Processor cost could drive prices of the iPhone 18 range up

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in iPhone

A new report claims that the manufacturing cost of the 2nm processor expected in the iPhone 18 range may mean Apple having to raise prices.

A smartphone with a colorful, abstract screen floats against a gradient purple backdrop with geometric patterns.
Render of a possible iPhone 18.



It's bad enough that tariffs may still force Apple to raise prices, and it's bad enough that the expected iPhone Fold will cost over $2,000. Now a further report backs up previous claims that the whole iPhone 18 range may be costlier than its predecessors.

Backing up a report from September 2024, leaker "Digital Chat Station" has now claimed on Weibo that there could be significant price increases for the 2026 iPhone models.

"Next year, Apple/Qualcomm/Mittec will be launched on TSMC 2nm," writes the leaker on Weibo (in translation). "It is expected that the cost will increase significantly, and the price of the new machine may increase again."

The reason is specifically the manufacturing cost of the new 2nm processor. In the September 2024 report by analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, it was initially said that the costs were high in part because of the low yield of the production process.

Kuo at first claimed that this meant Apple would limit the 2nm processor to the iPhone 18 Pro, and it was conceivable that it would actually only be in the iPhone 18 Pro Max.

However, in March 2025, Kuo revised his prediction because of what he said were greatly improved yields. He said that TSMC had reached 60% to 70% yields by January 2025, and by March were "well above that."

Consequently, Kuo then believed that it was possible Apple would use the 2nm processor across the entire iPhone 18 range. That fit with claims from other analysts, too.

If correct, the benefit of the 2nm processor is that it should provide between a 10% and 15% performance boost over the forthcoming iPhone 17 range. However, if Digital Chat Station is correct, it will also bring an unknown price hike.

Note that Digital Chat Station has a fairly good track record for Apple leaks. Most recently, he or she has been reporting about under-display Face ID for a foldable iPad, and also for the iPhone fold.

Rumor Score: Possible

Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,763member
    Maybe they’ll soften the blow of a higher price with a three month trial of Apple Deli+

    gavzateejay2012pulseimages
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 26
    JFC_PAjfc_pa Posts: 965member
    “Unknown price hike”

    Stop. 

    The. 

    Presses!
    gavzasbdude
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 26
    yeah, there's that and the predatory American president on his revenge tour
    blastdoormelgrossdewmeteejay2012jrfunkpulseimagesalgnorm
     5Likes 2Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 26
    CarmBcarmb Posts: 107member
    That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 
    randominternetperson9secondkox2jas99pulseimagesgatorguywilliamlondonchiatmay
     2Likes 6Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 26
    Which rumor are we judging?

    The front page says "probably going to make iPhone 18 extremely expensive."
    The headline on this page says "could drive prices up."
    The first sentence says "may mean Apple having to raise prices."

    The click-bait headline is almost surely wrong. If the new processor is "extremely expensive," Apple would only use it for the highest end phone. Nothing is forcing Apple to use a 2nm processor if it's not available at a market-viable price.
    edited April 17
    ibillteejay2012muthuk_vanalingamjas99pulseimagesh4y3sspliff monkey
     7Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 26
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,693member
    CarmB said:
    That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 
    I can’t really agree with that. With many, if not most phone users playing games that need more and more performance, every boost is a good thing. Additionally, for image processing and other performance intensive apps, better chips are always going to be needed.

    There’s no point in saying that things are good enough, because they never are. I remember when it was said that the new IBM 286 computer, with that chip, was all that business needed. Then later, that the single core, because that was what everything was back then, 486 was as fast and anyone needed. We hear people saying this over and again, and they’re always wrong. It’s wrong here as well.
    dewmejas99AnObserverpulseimagesh4y3stmay
     6Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 26
    AppleZuluapplezulu Posts: 2,393member
    CarmB said:
    That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 
    You're misunderstanding how this works. Processors aren't built for current need. They're built for what's needed four or five years into the future. The "compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade" happens in the years after you buy your iPhone. The mistake would be selling a "good enough for now" iPhone that starts choking on the OS or apps in two years, or worse yet, just won't support the upgrades at all.
    pulseimagesh4y3s
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 26
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,993member
    AppleZulu said:
    CarmB said:
    That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 
    You're misunderstanding how this works. Processors aren't built for current need. They're built for what's needed four or five years into the future. The "compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade" happens in the years after you buy your iPhone. The mistake would be selling a "good enough for now" iPhone that starts choking on the OS or apps in two years, or worse yet, just won't support the upgrades at all.
    The iPhone 14 series of iPhones were excluded from compatibility with Apple Intelligence, which brings up a very recent exception to the 2-5 year projection. I think both of your arguments are valid because there is no hard and fast rule or set of circumstances that holds true for ALL cases. Like most every question involving things that are unpredictable, non-binary, or subject to step changes, the only valid answer is "It depends."

    Product developers have to make decisions based on what they know at the time and what they anticipate for the future. Unfortunately they never get it 100% correct. Anyone who's been involved in planning understands the notion of the "cone of uncertainty" that grows wider the further you project into the future. Technical innovation and market uncertainty compounds the cone of uncertainty, meaning you may realize later on that you've pointed your cone in the wrong direction as well. 

    If we look at historical trends, the nonstop advances and growth in software systems, applications, and customer expectations on the types of products we're talking about have nearly always overtaxed the underlying hardware platform. Buyers who want to "future proof" their hardware purchases tend to maximize the resources they purchase up-front. This may help slow down the obsolescence cycle, but true "future proofing" is more of a goal rather than something that can actually be achieved.  When product buyers lament about older products getting slower over time the reasons are not always tied to aging. Some things do slow down as certain components wear out or reach their maximum capacity, but in most cases the larger contributing factor is the fact that they're not running with the same software burden that they had when they purchased the product. Plus, user's expectations change. Once you realize you're waiting 'x' amount of time for something to happen when you know that newer products or versions can complete the same task in one-tenth of that time and bring new features to boot, you'll start feeling the urge to upgrade.

    Prices are an entirely different ballgame compared to performance improvements over time. Some things actually get more affordable over time, like TVs, while other products get more expensive. With technology driven products the performance or capacity per dollar tends to increase dramatically over time. But every once in a while someone or some technical constraint throws a monkey wrench into the gears and the performance per dollar can plateau or rise at a slower rate. I cannot think of a case off the top of my head where performance per dollar decreased, at least not in a competitive market. 
    edited April 17
    muthuk_vanalingamAnObserverpulseimages
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 26
    CarmBcarmb Posts: 107member
    melgross said:
    CarmB said:
    That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 
    I can’t really agree with that. With many, if not most phone users playing games that need more and more performance, every boost is a good thing. Additionally, for image processing and other performance intensive apps, better chips are always going to be needed.

    There’s no point in saying that things are good enough, because they never are. I remember when it was said that the new IBM 286 computer, with that chip, was all that business needed. Then later, that the single core, because that was what everything was back then, 486 was as fast and anyone needed. We hear people saying this over and again, and they’re always wrong. It’s wrong here as well.
    There was a time when advancements in processor power really mattered. We are no longer living in that time. The advancements impacted just about everybody who used a computer. Now, not so much. There are uses that can take advantage of even incremental performance enhancements but these days they represent a niche element. For the vast majority of the tasks that we use our iPhones, Macs, and iPads to perform, processor performance is more than adequate. Weighing that against increasing the price tag and clearly the price hike is far more consequential from the perspective of the typical consumer. 
    muthuk_vanalingamM68000randominternetpersonwilliamlondonspliff monkeydanox
     4Likes 2Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 26
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 3,374member
    The president is helpful toward apple. I’ll be buying the new iPhone this year. Doubtful that tarriffs will affect it. Also doubtful the SOC will raise prices much. Either tsmc improves yields enough or apple shrinks tje profit margin a little to absorb the impact. 
    teejay2012thtWesley_Hilliardalgnormdanoxtmay
     1Like 5Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 26
    The president is helpful toward apple. I’ll be buying the new iPhone this year. Doubtful that tarriffs will affect it. Also doubtful the SOC will raise prices much. Either tsmc improves yields enough or apple shrinks tje profit margin a little to absorb the impact. 
    And sarcasm will be used as the cooling technology.
    9secondkox2neoncat
     1Like 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 26
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,692member
    CarmB said:
    That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 
    You’re off your rocker take a look at what happened to Intel, AMD, US Steel, Kodak, Xerox, Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois, when it comes to software and hardware, the job is never done for Apple not if you wanna keep ahead of the competition……
    edited April 17
    neoncatwilliamlondontmay
     2Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 26
    sbdudesbdude Posts: 307member
    Didn't we hear this with 4 nm? 4 nm? And 3 nm? At this point it's just an excuse to write 325 words for clicks.
    pulseimageseriamjhwilliamlondonspliff monkey
     3Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 26
    CarmBcarmb Posts: 107member
    danox said:
    CarmB said:
    That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 
    You’re off your rocker take a look at what happened to Intel, AMD, US Steel, Kodak, Xerox, Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois, when it comes to software and hardware, the job is never done for Apple not if you wanna keep ahead of the competition……
    There have been many advancements in processing power without a dramatic increase in price. Price point matters. If you can't get the price point right, it doesn't matter how capable your product is. This isn't about putting more powerful processors in future generations of iPhones. Really, it's a given that this will happen considering it has been happening for a very long time. You can't simply develop a product, add up all the resulting cost and price it accordingly. It is also part of the design process that said product must come in a pre-determined price point otherwise all bets are off. 
    muthuk_vanalingamrandominternetpersonwilliamlondontmay
     3Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 26
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,823member
    sbdude said:
    Didn't we hear this with 4 nm? 4 nm? And 3 nm? At this point it's just an excuse to write 325 words for clicks.
    Copy, Paste, Find, and Replace.     

    Next up, production or design or software problems right before launch of the new models.  

    And you typed 4nm twice.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 26
    Fred257fred257 Posts: 289member
    Excellent!!! I can’t wait to spend more money!!! Take it all!!! Use it to buy another house, car, boat etc… Glad to help the billionaires as much as possible!!! Why can I line up to be making 2.11 per day with no benefits?? Take my life away from me or I will be depressed 
    9secondkox2
     0Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 26
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,692member
    CarmB said:
    danox said:
    CarmB said:
    That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 
    You’re off your rocker take a look at what happened to Intel, AMD, US Steel, Kodak, Xerox, Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois, when it comes to software and hardware, the job is never done for Apple not if you wanna keep ahead of the competition……
    There have been many advancements in processing power without a dramatic increase in price. Price point matters. If you can't get the price point right, it doesn't matter how capable your product is. This isn't about putting more powerful processors in future generations of iPhones. Really, it's a given that this will happen considering it has been happening for a very long time. You can't simply develop a product, add up all the resulting cost and price it accordingly. It is also part of the design process that said product must come in a pre-determined price point otherwise all bets are off. 

    Apple is in an industry where long slow iteration is a part of the game particularly for those who want to stay ahead of the game. Those that get left behind or who start to sit on their laurels and stop iterating. Intel, IBM and the former Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois who are exhibits “A”, “B’” and “C” for what happens when you start to sit around and do nothing. 

    Apple over the years can’t afford to rest despite their success they’re not even remotely a monopoly unless your definition of a monopoly is being a monopoly of your own in-house products. (Which some cockeyed people buy into) Apple has had to roll up their sleeves many times over the years to introduce a device or a piece of software to keep ahead of the competition because of the lack of support (AAA games for example), Apple Pay, iMessages, Apple Watch, Safari, Apple Maps, Metal, Swift, MLX and a whole bunch of other devices/software had to be created because Apple had no choice if they were going to continue to be at the forefront, the biggest of these in house projects was Apple Silicon no Apple Silicon probably no Apple computer today with Intel currently listing at sea.

    Note: There are two other choices out there if you’re dissatisfied about the price or the pace, you can get a Microsoft Windows computer or you can pick up an Android device both offer plenty of cheap solutions. Apple because of their position (vertical computer company) has always had to do more than their competition and it does cost more money.
    edited April 17
    williamlondonneoncattmay
     2Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 26
    Kuo seems to not understand how this works. Apple lock pricing in years in advance of the process even being available by providing money towards the development of the process then pre-buying the entire output of the new process for some exclusivity period.

    Yields would affect the volume and mix of product they launch but not the price.
    williamlondon
     0Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 26
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,746member
    I’m wondering whether we are already reaching the end of each subsequent M chip providing significant speed increases due to their design, and we’re already depending mostly on shrinking the transistors. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 26
    aijwsaijws Posts: 20member
    Problems I want solved are:

    1-the phone shutting down due to high heat

    2- the battery running down too quickly

    3-no high resolution, high power, low light zoom on the telephoto lens

    These are all things that are supposed to be improved with the new chipsets being offered by Apple this year and next. 

    2nm next year should help with cooling and battery life. 

    New Camera Chips and lenses should help with Telephoto Zoom this year, and hopefully better low light performance with video in Telephoto. 

    You can never have too much cooling, battery capacity, camera features or display improvements!
    williamlondondanox
     1Like 1Dislike 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.