The iPhone 16e proves that Apple will never beat Android at budget phones

At this point, there’s little doubt in my mind: Android will always rule the affordable smartphone game. It’s not because Apple hasn’t tried, nor is it because every cheap Android phone is really that good, but rather because I don’t think a cheap iPhone works anymore. At least, it doesn’t work in the way that Apple keeps trying to present it.

Put another way, the iPhone 16e is the least sensible phone of 2025, and I’m at a loss to understand why Apple thought it was a good idea. I’ve reviewed it alongside all of its closest Android rivals, and I think it’s best served as a reminder that copying Apple isn’t always a good idea. Here’s what I think it gets so wrong in the face of so many good Android options.

Before I get into a little end-of-year Apple bashing, I should make one thing clear: I already reviewed the iPhone 16e. This is by no means a second review, nor am I just here to pile on. That being said, Apple introduced its most affordable iPhone to the market early in 2025, effectively forcing me to compare it to Android rivals from 2024. Even then, it wasn’t great. Now that I have a fresh crop of options, though, the iPhone 16e looks even worse.

I mean, on the surface, it’s clearly an iPhone. There’s no getting around the flat sides and back panel, the simple black or white color options, or the Action Button that’s nestled on the left side of the frame — all of that, classic Apple. The thing is, though, none of that is enough to lift my pulse by even a single beat per minute, let alone make me reach for the iPhone 16e over, well, anything. It’s kind of like when Samsung decided to strip the personality out of its Galaxy A series, and I don’t say that with love.

I mean, you probably remember those days. Samsung steadily erased every last bit of style from its cheapest phones, minimizing their camera bumps and flattening their sides until they looked like the generic Android devices that Apple would point to while trying to flex its iPhone muscle. It seemed to think it was above designs like this, yet here we are.

Don’t get me wrong, Samsung is still kind of here, too, but at least it’s making progress. Its mid-range Galaxy S25 FE doesn’t fall far from the (boring) flagship tree, but recent tweaks to the Galaxy A series have placed all three cameras on the Galaxy A56 in a single raised pill, and the subtle Key Island helps to break up the otherwise unremarkable brushed frame.

Oh, and Google? Yes, the Pixel 9a went minimalist, but it did so for carefully considered reasons and without compromising its identity. It didn’t ditch the camera bar for the sake of a flatter profile — it did so because its new display freed up space for the camera modules to share with a bigger battery. And sure, the iPhone 16e gained some battery capacity, too, but it’s still a casual 1,000mAh behind the Pixel.

Is any of this exciting? Didn’t really think so.

Then, there’s the most obvious limitation of Apple’s simplified design: the single rear camera. I mean, this is nothing new in the cheap iPhone realm, as the iPhone SE series only ever carried one camera, and so does the thousand-dollar iPhone Air, but that doesn’t make it any less disappointing. Sure, you can point to the 48MP resolution as a crucial upgrade over the 12MP of the previous SE models, but even that falls apart once you dive past the surface.

Look no further than the 48MP sensor on the Pixel 9a or the 50MP one on the Galaxy S25 FE to see what I mean. Both offer roughly the same resolution, but Google’s sensor measures 1/2.0 inches, and Samsung’s is even larger at 1/1.57 inches. That equates to larger individual pixels, allowing for more light capture and better zoom when it’s time for a close-up. Oh, and both of the iPhone 16e’s closest rivals also pack more than one sensor — just like pretty much every other cheap Android phone we’ve tested in the last year.

Everything, from the budget Moto G (2025) to the sub-flagship OnePlus 13R, features a second camera to work with, and often even a third. They add ultrawide fields of view, macro-focusing capabilities, and the ability to zoom long beyond Apple’s basic 10x maximum. Yes, the iPhone 16e is sharper than Motorola’s most basic option — I’ll accept that — but you’d be hard-pressed to argue that it’s a more fun experience. Besides, you can’t even use portrait mode on pets with the iPhone 16e, which is embarrassing.

For a more tangible example of just how silly Apple’s setup is, take a look at these three photos. One is from the iPhone 16e, one is from the Pixel 9a, and one is from the Galaxy S25 FE. Notice anything about them? Or have guesses as to which camera took which shot?

Alright, so other than the fact that Hadlee missed the memo on uploading portrait-oriented shots when he reviewed the Galaxy S25 FE, there’s plenty to pick out. For starters, the amount of detail he captured in that very zoomed-in photo of a cat is simply remarkable. I wouldn’t have guessed it was taken on a $600 Android phone, nor would I have thought the same of the picture of my own kitty to the right. I took that with the Pixel 9a, using its sensor crop to cut out the mess of laundry on my bed and make my boy the star.

And then, there’s my former foster dog, Chorizo. Yes, that’s the iPhone photo. I suppose it’s fine at a glance, but it’s a bit softer than the others, and the colors are a bit flatter. I would have liked to apply a portrait mode treatment to it in the hopes of helping his adoption chances, but again, the iPhone 16e doesn’t do that, and you can’t add it later via software. Left to my own choosing, I’m not reaching for that lone rear camera again.

If, in theory, Google were to ever offer a single-lens Pixel again, which it literally has not done since the Pixel 3a (unless you count the Pixel tablet), I feel pretty safe in guessing that it wouldn’t take the Apple approach. It would (probably) not only choose a bigger sensor, one close in size to its flagships, but it would use the Tensor-powered computational photography to its fullest, trusting software to enable pet-based portrait mode and zoom enhancement.

And who knows, maybe 10x zoom would still be the limit, as seen in the high-resolution Galaxy S25 Edge, but the quality resolved from larger megapixels would be much more reliable. Then again, this simply won’t happen, because Google wants to feed its Tensor chips as much data as possible — which Apple should really do, too, if it ever wants a good, cheap camera setup.

Perhaps the best (or worst) indicator that Apple just doesn’t fully understand the budget phone market is that, well, the iPhone 16e simply isn’t a good value. If we compare it to its closest rivals, the Galaxy S25 FE and the Pixel 9a, it’s easy to see where Apple is taking a different path. In my eyes, both the Pixel and the Galaxy are good enough to draw buyers away from the flagship price point — the iPhone 16e isn’t.

Google, for its part, put the Pixel 9a ($499 at Amazon) so close to the same specs as the base Pixel 9, packing it with the same chipset, a similar dual-camera setup, and offering a matching software update commitment. For all that, it asked a mere $499 — a whopping $300 less than the price of the Pixel 9 or even the newer Pixel 10. In my review, I marveled at such value, pointing out that it really, truly is as close to a flagship phone as you can get.

And yes, Samsung’s Galaxy S25 FE ($534.99 at Samsung) is a bit more expensive, only undercutting its flagship cousin by about $150 when it’s not on sale. However, for your money, you get more durable materials, more flexible cameras, faster wired charging, and a solid slate of Galaxy AI features. I’d still personally lean towards the Pixel because I prefer its software experience, but I wouldn’t hesitate to point someone towards Samsung’s offering.

The iPhone 16e, though? It starts at a not very mid-range $599, which is an increase of nearly $200 over the last iPhone SE (2022). However, I’ve already spent a lot of time highlighting the phone’s shortcomings, so let me instead point out just how poor a value it is within Apple’s own ecosystem — especially if you upgrade the storage and push your price to $699 (256GB) or $899 (512GB). For starters, the base iPhone 17 is one of the most impressive phones of 2025, featuring tougher glass, a smoother refresh rate, a better chipset, double the base storage, and significantly improved cameras, all for $799.

And, if that’s a bit too steep for your liking, Apple will still sell you the base iPhone 16 — the phone that the iPhone 16e is meant to be a cheap alternative to — for just $699. Yes, for an extra $100, you get a second rear camera for those sweet, sweet 0.5x zoom shots, a brighter, more modern display, and faster wireless charging. I know I can’t speak for everyone’s budgets, but it’s hard to see how that extra spending wouldn’t be worth it in the long run, especially if you plan to keep your next iPhone until the end of its software support.

Then again, maybe that’s the whole idea: Android brands want you to skip the flagships because mid-rangers are so good, but Apple wants to push you to a flagship iPhone by making its own cheap options the worst values on the market.