MacworldFor months leading up to the launch of the iPhone 16e, rumors all but confirmed that Apple would hike the price of the iPhone SE 3s successor. But given how competitive the midrange smartphone market is, analysts were confident the company would charge no more than $499, a significant price jump but still in the realm of a budget handset. Instead, Apple announced the $599 iPhone 16e and completely disregarded budget-conscious customers.It didnt have to be this way. You can argue that the iPhone 16e is worth the upcharge, but the new direction still cuts out a significant portion of buyers. Heres how Apple could have upgraded the iPhone SE with Apple Intelligence and still kept the price under $500.Off-brandingBefore delving into its tech specs, theres an issue with the name itself. By design, Apple associated its new entry-level smartphone with its high-end iPhone 16 lineup. This makes it easier to get away with the $170 price increase because it implies youre buying one of the latest iPhone 16 models. The new phone no longer carries the SE branding famous for offering the bare minimum at a low cost.Basically, Apple couldnt price the new iPhone 16e any lower than $599. Theres already a $200 gap between the standard and Pro models, so to make it any lower would change the established structure and imply that either the iPhone 16 is too expensive or the iPhone 16e is too cheap. By keeping the iPhone SE name, however, Apple wouldve had enough room to shed a few of the flagship specs, as it would no longer be associated with the premium iPhone 16 family.The body of the iPhone 13 mini would make a perfect budget phone in 2025.FoundryMini reduxThe iPhone 13 mini was the last of its kind, and many small phone enthusiasts continue to mourn it to this day. These 5.4-inch iPhones were priced $100 lower than their 6.1-inch counterparts ($699 at launch). So, if Apple can make a 6.1-inch iPhone 16e for $599, it could presumably make a mini version of that same phone for $499, which would cater not only to customers on a tight budget but also to those seeking a compact, pocketable device.To cut costs further, Apple could have opted for a Liquid Retina LCD. While Super Retina XDR OLED panels provide a superior viewing experience, most, if not all, budget customers would accept the trade-off for a lower price. After all, the whole point of entry-level phones is sacrificing premium tech to make them more affordable.About FaceApple has long reserved Face ID for the iPad Pro models, with even the high-priced iPad Air still relying on a Touch ID sensor embedded into the side button. Yet, for some reason, Apple decided that its cheapest smartphone should now adopt Face ID.Given how advanced the TrueDepth camera system is, Apple couldve excluded it from the iPhone SE 4 to cut costs. The notch could remain, but only to house the front camera and receiver. Instead, the iPhones side power button could double as a Touch ID sensor for biometric authentication, which some users would prefer to facial recognition.Classic callWhile the tweaks above can already produce a logical $499 iPhone SE 4, there are other measures that could have reduced the price even more. For example, Apple couldve easily skipped the Action button and continued to offer the classic mute switch to further distinguish between its affordable and flagship iPhones. Another cost-cutting move could be excluding the USB-C charging cable and shrinking the box. Most users already have at least one lying around, as its already the universal connector powering nearly all recently released gadgets.Apple could have even given plastic another shot by learning from its last lowercase-letter iPhone, the 5c. A large font screen and an aluminum frame would give the iPhone SE a unique look with lower cost, and since it dumped MagSafe anyway, Apple wouldnt have needed to change much else.A return to the plastic iPhone 5c would have been perfect for the iPhone SE 4.FoundryiPhone SE 4 for the winSome have blamed the A18 processor and Apple Intelligence for the $170 price hike, but I dont believe theyre the reason for the price hike. After all, the iPhone SE 3 cost $429 and offered the same A15 Bionic chip inside that years flagship phone, the iPhone 13 Pro. And even if it does cost more, Apple couldve cut back in other areas to keep an A18-powered iPhone SE 4 under $500.Apples SE brand has become synonymous with affordability, offering solid specs for far less than the cost of a new high-end iPhone. It was a balance of an old design with newer specs and didnt try to pretend to be something it wasnt. With the 2025 update, Apple had a chance to build a phone with a modern design that still offered consumers an inexpensive way into the iPhone ecosystem.Instead, the company built a strange hybrid that sits awkwardly in its iPhone lineup. It neither fills the budget void left by the SE nor has enough of the newer specs of the flagship iPhones, such as dual cameras, MagSafe, or ultra-wideband. As such the cheapest iPhone now starts at $599 in the U.S., and thats a valid barrier that will steer undecided customers to Android, when Apple could have had a real budget winner on its hands.