPhone Pro is overdue for a price hike, and I expect the iPhone 17 Pro to cost more.

The behemoths: iPhone Plus, Max and Pro Max prices

Since 2014, Apple has sold a big version of the iPhone. Some of these were nothing more than a larger version of the standard iPhone with a bigger screen and battery as well as some minor differences, like the iPhone 6 Plus having optical image stabilization on its camera while the iPhone 6 didn’t. But beginning with the iPhone 7 Plus, the larger version started having “pro” features, like a second rear camera and portrait mode.

In terms of pricing, the iPhone 6 Plus debuted at $749, which was $100 more than the iPhone 6. And that $749 price stuck around for the iPhone 6S Plus and 7 Plus. In 2017, Apple had three iPhone models: the $699 iPhone 8, the $749 iPhone 8 Plus (a $50 increase from the 7 Plus) and the $999 iPhone X.

In 2018, Apple launched the $1,099 iPhone XS Max, which I consider the true successor to the initial iPhone Plus line. That means the big iPhone got a $350 increase in a single year, the largest Apple has ever made. I admit some people might not think the XS Max is a follow-up to the Plus and would deem it an entirely new iPhone variant. But this is my commentary.

Like the iPhone Pro, the Max and Pro Max would have the same price for years. In 2023, Apple raised the barrier of entry for the Pro Max model and didn’t offer a $1,099 version of the iPhone 15 Pro Max with 128GB of storage. Instead, you had to pay $1,199 for the 256GB variant, which technically cost the same as the iPhone 14 Pro Max with 256GB of storage.

The iPhone 17 and 17 Pro’s prices

Even without tariffs, it’s safe to assume that the iPhone 17 lineup’s prices will be higher for some models. But when you factor in everything that’s happened this year, it’s hard to gauge just how much the price will go up and whether that’ll affect just one or two models, or apply across the entire iPhone 17 line.

Earlier this year, Apple raised the price on its most affordable model. Though it lacks the SE branding of the previous low-cost iPhone, the iPhone 16E came with a $599 price tag, $170 more than the $429 iPhone SE (2022). 

Apple doesn’t talk about unreleased products or their prices. But we do have an unusual-for-Apple clue as to how these tariffs could affect the company.

“Assuming the current global tariff rates, policies, and applications do not change for the balance of the quarter and no new tariffs are added, we estimate the impact to add $900 million to our costs,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said during a quarterly earnings call on May 1.

Obviously, that $900 million number wasn’t just for the iPhone, but for all Apple products. And that was three weeks before Trump threatened another tariff aimed purely at the iPhone. But $900 million is a lot for any company to swallow, and eventually that added cost will need to be made up for. That usually means higher prices, even if Apple is pressured by Trump to attribute the increase to “new designs and features.”

If there’s one thing for certain, we’ll know exactly what those prices will be when Apple launches the next generation of iPhone models at its September event.

Apple didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Technologies

Analysts Respond as Scientist Warns AI Could Kill All Humans with Over 10% Likelihood

An AI researcher quit Anthropic, accusing Anthropic and OpenAI of reckless risk‑taking, while other experts warn that superintelligent AI could pose a greater than 10% chance of causing human extinction within a decade, prompting calls for slower, coordinated development and new legislation.

A leading AI researcher resigned from Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing the firm and its main competitor, OpenAI, of reckless conduct, sparking widespread worry on social platforms about the swift advancement of the technology.

Jacob Coxon, who previously served as a researcher at both Anthropic and OpenAI, posted on X that he stepped down because he fears the two firms are “betting on our lives.” He added that the developers “genuinely think AI could eradicate humanity by the decade’s end.”

“Don’t underestimate this technology,” the researcher warned. “Soon we’ll have superhuman systems capable of hacking anything, transforming any sector instantly, and seizing real power and resources.”

Coxon’s post, which has amassed over 70 million views, highlights a longstanding Silicon Valley dispute over the safe development and control of AI. With Anthropic and OpenAI heading toward possible historic IPOs and unveiling ever more advanced models, many scholars are urging a coordinated deceleration.

OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, released a blog entry on Sunday warning that no AI firm has yet “fully solved alignment and monitoring to a level that permits responsible scaling at top speed for much longer.” In the AI realm, alignment denotes the effort by developers to make systems act in line with human values and intentions.

“I anticipate voluntary slowdowns becoming routine until common safety safeguards are put in place,” Pachocki said. “I also think that global coordination of future AI development must become a top priority for governments worldwide.”

Coxon’s Tuesday post also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self‑improvement—an AI capable of creating and improving its own successors without human input. Though not yet achievable, companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI caution that it could enable humans to lose control of such systems.

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon asserted. “They are racing directly toward self‑improving superintelligence.”

Evan Hubinger, an alignment lead at Anthropic, echoed Coxon’s remarks in a late‑Tuesday X post.

“Jacob is right—we truly believe AI could eradicate humanity! I estimate there’s a greater than 10% chance within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “Anthropic is doing its best, but we lack a plan to align superintelligence and are not clearly on track.”

Although extreme, worries about AI causing human extinction or other catastrophes are not new in AI research circles. In 2023, for example, leading AI researchers and executives—including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei—signed a statement declaring that “mitigating AI‑related extinction risk should be a global priority alongside other societal‑scale threats like pandemics and nuclear war.”

Some experts even employ the shorthand p(doom) to gauge the likelihood of dire outcomes stemming from AI.

Anthropic’s Hubinger was among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed the July “Pacing the Frontier” open letter. The letter called on the U.S. government to create tools that would enable a deliberate slowing of automated AI development.

Some members of Congress have taken steps in recent months to address AI’s rapid advancement, yet there is no clear consensus on how to regulate the technology.

In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R‑Calif.) and Rep. Lori Trahan (D‑Mass.) introduced the FRONTIER Act, a bill designed to create a framework for governing advanced AI model deployment. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D‑Texas) introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until the federal government sets safety rules. Both proposals have received mixed reactions.

“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are escaping their labs, and companies are racing ahead,” Trahan wrote on X Wednesday. “It’s long past time for Congress to step off the sidelines and act.”

Lawmakers are also contending with rising public backlash toward AI data centers—large facilities that house the hardware for training and running AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) said last month that data centers have become a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have performed a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”

“They’ll need to accept some blame and persuade the American public that the benefits won’t accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Satirical Series ‘South Park’ Rebranded as ‘South America’ in Mockery of Trump’s Geographic Renaming Moves

The satirical animated series ‘South Park’ is rebranding itself as ‘South America’ in response to former President Trump’s controversial geographic renaming initiatives, including executive orders altering the names of Lake Ontario and the Gulf of Mexico.

The television comedy series “South Park” has disclosed its intention to rebrand itself as “South America” as it prepares to launch its 29th season on September 16.

The show’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, stated, “Inspired by the courage and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are renaming South Park to SOUTH AMERICA. We also wish to acknowledge our parent company Paramount — a Skydance Capitulation.”

Parker and Stone’s remarks follow U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America amid a trade dispute with Canada. Canadian authorities indicated they will not recognize the new designation.

Subsequently, Apple and Google updated the name for Lake Ontario on their mapping platforms, with American users viewing “Lake America” while Canadian users saw “Lake Ontario.”

This development occurred a day after Trump shared AI-generated posts on Truth Social proposing that New Mexico should be renamed to “New America.”

In the previous year, the president employed an executive order to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, prompting international criticism.

“South Park” received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program for the “Sermon on the Mount” episode, which debuted last year and satirizes Trump’s presidency.

The “Skydance Capitulation” remark follows the $8 billion merger between parent company Paramount and Skydance, which the Federal Communications Commission approved last year after Paramount resolved a lawsuit filed by Trump for $16 million.

Trump claimed that an interview aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in 2024 with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was edited in a misleading manner.

Paramount’s CBS News division announced in July 2025 that it was discontinuing comedian Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show,” attributing the decision to financial constraints, shortly after Colbert accused Paramount of giving Trump a “big fat bribe.” The final episode of the program was broadcast in May.

Paramount and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Trump says U.S. may keep Iranian oil ‘like Venezuela’ as Gulf-Iran Hormuz talks stall

Trump said revenue from the Venezuela arrangement has “paid for the war many times.”

President Donald Trump said the U.S. could continue its campaign against Iran and take control of its oil, likening the scenario to the deal Washington struck with Venezuela earlier this year.

“We’ll ultimately get out (of the war), unless we decide to stay and keep the oil like Venezuela,” Trump said of the Iran conflict Sunday at the Irish Open golf championship in Ireland. He added that U.S. revenue from the Venezuela arrangement, which granted Washington access to roughly a fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves, has “paid for the war many times.”

Under the agreement reached in August, Venezuela ceded majority U.S. control of more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves — more than double America’s own reserves — in exchange for $209 billion to Venezuela’s state treasury. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the deal would also bring close to $100 billion in private investment to reinvigorate its economy.

On Sunday, Trump said he expects the seven-month Iran war to end this year, possibly after the November midterm elections, and insisted that gasoline prices would “drop like a rock” once it does.

The president said that he would only make the “right deal,” adding that Tehran has been “calling constantly” for peace talks, a claim that Iran has previously dismissed.

Trump’s comments came as diplomacy over the Strait of Hormuz stalled.

A meeting in Oman between Gulf countries and Iran to discuss possible agreements on the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway for global oil and gas flows, has been postponed, Omani foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said on X on Sunday, citing the need for “consensus.”

Officials from Iran and Gulf nations had been expected to meet on Monday and sign an agreement establishing an Iran-Oman shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, though no direct talks between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing.

The Strait of Hormuz has been subjected to an Iranian and later U.S. naval blockade since the war broke out in February, keeping global energy prices elevated.

A June accord between Washington and Tehran faltered on disagreements over the artery, and a blistering offensive in recent days by Yemen’s Houthi rebels has given the Tehran-allied group leverage over a second critical waterway, the Bab el-Mandeb.

Ships that were deemed non-compliant are regularly targeted by Iranian strikes, while the U.S. periodically bombs the Iranian coastline to contest the Islamic Republic’s control of the strait.

Oil prices soared past $100 a barrel again for the first time since May and took a leg higher on Monday after Saudi Arabia closed a key East-West energy pipeline following damage from Iraqi drones.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures were up 2.3% to $102.39 per barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, traded 2.4% higher to $107.11 a barrel.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media