Apple is using $599 devices to grow its ecosystem

Apple has made it pretty clear that it wants to siphon off Android and Windows users, and it’s doing it by adopting an aggressive, “budget-friendlier” model across nearly its entire ecosystem.

When I first entered the Apple ecosystem, it was when I bought an iPhone 4 in 2011 — I got it right after the 4s made its debut. I don’t remember exactly what I paid, but I know it was less than the initial $199 price tag.

And back then, I thought that was a completely asinine amount of money to pay for a phone. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, I had more money in my pocket than brains in my head, so I bought it just the same.

If only 2011 Amber knew what she’d pay for the iPhone 13 mini in 2022 — about $400, after trade-in. And she would have balked at what 2025 Amber would pay for the iPhone 17 — just around $654 after trade-in.

In 2011, a smartphone was a luxury that I could, though somewhat unwisely, justify spending the money on. In 2026, a smartphone is a necessity.

Between job requirements, banking, social services and more, for most people, you don’t get to opt out.

And I think Apple, perhaps more than anyone else, has realized this. We’re seeing an influx of Apple devices priced at $599, which suggests that Apple is prepared to go lower than it has in the past to pull curious onlookers into the ecosystem.

How low can you go?

“But Amber, Apple has other stuff that is cheaper than $599,” I assume you are saying at your screen. “What about AirPods? What about Apple TV? What about the Apple Watch?”

With the exception of the Apple TV, and only sort of, all of those devices aren’t for everyone.

They’re for the people who are already in the ecosystem. Think of them as Apple accessories — because that’s exactly what they are.

You’re telling me someone’s gonna buy these without already owning an iPhone?

If you own an Apple Watch, it’s because Apple already sold you an iPhone. If you have a pair of AirPods, I’m willing to bet you’ve got at least one, if not two or three other Apple devices.

No, dear reader, these are the add-ons that Apple knows it’ll sell you once it’s got its hooks in you. And to get its hooks in you, it needs to sell you on a larger device.

One ticket to ride: $599

To properly enter the Apple ecosystem, you need one of three products: iPhone, Mac, or, in some cases, the iPad. These are the core of Apple’s ecosystem.

Once Apple lures you in with one of these core devices, the odds that you’ll buy another Apple product go up drastically. The data shows that most people who own an Apple device also own a secondary Apple device, such as owning both an iPhone and an iPad, or an iPhone and an Apple Watch.

I didn’t really need a study to tell me that, though. That is my street, I already live there.

As I write this, on my desk, I can see an iPhone 17, an iMac, an iPad Air 4, a pair of AirPods Pro, and a pair of AirPods Max.

This is an old picture of my desk, so just imagine even more apple stuff on it

If you go upstairs to my bedroom, you’ll find both an Apple TV and a small writing desk with an M2 MacBook Air placed lovingly in the corner. And yes, you could argue that some of the devices, like the iPhone and the Macs, are required for my job.

But AppleInsider didn’t twist my arm when it came to the iPad or the AirPods. And while the Apple TV may have been a hand-me-down, if it were to break, I would replace it with a new one.

And I wouldn’t even consider myself an Apple fanatic. I don’t try to convert people to Apple, nor do I drool over every new release the company puts out.

What I am is far more boring: a person who wants as much cohesiveness as possible. Cohesiveness means less user friction.

And cohesiveness is exactly what you get when you hop into the Apple ecosystem.

I’ve already mentioned it before, but my sister, who started out ride-or-die for Android, is already planning on buying an iPhone 17 and a MacBook Neo. Her reason for the switch was that she started a business.

“I’m just so tired of fighting going between my phone and my PC,” she tells me.

As it turns out, it’s not terribly fun to try to work across an iPad, an old Windows laptop, and a Motorola smartphone.

At $599, you can enter the Apple ecosystem in one way or another. The new MacBook Neo is priced at $599 and is a full-fledged computer aimed at the Chromebook market.

The Citrus MacBook Neo

Want something a little bit beefier? The Mac mini, which has way more gas in the tank than an average user needs and is also $599.

You can pick up the iPhone 17e for $599. This is a pretty big deal, considering the next cheapest phone is the base iPhone 17, which costs $799 — that’s 33.4% more expensive.

The iPad is where things get a little screwy. While there is a $599 iPad — the current 11-inch iPad Air — people are weird about iPads.

For years, Apple’s iPad Pro accounted for nearly half of all iPad sales. The iPad Air has usually been in third place, only somewhat better than the iPad mini, while the base iPad seems to ebb and flow in its popularity.

I suspect that the iPad lineup still continues to target artists, designers, and makers, who tend to be people who will, if given the option, spend more money than they need to. Ask me how I know.

Besides, if it’s something you’re using for your livelihood, chances are, you’re going to just buy the best you can afford.

When $599 isn’t really $599

Now, the next bit is really just me theory crafting, but I hope you’ll come along for the ride just the same.

I think the reason Apple picked $599 isn’t that the price looks particularly attractive. To be perfectly honest, $599 still feels like a lot of money, even by 2026 standards.

But Apple still wants to make a profit. And, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’re probably pretty aware of the whole “technology components are an incredibly volatile market” issue.

So, $599 might be near the absolute lowest Apple could feasibly go, but I would imagine there’s probably room to go lower. I think that there’s a good reason as to why it didn’t, though.

Apple doesn’t expect you to whip out your debit card and pay $599 + tax on a new iPhone 17e or MacBook Neo. It expects you to finance it.

While $599 looks big — and again, it is — when you split that up over twelve months, it’s just under $50. And this is where I get a little conspiratorial.

Buy now, pay later

When I was in my 20s, I felt like $20 was the threshold for impulse spending. Anything above that, and I feel like everyone I knew would hesitate; that number has continued to move north over the last several years.

Now, I feel like anything under $30 is a no-brainer, while $50 is where I need to actually sit down and budget. I mean, I should budget for everything, but $50 seems to be my magic number.

And, as I tend to do, I tend to think of myself as the exact average of the 35-45-something American consumer. And as it turns out, the data continues to back me up.

Capital One collated data that shows the average impulse buy in 2024 was $28.90, but that accounts for in-person buys, which tend to be lower and more frequent, as well as online. According to Awisee, most online purchases are notably higher, ranging from $70-$100.

Apple probably already had that statistic before it started pricing its gear. I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t have.

At $50 a month, replacing a piece of aging or otherwise frustrating tech doesn’t seem like that much of a commitment.

Whether or not it is a smart choice is another matter entirely. As it turns out, we really can’t be trusted to buy now and pay later.

Will it pay off for Apple?

I am not an analyst. I am merely a humble journalist and a person who owns a whole mess of Apple devices.

I can’t tell you if this strategy is going to pay off for Apple in the long run. But I also don’t know what kind of conversion rate Apple is looking for in the first place.

I can safely say that Apple probably isn’t trying to put a MacBook Neo in every home and an iPhone 17e in every pocket. Again, it’s just trying to peel off disenchanted or Apple-curious customers from the Windows and Android market.

The goal is always to increase the adoption rate, and I think even modest gains would be significant. What the general public and analysts consider a successful product launch may be an entirely different definition of success than the one Apple is using.