Dear Editor,
The letter seeks to address “The iPhone 17 Series Matters, Especially the Air,” published in the September 26, 2025 issue of The Phillipian. The main point of this letter isn’t to dispute the personal differences in preference of the Air itself, but rather to properly define the concept of innovation and clarify misleading quotations. I do not wish to assess or judge the difficulty and persistence it took to create the thinnest phone by 2mm (approximately the length of a well-trimmed fingernail), nor do I have the authority to speak on behalf of the opinions of all consumers. Rather, the point I want to make about Chowdhury’s article is the misconception and misquotation of innovation in the context of this 1,000-dollar phone that sacrifices battery life, cameras, charging speed, amongst other key features.
Chowdhury made the point that the iPhone Air addresses ergonomic concerns of consumers having heavy phones, but this is where the problem of Chowdhury’s definition of innovation occurs. Innovation in business, in its essence, should show improvement by properly addressing customer needs and complaints. This argument ignores the fact that people prioritize things such as battery life and camera quality over the small minority of people who would benefit from a thinner phone because they carry around multiple. The margin of customer benefit is so shallow compared to the margin of loss for many consumers that asking for a grand on this minor improvement may be portrayed as a money grab. Innovation truly occurs when Apple solves continuous complaints that have risen throughout the years, such as overheating, battery drain, and screen glitches.
I would like to point out the fact that Chowdhury’s article misrepresents two articles about the iPhone 17 Air, including the article’s second citation on the New York Times’s Wirecutter and the third citation on “CNN.” Though Chowdhury quotes aspects of these articles that compliment the Air, quoting things such as “…it still delivers when it counts” and “…people would just want it,” this practice of citation ignores the crux of what her own sources are trying to say. The “New York Times” article cited is titled “The iPhone Air is Apple’s Most Impressive Phone in Years, But Most People Shouldn’t Buy It,” while her “CNN” article is titled “I tested the Apple iPhone Air for a week, and I’m still not sure who should buy it.” In fact, in the same paragraph where Chowdhury quoted that “this might be one of those instances where Apple’s nailed a look so well that some people will just want it,” the article provides the justification for this as “what happens when Apple keeps the iPhone designs pretty much the same for a really long time.” Chowdhury should properly assess and represent the definition of innovation in her article, rather than cherry picking sources that also contradict her claims.
Of course, the Air may be significant to some consumers, but it should not be, as Chowdhury claims, a role model of innovation in our community.
Signed,
Ian M. Kim ‘28
