First iPhone 16e Teardown reveals bigger battery and C1 modem

AppleInsider

The iPhone 16e has already been subjected to its first teardown, highlighting Apple's custom C1 modem, a bigger battery, and lack of MagSafe.

iPhone 16e teardown by Rewa Technology

It's Friday, which means the iPhone 16e is starting to land in the hands of owners across the globe. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take too long for the first teardown video to hit YouTube.

Rewa Technology has taken a crack at cracking open Apple's newest addition to its lineup. The video is short and sweet, clocking in at just under five-and-a-half minutes long, but it still gives us our first look at what makes the iPhone 16e tick.

The teardown reveals that the iPhone 16e does, in fact, have a larger battery. While the iPhone 16 features a 3,561 mAh battery, the iPhone 16e's battery comes in at a notably larger 4,005 mAh.

While Apple says it's redesigned the iPhone 16e boasts a new internal design that allows for a larger battery. While true, Rewa Technology points out that it's largely because of the smaller camera.

Like its predecessors, the iPhone 16e features an electro-chemical adhesive that can be loosened with low-voltage electrical current. This means that when replacing the battery, users can utilize a 9-volt battery or USB-C charger to help facilitate the removal of the battery.

Going deeper, we get a look at the other anticipated parts. This includes the iPhone 16e logic board, A18 chip, and Apple's brand new, in-house C1 cellular modem.

Rewa notes that the A18 chip seems to be harder to remove. This isn't a issue for service providers, as the processor and motherboard are replaced as a single unit -- but it could make depot-level repair more difficult.

And, of course, Rewa Technology points out the iPhone 16e's lack of MagSafe, one of the more controversial moves Apple has made regarding the device.



Read on AppleInsider

tht

So much better than iFixit's videos, imo. Now, need them to post some good pictures of the components.

y2an

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

welshdog

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

edited March 2

xed

welshdog said:

» show previous quotes

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

mplsp

Xed said:

» show previous quotes

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

xed

MplsP said:

» show previous quotes

Xed said:

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

Considering that I replied to a comment that stated "easier for everyone" it should be clear to you why I used the phrasing that I did. And if you then read another sentence further you'd see that I very clearly wrote, "If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?" So where do you draw the line?

You can wish that Apple made products easier to repair, but you haven't stated anything that is useful to them or to the consumer to make this possible. Again I'll ask how you would design AirPods to make their batteries user replaceable?

The bottom line is that you can't have progress if you want want to enact laws that requires Apple to make all these components user replaceable. It just can't happen. You can want this to be how the technology evolves — I certainly do — but making pie eyed comments about how great it would be to replace, say, the camera model on the iPhone 17 like it was on the original iPhone is meaningless techjackulation. When you consider waste you need to consider more than just what suits your particular needs.

At one point people expected transistors to be user replaceable, but that day is long past. Components will get smaller and more integrated which will affect the repairability of individual components, but this will also lead to opportunities for certain other components to be more repairable just as we've sene in the few years, but this is not by any means a set cadence for progress.

PS: LCD refers to the lowest level of a consumer group.

edited March 3

mplsp

Xed said:

» show previous quotes

MplsP said:

Xed said:

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

Considering that I replied to a comment that stated "easier for everyone" it should be clear to you why I used the phrasing that I did. And if you then read another sentence further you'd see that I very clearly wrote, "If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?" So where do you draw the line?

You can wish that Apple made products easier to repair, but you haven't stated anything that is useful to them or to the consumer to make this possible. Again I'll ask how you would design AirPods to make their batteries user replaceable?

The bottom line is that you can't have progress if you want want to enact laws that requires Apple to make all these components user replaceable. It just can't happen. You can want this to be how the technology evolves — I certainly do — but making pie eyed comments about how great it would be to replace, say, the camera model on the iPhone 17 like it was on the original iPhone is meaningless techjackulation. When you consider waste you need to consider more than just what suits your particular needs.

At one point people expected transistors to be user replaceable, but that day is long past. Components will get smaller and more integrated which will affect the repairability of individual components, but this will also lead to opportunities for certain other components to be more repairable just as we've sene in the few years, but this is not by any means a set cadence for progress.

PS: LCD refers to the lowest level of a consumer group.

"you can can't have progress if apple has to make components replaceable." Now you're using a false dilemma argument. Rhetoric really needs help. Apple absolutely can make components replaceable. They have simply chosen not to. Like I said, it's lazy engineering. 

If you can't make a valid argument without false assumptions then maybe you should stop arguing.

tiredskills

The idea that technology will stop progressing if Apple are obliged to make their products more easily serviceable is so mind-numbingly dumb.

s.metcalf

tht said:

So much better than iFixit's videos, imo. Now, need them to post some good pictures of the components.

You like impersonal computer voices and annoying background music?  🤷

tht

s.metcalf said:

» show previous quotes

tht said:

So much better than iFixit's videos, imo. Now, need them to post some good pictures of the components.

You like impersonal computer voices and annoying background music?  🤷

Yes. It’s so much better than iFixit’s running commentary during their teardowns. Not interested in their commentary at all. Design for repairability could be interesting to listen to, but iFixit’s commentary? It’s juvenile. It’s been like that for every Apple teardown for what seems like 5 years now. 

I am interested in components. iFixit used to do photography of them, but not anymore. 

nubus

tiredskills said:

The idea that technology will stop progressing if Apple are obliged to make their products more easily serviceable is so mind-numbingly dumb.

Indeed. Before the car industry had regulation on safety it was "Unsafe at Any Speed". Regulation removed the worst products and forced the industry to design for safety. Competition didn't stop.

If warranty was 5 years like in the UK then devices would be designed for it.

avon b7

Xed said:

» show previous quotes

MplsP said:

Xed said:

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

Considering that I replied to a comment that stated "easier for everyone" it should be clear to you why I used the phrasing that I did. And if you then read another sentence further you'd see that I very clearly wrote, "If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?" So where do you draw the line?

You can wish that Apple made products easier to repair, but you haven't stated anything that is useful to them or to the consumer to make this possible. Again I'll ask how you would design AirPods to make their batteries user replaceable?

The bottom line is that you can't have progress if you want want to enact laws that requires Apple to make all these components user replaceable. It just can't happen. You can want this to be how the technology evolves — I certainly do — but making pie eyed comments about how great it would be to replace, say, the camera model on the iPhone 17 like it was on the original iPhone is meaningless techjackulation. When you consider waste you need to consider more than just what suits your particular needs.

At one point people expected transistors to be user replaceable, but that day is long past. Components will get smaller and more integrated which will affect the repairability of individual components, but this will also lead to opportunities for certain other components to be more repairable just as we've sene in the few years, but this is not by any means a set cadence for progress.

PS: LCD refers to the lowest level of a consumer group.

'Design for repair' is already coming and Apple is well aware of it because it has been part of the EU consultation process.

Apple has been part of the problem and infamously anti-repair. To the point of parts-pairing where users have no say. In that respect it should not be up to Apple to decide what out of warranty repair components are 'authorized' . That should be in the hands of the user.

Faulty keyboards should never have led to $700 repairs which required replacing the top case and battery. The change that led to a single failed component shorting the entire motherboard should never have happened. 

AirPods batteries should be user replaceable and may well be in the future due to new EU legislation. Some earpod style batteries are already user replaceable:

"If you feel like your Fairbuds aren't staying alive as long as they did before, it’s highly likely they’re due for a battery replacement. Like all batteries, your Fairbuds batteries will also slowly deplete over time with every charge cycle. With other wireless earbuds, this is usually where you would be forced to say goodbye to them and shop for new earbuds altogether. We do things differently at Fairphone. Our modular design allows you to swap in new batteries by yourself at home at a fraction of the cost of a new set of earbuds. With this replacement kit, you get two batteries, one for each earbud. Why two? Well, because both your originals would deplete simultaneously in most cases, and hence, would require a simultaneous swap out. You also get two new silicone rings, as your older ones would be due for an upgrade as well with continuous wear-and-tear. With the new rings, you can be assured of a tight fit and optimum performance, just like when they were new!"

https://shop.fairphone.com/shop/fairbuds-earbuds-battery-kit-414

avon b7

Xed said:

» show previous quotes

MplsP said:

Xed said:

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

Considering that I replied to a comment that stated "easier for everyone" it should be clear to you why I used the phrasing that I did. And if you then read another sentence further you'd see that I very clearly wrote, "If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?" So where do you draw the line?

You can wish that Apple made products easier to repair, but you haven't stated anything that is useful to them or to the consumer to make this possible. Again I'll ask how you would design AirPods to make their batteries user replaceable?

The bottom line is that you can't have progress if you want want to enact laws that requires Apple to make all these components user replaceable. It just can't happen. You can want this to be how the technology evolves — I certainly do — but making pie eyed comments about how great it would be to replace, say, the camera model on the iPhone 17 like it was on the original iPhone is meaningless techjackulation. When you consider waste you need to consider more than just what suits your particular needs.

At one point people expected transistors to be user replaceable, but that day is long past. Components will get smaller and more integrated which will affect the repairability of individual components, but this will also lead to opportunities for certain other components to be more repairable just as we've sene in the few years, but this is not by any means a set cadence for progress.

PS: LCD refers to the lowest level of a consumer group.

'Design for repair' is already coming and Apple is well aware of it because it has been part of the EU consultation process.

Apple has been part of the problem and infamously anti-repair. To the point of parts-pairing where users have no say. In that respect it should not be up to Apple to decide what out of warranty repair components are 'authorized' . That should be in the hands of the user.

Faulty keyboards should never have led to $700 repairs which required replacing the top case and battery. The change that led to a single failed component shorting the entire motherboard should never have happened. 

AirPods batteries should be user replaceable and may well be in the future due to new EU legislation. Some earpod style batteries are already user replaceable:

"If you feel like your Fairbuds aren't staying alive as long as they did before, it’s highly likely they’re due for a battery replacement. Like all batteries, your Fairbuds batteries will also slowly deplete over time with every charge cycle. With other wireless earbuds, this is usually where you would be forced to say goodbye to them and shop for new earbuds altogether. We do things differently at Fairphone. Our modular design allows you to swap in new batteries by yourself at home at a fraction of the cost of a new set of earbuds. With this replacement kit, you get two batteries, one for each earbud. Why two? Well, because both your originals would deplete simultaneously in most cases, and hence, would require a simultaneous swap out. You also get two new silicone rings, as your older ones would be due for an upgrade as well with continuous wear-and-tear. With the new rings, you can be assured of a tight fit and optimum performance, just like when they were new!"

https://shop.fairphone.com/shop/fairbuds-earbuds-battery-kit-414

randominternetperson

MplsP said:

» show previous quotes

Xed said:

MplsP said:

Xed said:

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

Considering that I replied to a comment that stated "easier for everyone" it should be clear to you why I used the phrasing that I did. And if you then read another sentence further you'd see that I very clearly wrote, "If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?" So where do you draw the line?

You can wish that Apple made products easier to repair, but you haven't stated anything that is useful to them or to the consumer to make this possible. Again I'll ask how you would design AirPods to make their batteries user replaceable?

The bottom line is that you can't have progress if you want want to enact laws that requires Apple to make all these components user replaceable. It just can't happen. You can want this to be how the technology evolves — I certainly do — but making pie eyed comments about how great it would be to replace, say, the camera model on the iPhone 17 like it was on the original iPhone is meaningless techjackulation. When you consider waste you need to consider more than just what suits your particular needs.

At one point people expected transistors to be user replaceable, but that day is long past. Components will get smaller and more integrated which will affect the repairability of individual components, but this will also lead to opportunities for certain other components to be more repairable just as we've sene in the few years, but this is not by any means a set cadence for progress.

PS: LCD refers to the lowest level of a consumer group.

"you can can't have progress if apple has to make components replaceable." Now you're using a false dilemma argument. Rhetoric really needs help. Apple absolutely can make components replaceable. They have simply chosen not to. Like I said, it's lazy engineering. 

If you can't make a valid argument without false assumptions then maybe you should stop arguing.

You lose any credibility with me with your repeated insistence that Apple's designers are "lazy" and "stupid."

As you say, "If you can't make a valid argument without false assumptions then maybe you should stop arguing."