9to5Mac75%

A $1,399 starting price for the iPhone 18 Pro doesn't seem credible 21%

By Ben Lovejoy79%

8/3/2026, 6:05:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Personal Incredulity, and Pessimism Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 13% saturation with 54 hits. Analysis detected 261 faulty-reasoning hits from 416 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.9% and a BS Rank of 21% (20,892 of 26,397 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

We know for sure that Apple will increase iPhone prices when the iPhone 18 Pro launches next month. 
The company exempted existing iPhones when it increased prices across the board to reflect higher memory prices, but that was only ever going to be a temporary reprieve. 
However, two sources are now suggesting that the starting price of this year’s Pro models will be $1,399  and I find it hard to believe even Apple would go that far  
Don’t misunderstand me: the company has very clearly shown us that it really wants to protect its margins, and it isn’t afraid to increase prices dramatically. 
For example, the base model MacBook Air went up by $200 from $1,099 to $1,299. 
Even the MacBook Neo, which wowed people precisely because its $599 starting price was so surprising, went up by $100. 
But a $300 increase in the starting price of an iPhone Pro would be quite something. 
That’s a price jump Apple has so far reserved for far more expensive products. 
The cheapest product in the lineup to see a $300 increase was the base model MacBook Pro, which went from $1,699 to $1,999. 
That’s a hefty raise to be sure, at a touch under 18%. 
But a $300 increase in the price of the iPhone 18 Pro over its predecessor would be a 27% increase. 
Again, it’s not impossible. 
Some of the configuration upgrades to MacBooks have quite literally doubled in price, for example; Apple loves its margins. 
But Tim Cook did hint during the earnings call that the company isn’t determined to protect them come-what-may. 
In terms of the units part of the equation, I do think that this increase would deter a great many people from upgrading, especially as it looks like next year’s Pro model is going to be a significantly bigger deal. 
Of course, the counter-argument would be that the Apple Upgrade program takes some of the sting out of it. 
People might decide it’s fine to lease the iPhone 18 Pro for one year and then upgrade to the 20th anniversary model next year. 
But for those who buy their phones outright, such a large increase in the price would be a significant disincentive. 
What’s your view? 
Do you think a $300 increase is realistic, or do you think that a 27% jump would be too much even for Apple to try? 
Please share your thoughts in the comments. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.6%Ben Lovejoy: 5.9%9to5Mac: 3.0%Confirmation Bias4.6%This article: 4.8%Ben Lovejoy: 2.0%9to5Mac: 2.0%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.9%9to5Mac: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.6%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Ben Lovejoy: 3.3%9to5Mac: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 4.6%9to5Mac: 4.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Ben Lovejoy: 0.9%9to5Mac: 1.1%Loss Aversion4.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.5%9to5Mac: 3.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Ben Lovejoy: 3.9%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 6.8%9to5Mac: 3.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.1%9to5Mac: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.7%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.0%9to5Mac: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.7%9to5Mac: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.3%Ben Lovejoy: 3.9%9to5Mac: 3.0%Appeal to Authority4.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.5%9to5Mac: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.0%Ben Lovejoy: 7.9%9to5Mac: 4.5%Hasty Generalization13.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.5%9to5Mac: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 1.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.2%9to5Mac: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.5%9to5Mac: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.9%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.4%9to5Mac: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 10.8%Ben Lovejoy: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.2%Personal Incredulity10.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.4%9to5Mac: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 5.4%9to5Mac: 5.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.5%9to5Mac: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 8.1%9to5Mac: 13.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

416 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.