Vanilla isn’t an exciting flavor. It’s become shorthand for ordinary, unadventurous, and even boring. You might think much the same of the ‘vanilla’ iPhone. It’s not bad. It’s certainly not ugly. But it is just kinda… there. Buy one and you don’t get the bold new design of the iPhone Air. You don’t get the boundary pushing tech stuffed inside the iPhone 17 Pro. Yet after using the iPhone 17 for weeks, I’m convinced it’s the iPhone everyone should buy today – with one very specific exception.
Before I get to that, it’s important to acknowledge that any iPhone purchase is a delicate balance between budget and compromise. If you don’t have unlimited funds, higher-end models fall away fast. Even if you can afford them, there remains the question of value. And right now, I’m not sure the iPhone 17 Pro – and certainly not the iPhone Air – represent a smart buy in a world where the iPhone 17 exists.
In the past, it’s always been one compromise too far that’s pushed me to spend more. Which is why it’s a big deal that Apple removed the biggest compromise from the standard iPhone this year. In 2024, the iPhone 16 had performance that nipped at the Pro’s heels, but the display held it back. No ProMotion. No 1Hz always-on mode for StandBy. Just the stubborn continued existence of a 60Hz panel that looked dated compared with what you’d get on similarly priced Android phones.
Smooth moves
A nicer design than the iPhone 17 Pro? I think so.
The iPhone 17 fixes that in one stroke. In fact, it gets the exact same display as the 17 Pro. It’s sharp, bright and smooth. I’ve found it properly transformative in day-to-day use compared to the screen on the 16 Plus I’ve used as a ‘test’ iPhone for a year. And while the 17 matching the Pro is great, beating it is surely better. And the 17 wins out in terms of design (cleaner), weight (27g/0.96oz lighter), and price ($300/£300 cheaper).
Sure, there are trade-offs too, but I think almost none of them matter. I never feel short-changed by the 17’s slightly slower chip. Battery life is marginally lower on paper but barely noticeable in real-world use. Slower USB? I live on wireless. No LiDAR? Whatever. If that feature vanished from every iPhone tomorrow, I’m not sure that many people would notice.
Compared to the Air, the vanilla 17 pulls ahead too – at least for me. It’s thinner, sure, but only if you ignore the camera bump, at which point the 2.31mm/0.09in difference between the two shrinks to a microscopic 0.08mm/0.003in. Similarly, the phones almost weigh the same, which means the 17 won’t place extra strain on your pocket.
Hot Air
iPhone Air: super skinny. If you ignore the camera bump.
Strain on your wallet, though, is a different matter. The iPhone Air costs $200/£200 more than the 17, and I don’t think it’s worth it when you factor in the Air’s own compromises. It can run hot. There’s no ultra wide camera for macro shots. And it only has one speaker, which sounds weird when playing video and games in landscape. So the Air’s a no. It feels like a bauble for those desperate to have something that looks new, and willing to pay more for a phone compromised in ways I won’t abide.
What’s the exception then? What gives me that tiny hesitation before telling everyone to buy the iPhone 17? The telephoto lens. Because the 17 doesn’t have one. And I do miss the one in my own iPhone 16 Pro, even though the main, ultra wide and selfie cams on the 17 are genuinely great. That said, if I were buying a new iPhone today, I’m not sure even I’d pay extra just for that lens. And I don’t really care about any of the other extras on the Pro.
Fortunately, I don’t have to make that call right now. The iPhone 17 review unit will soon go ‘home’ to Apple and I’ll stick with my 16 Pro for another year. Maybe then the 18 will get a proper zoom and push it even closer to Pro territory. But if you’re making a buying decision today and don’t use a telephoto lens all the time? Stick with vanilla. It might not be thrilling, but it still tastes pretty great.