Apple explains why the iPhone 16e doesn't have MagSafe

27 February 2025
You weren't going to use it anyway, apparently.

Sort by:

  • ?
  • Anonymous
  • AJj
  • 8 hours ago

Wow..!!!
Now please provide this revolutionary feature "no magsafe" in the other iphones as well.

    • c
    • cyber
    • S2D
    • 9 hours ago

    big bad bs

      • ?
      • Anonymous
      • 8wk
      • 9 hours ago

      Bloodin, 10 hours agoThis phone should be 499$, and not 599$It should 299tbh there's at least 8 great entry level and midrange phone better and way CHEAPER than this tech crap TBH.

        Anonymous, 10 hours agoHow about 𝓷𝓸 𝓸𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓸𝓷 when writing news? Not everything need... moreFact that you post comments aka your opinions whil criticizing a writer with honest opinions is textbook hypocrisy.

        It's an article, not a news post. It has comment section, meaning the whole point is for people to talk about it and share their opinions.

        Now you've got all the rights to disagree but you have no business telling someone to not share what they think.

          • ?
          • Anonymous
          • s%{
          • 9 hours ago

          It's the same way Samsung removed Bluetooth from the s pen, because users 'werent using it'. Yet people act like apple is the only one doing things like this. Samsung's design has been the same since the s22. They're clearly falling into the same gutter as apple.

            So Apple claims the iPhone 16e's target audience 'exclusively' uses wired charging. That's a bold generalization. Honestly, I'm not surprised they're cutting corners.

            Wireless charging, let's be real, is more gimmick than necessity. It generates excessive heat, the efficiency is abysmal, and the charging speeds can be painfully slow depending on the device.

            Sticking a cable in? Hardly a Herculean task.

            That said, for the price Apple charges for this 16e, they could have at least included the MagSafe magnets.

              sa11oum, 10 hours agoOk but Samsung didn't even put it in the 1300$ S25 Ultra soNobody in the right mind has ever accused Samsung of making vluable flagships. Why are you dragging another poorly priced product in, just to justify an even worse value proposition.

              "Well here's something worse so the former is not that bad" is a very poor argument.

                • ?
                • Anonymous
                • 3SI
                • 10 hours ago

                [deleted post]How about 𝓷𝓸 𝓸𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓸𝓷 when writing news? Not everything needs your opinion nobody asked for sprinkled into it

                  Ok but Samsung didn't even put it in the 1300$ S25 Ultra so

                    Only apple's blind sheep are going to believe this

                      This phone should be 499$, and not 599$

                        • ?
                        • Anonymous
                        • fCC
                        • 10 hours ago

                        "most people in the 16e's target audience exclusively charge their phones by plugging them into a charging cable"


                        lol. The target audience for iPhone 16e simply doesn't exist 😂
                        iOS users will instead get a 15 or 16 and android users will just not consider this phone at that price

                          • ?
                          • Anonymous
                          • 7s4
                          • 10 hours ago

                          So typical of this rat company. Avoid the plague.

                            What about this attitude is new here? Daddy Apple has been like this since their inception

                              • ?
                              • Anonymous
                              • 3@5
                              • 10 hours ago

                              Feem, 13 hours agoRemember those old rumors about Apple making a port-less iP... moreYes that is very true. It would have happened if the EU didn’t intervene in the last minute.

                              The reason they didn’t want USB-C is because it was not a patented proprietary connector & it wouldn’t allow them to tax the accessory makers (Belikn, Anker, etc…) with royalty fees.

                              The MFi program is super predatory. It collects & audits sale figures from each accessory maker. It’s like printing money out of thin air. They could force royalty fees on “Magsafe”, but not the basic “Qi” or “Qi 2” chargers.

                              They really wanted to go PORT-LESS all along.

                                Before i read i knew they gonna say something ridiculous, again not sure if that's true, but since we're talking about Apple then is 99% what's exactly in their mind making the 16e

                                  • K
                                  • K13
                                  • U@@
                                  • 10 hours ago

                                  Sad. Even sadder? iPhone 16e will still be hit. Which is fine -- such is the offering from Apple Ecosystem.

                                    • M
                                    • Maria
                                    • sEB
                                    • 10 hours ago

                                    More for less, Apple rakes in the cash selling simpler iPhones. Smart move.

                                      • ?
                                      • Anonymous
                                      • AZY
                                      • 11 hours ago

                                      Poor people, they mean. They can't afford to buy a MagSafe charger. But Apple is generous enough to make an iPhone they can afford. So nice of you, Apple.

                                        • ?
                                        • Anonymous
                                        • m1{
                                        • 11 hours ago

                                        The camera, or rather the sensor behind the lens, on the 16e, isn’t even the same as on the 16. In the specs, we read hybrid Focus Pixels on the 16e, and 100% Focus Pixels on the 16. Sensor size on the 16e is definitely not the same as on 16. The lens on the 16e doesn’t even protrude as much as on the 16.
                                        So lesser camera, no camera button, no Dynamic Island, no MagSafe, no ultra wide lens. What else also, for only 200$ less?! Just because it has AI? And the only phone apart the 16e that has AI is the more expensive 16? Well how are they planning to design and price the 17e when the older 16 does have AI.

                                          2 of 5