Summary
- The iPhone 17 offers the most value for shoppers like myself, largely because it matches the iPhone 17 Pro in terms of its most important specs.
- At long last, you don’t need to go Pro to get a 120Hz always-on display, a 48-megapixel ultra-wide camera, or 30 hours of battery life.
- You may still want a Pro for maximum battery life, or serious photo and video work. Whatever the case, you should probably ignore the iPhone Air, which makes unnecessary sacrifices.
When I bought an iPhone 16 Pro last year, one of the smaller reasons was that I was tired of missing out on features, particularly as someone who covers smartphone tech for a living. I’d been using iPhones for years, but only ever buying the vanilla models for budget reasons. For a brief moment, I had enough money to buy something state-of-the-art, and I seized it. I don’t regret the decision for the most part — the phone’s telephoto camera isn’t as good as it should be, but otherwise, the purchase is living up to expectations.
I’m likely going to skip an upgrade until next fall at the earliest, but if I do end up buying something this year, the choice is pretty clear for me: the base iPhone 17. The iPhone 17 Pro is tempting, but it’s hard to deny the value proposition of the regular model now that Apple has realigned what it considers “standard” specs going into 2026. In fact, it’s tough to justify a Pro in my situation, and probably yours as well.
The case for the iPhone 17
More than good enough for most users
The biggest factor for me is that the base 17 has a 120Hz ProMotion display, just like any other model. If you’re only casually familiar with iPhones, this might not sound like a big deal — but once you’ve used a 120Hz screen, it’s tough to go back to 60Hz, which makes scrolling through apps and menus feel sluggish by comparison. Until this year, ProMotion was reserved for Pro models (as the name implies), despite the fact that budget Android phones have had 90 or 120Hz panels for ages. Base iPhones aren’t needlessly crippled anymore.
My favorite aspect of ProMotion is its support for always-on (AOD) functions. During the workday, I can watch notifications roll in on my 16 Pro without having to pick it up, or even wake it — very handy for someone who needs to keep a close tab on messages and news headlines. Even if you don’t care about checking for notifications every few minutes, it’s nice to see things like weather and battery widgets at a glance, or turn your iPhone into a smart display by way of StandBy mode.
The biggest factor for me is that the base 17 has a 120Hz ProMotion display, just like any other iPhone.
The standard 17 is on par with the 17 Pro in other ways, as well. Both phones measure 6.3 inches, and are protected with Ceramic Shield 2 glass on the front. They also share 18-megapixel Center Stage front cameras, 256GB of default storage, and 48-megapixel main and ultra-wide cameras. Battery life isn’t that far apart either. While the Pro is rated for 33 hours of video playback instead of 30, that’s not much of a gap in real-world usage — especially since my 16 Pro is rated for just 27. You don’t need to buy a 17 Pro for all-day runtime unless you expect to record a lot of your own video, or play a lot of 3D games.
Speaking of which, there’s not much of a performance gap between the 17’s A19 processor and the A19 Pro. The A19 Pro has an extra GPU core — that’s it. You’ll notice a difference if you’re trying to crank up the detail in Resident Evil Village, but probably nothing at all if you’re just skimming videos on Instagram or driving along with Google Maps. The reality is that iPhones have been overpowered for most tasks for a while now. There’s not much sense shelling out an extra $300 to make games look a little better, not when that money could be going towards a device like a Steam Deck.
It’s the thought of what else I could do with that $300 that’s the clincher. Putting aside non-tech uses like bills, $300 can buy plenty of things that will enhance an iPhone more than slightly better 3D or (depending on your needs) a telephoto camera. You could buy a rugged case and a multi-device MagSafe charger, for example. You could get the Apple Watch SE or AirPods Pro 3. It’s also enough money for about two years of Spotify or Apple Music.
Does it make sense for anyone to get an iPhone 17 Pro?
Luxury versus practicality
Certainly, but with the base 17 having no obvious faults, the practical advantages become relatively niche. The main reason I would consider one is better photography — while digital zoom looks surprisingly good on the vanilla model, you’re simply going to be able to take better photos in more situations with a dedicated telephoto camera.
Apple has also upgraded its telephoto sensor from 12 to 48 megapixels for this generation, leading to superior results at 4x zoom, and optional 8x digital magnification. If you’re trying to capture an event where you’re not up close to the action, a 17 Pro could mean the difference between getting a decent shot of your subject(s) or nothing more than a pixelated blur.
Indeed, there are a few other upgrades for photographers and videographers, like Genlock and ProRES RAW support. If you’re shooting a lot of 4K footage, you’ll probably need the Pro’s 10Gbps USB port, or its terabyte-level storage tiers. But there aren’t many people who turn to an iPhone for serious film-making, movies like 28 Years Later notwithstanding.
Beyond that, I think the only serious argument for a Pro is battery life. Some people genuinely need every last drop of power, and not just because of games or media. When I could afford to travel more, my iPhone 13 sometimes had little juice left after a cross-continental flight, even with Low Power Mode on while I was in the air. You might be taking 12-hour hospital shifts, tethering your laptop, or going on weekend camping trips. I know I’d give battery specs more weight if I lived in Louisiana or Florida and wanted a phone that could survive a hurricane evacuation.
What about the iPhone Air?
Gone with the wind
I can’t possibly imagine buying an Air. As a feat of engineering, it’s impressive, but its weight and thinness come with a couple of major sacrifices versus the iPhone 17. One is battery life — while it’s rated for the same longevity as my 16 Pro, reviewers have already complained about the phone running noticeably dry by the end of the day. Apple could’ve solved this with silicon-carbon battery tech, which offers improved energy density, but it chose not to for whatever reason.
The phone even drops an ultra-wide camera. This prevents any kind of macrophotography, and limits group or scenic shots. It’s actually a step backward when you consider that many similarly-priced Android devices have triple-camera systems.
Price is the killer here, though. Apple is charging $999 — $200 more than the base 17, and just $100 shy of a Pro. There’s just no world in which that’s good value, unless perhaps you value form over function, or you have a hard time holding a regular smartphone due to grip issues. That’s not most people, and definitely not me.
