BOSTON, MA (September 7, 2026): As per Recon Analytics’ annual iPhone pre-launch survey of the U.S. consumers, 62% of intended iPhone 18 base model buyers would upgrade to iPhone 18 Pro, Pro Max or Fold if Apple Skips the iPhone 18 base model during the fall event on September 9, 2026. The survey shows no base model launch would not cost Apple the sale volumes. In fact, it would help Apple upsell the “Pro” models lifting the consumer base to higher ASP models.

Among the respondents who planned to buy the iPhone 18, a follow-up question asked what they would do if that model is not launched in September 2026, 39.1% said they would buy the Pro instead and 14.1% would jump to the Pro Max, and 8.5% would take the Fold instead, making the combined 61.7% trading up rather than delaying their purchase. On the other hand, 23.9% would simply wait for the base model launch, and 9.3% would fall back to last year’s iPhone 17. Brand-defection to other Android brands’ risk is close to non-existent with 1.5% of this subgroup said they would switch to another brand.

“Apple’s move to launch ‘Pro and Fold’ models only during the Fall event will help Apple shift its model mix further to premium models lifting its ASP. In key markets like USA and China, the ‘Pro Max’ outsells ‘Pro’ model during the launch cycle, but in case of no base model, ‘Pro’ is likely to gain significant share of base model users. While iPhone Fold remains the center of attention, we expect the model to account for only a fraction of overall sales volume.”
— Hanish Bhatia, Vice President, Device Intelligence Group

 

Source: Recon Analytics’ Annual iPhone Pre-Launch Survey

When it comes to overall interest during the last three launch cycles, 20.2% respondents said they plan to buy an iPhone 18, up from 14.9% during the iPhone 17 launch cycle, but still down from 26.1% during the iPhone 16 launch cycle. While the overall interest is higher compared to last year, the sales volumes during the launch cycle remains a factor of availability and launch timings. We expect the sales volume to be lower this year as device prices and economic uncertainty increase and subsidies decrease leading to more consumers holding on to their existing devices. However, the shift in overall mix will lead to higher Pro and Pro Max sales.

When it comes to model mix, the premium shift that opened with the iPhone 17 series has held into the iPhone 18 with 68.5% of buyers choosing a Pro or Pro Max model this year, essentially unchanged from the iPhone 17 and well above the iPhone 16’s 47.7%. This highlights the continued consumer appetite for premium “pro” series iPhone models.

“While the consumer enthusiasm remains high for the iPhone 18 launch, US carriers are taking a more targeted approach when it comes to device subsidies. While the top line subsidy figures continue to increase, fewer high value consumers are eligible to take the full benefit of the carrier promotions. Therefore, we expect overall device sales to be marginally lower this year.”
— XJ Wang, Analyst and Director, Device Intelligence Group

 

Source: Recon Analytics Annual iPhone Pre-Launch Survey

Annual iPhone Pre-Launch Survey Summary:

Recon Analytics surveyed 8,897 U.S. consumers ahead of the iPhone 18 launch, 6,884 ahead of the iPhone 17, and 7,256 ahead of the iPhone 16, using an identical tracking question each cycle to enable a clean generation-over-generation comparison.

For paid version of the full report including consumer demographics and carrier preference, please reach out to [email protected]

About Recon Analytics:

Recon Analytics is an analyst firm serving the technology, telecommunications, AI, and Airline industries, combining large-scale proprietary consumer surveys with public and financial data to deliver independent, data-driven market intelligence. Recon Analytics’ Device Intelligence Group, covers global smartphone shipments and sell-through, supply chain analysis, bill-of-materials teardowns, component-level demand across smartphones, PCs, tablets, wearables, XR, as well as the consumer device purchase journey. Visit us at: Device Intelligence – Recon Analytics

Media Contact:

Hanish Bhatia, Vice President, [email protected]

XJ Wang, Analyst & Director, [email protected]

Apple is expected to launch its first folding iPhone Fold this fall. Apple has entered mature categories late before and still won them, as it did with tablets, watches and wireless earbuds. However, the foldable market it is walking into looks different, mainly because it has not actually been growing.

Firstly, let’s look at the category itself. Recon Analytics detects the handset model of every survey respondent passively, from the device user agent, across roughly 8,000 to 9,000 US mobile subscribers every week. Our Device Intelligence Group‘s Consumer Pulse service captures 30+ consumer demographics and preferences for 700,000+ US consumers at model level. In the twelve months to August 2026, foldables accounted for 1.13% of every smartphone in our data. In the twelve months before that, they were 1.14%. The trend is very similar for every trailing year during the peak launch periods. So the number has not moved, and that is despite three Motorola Razr generations, seven Galaxy Z and Flip generations, and Pixel Folds. Therefore, the flat line is not a sampling quirk, it simply reflects that the demand has flattened over the years. But the flat line is not the interesting part. What sits underneath it is, because “foldable owners” is not one group of people.

The chart below plots every foldable model against two demographics. One is the share of owners who are male, and the other is the share living in households earning $100,000 or more. The dashed lines mark the US smartphone average. Three clusters fall out, and they are not variations of each other.

Chart showing US foldable smartphone owners by gender and household income

  1. Book-style folds are male and affluent. Galaxy Z Fold7 owners are 63% male, and 28% of them earn $100K+, against a national smartphone average of 45% and 18.5%. Pixel Fold, pooling all three generations, is the most male-skewed handset in the entire dataset at 72%.
  2. Galaxy Z Flip is almost the mirror image. The clamshell Flips run 35% to 43% male, with the Z Flip5 at 34.8%. So between Pixel Fold and Z Flip5 there is a gender gap of nearly 37 points inside what the industry insists on calling one category. Income sits at or slightly above the market.
  3. Motorola Razr is where the volume actually is, but it is a value device rather than a flagship. Razr 2023, 2024 and 2025 owners look ordinary on gender at 45% to 50% male, yet only 6% to 8% of them earn $100K+. That is less than half the national rate.

This tells us that foldables have been able to carve our certain niches within the foldable users. In case of Razr, the device has been heavily subsidized and sometimes ranged at prepaid carriers, which it makes it skew towards lower income groups. But the co-relation between gender and foldable form factor is the most important one. Now, Apple’s device is expected to be book-style. That places it in the top right corner, which is the smallest, most male and most affluent of the three clusters, and also the one Samsung has spent seven generations failing to expand.

Carrier Promotions & Subsidies Key to Strong Demand

We also ask iPhone owners what they plan to spend on their next phone. Of the 51,700 who gave us a number, 1.8% said $1,800 or more and 12.7% said $1,200 or more, while 45.5% said under $600. So if the Fold arrives anywhere near the rumored $2,000, it sits above the stated budget of roughly 98 in 100 iPhone owners.

Therefore, carrier promotion and trade-in become the entire distribution question. And it arrives at exactly the wrong moment, because carriers spent 2026 making subsidies more conditional rather than more generous. Those subsidies are now concentrated on specific unlimited tiers, and eligibility for the existing base has tightened.

Interest in the form factor is real, but shallow. Asked to name their top three wants in a next phone, 15.1% of iPhone owners chose switching from a flat screen to a foldable, which is statistically the same as Samsung owners at 15.8%. So, Apple’s base is not resistant to the idea at all. However, it ranks well below longer battery life at 54.4% and a better camera at 39.3%, and it lands roughly level with new AI features at 17.2%. Among 18- to 29-year-old iPhone owners it rises to 21.9%, and above 60 it falls to 6.5%.

Source: Recon Analytics US consumer survey (May 2025 to July 2026, iPhone owners n = 56,216, next-phone budget n = 51,700)

Strong iPhone Installed Base in Postpaid is Major Advantage for Apple

The question on the iPhone Fold was never whether Apple can build a good folding phone. It is that the category has sat flat at <2% for two years, and the book-style corner Apple is entering is the narrowest and most affluent consumer set, but Apple does have a base no more hostile to foldables than Samsung’s own, plus a young, high income, postpaid segment that is measurably ready to move. So, whether that converts comes down to the price and what the carriers are willing to put on the table.

For analysis of foldables by age, carrier, ethnicity, state or city/DMA, reach out to [email protected]

On July 28, 2026, Apple rolled out a new way to get an iPhone: a leasing program built with fintech Klarna, replacing its long-running Upgrade Program. It’s tempting to read this as Apple squaring off against AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and the cable-affiliated carriers for the upgrade customer, but carriers remain Apple’s largest distribution channel by far, and Apple has little incentive to undercut the partners who sell most of its phones. The more useful lens: Apple and Klarna get paid every month whether a customer upgrades or not; that’s the baseline economics of any lease. But the product itself, down to its name, is built to make upgrading the easy default: fixed 12- or 24-month terms that force an active decision at renewal, with no balance to settle and no new credit pull to switch devices. Recurring payment is the mechanism; a shorter replacement cycle is the outcome it’s built to produce.

What Apple Actually Launched

Apple markets its new lease as “Apple Upgrade,” but to avoid confusion with the half-dozen other “upgrade” programs in this piece, this note just calls it the Apple lease. Using the iPhone 17 Pro 256GB ($1,099.99 retail) as the reference device throughout, it comes in two flavors: 24 months at $31.99/mo, or 12 months at $45.99/mo for a fresh phone every year. Either way, you never own the phone through this path; at term end you return it, buy it out, or roll into a new lease. Approval only requires a soft credit check through Klarna, a lower bar than a traditional installment loan, and Apple doesn’t care what plan you’re on, just that you keep an active postpaid line with AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon at signup. That postpaid requirement doubles as a second credit gate: postpaid service itself typically requires a carrier credit check, so Klarna’s soft check screens people who’ve already cleared one credit bar, not the general public. That doesn’t eliminate credit risk, and it’s too early to know Klarna’s approval or loss rates on a days-old program, but the risk is more contained, and more shared with the carriers already extending credit to the same customers, than it might first appear.

That plan-agnostic design isn’t Apple trying to poach plan upgrades. AT&T’s Next Up Anytime already works the same way. T-Mobile’s Yearly Upgrade and Verizon’s Flex Upgrade, by contrast, only unlock on premium tiers like Go5G Next, Experience Beyond, or an Unlimited-category plan, and the cable operators run the same playbook: Spectrum’s Anytime Upgrade requires Unlimited Plus, Xfinity’s equivalent requires Mobile Plus. Apple isn’t in the wireless-plan business, so it has no reason to gate the lease behind one, though it still requires picking a carrier. Plan-agnostic isn’t the same as carrier-agnostic, and Apple’s lease is only the former.

How the Math Works Out

Apple’s lease isn’t automatically cheaper, and it doesn’t need to be. Most upgrade programs run on forgiveness: pay down a chunk of the device cost, trade in a working phone, and the rest is wiped clean. Apple’s lease works differently and skips the trade-in requirement entirely: break it early and you owe the full remaining balance, typically covered with trade-in value but payable in cash too.

A quick note before the numbers: Table 1 isn’t a monthly bill. Each figure is the total device cost if someone walked away and upgraded at that checkpoint. Apple’s numbers repeat because there’s no partial forgiveness: breaking the 24-month lease early costs the same $767.76 at month 12, 18, or 24, and the 12-month lease simply restarts a full cycle every 12 months, so 18 months means two complete terms.

Table 1: Device Cost Comparison, Apple Leases vs. Operator Financing (excluding trade-in, mobile plan)

The carrier and cable figures come from each provider’s own installment length (36 months for AT&T, Verizon, and Spectrum; 24 months for T-Mobile and Xfinity) divided against the $1,099.99 retail price, plus that program’s fee. Apple’s own pricing has a subsidy-like effect too: the 24-month lease’s total payments land below retail price, so a lease customer pays less out of pocket than buying outright, with Apple and Klarna recovering the gap via the returned device or a buyout fee.

None of these numbers include what it costs to get in the door. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Spectrum, and Xfinity all require trading in a working device, typically worth $300 or more, to trigger forgiveness, and none of that value is credited in the table. Apple’s lease doesn’t require a trade-in at all. Spectrum’s and Xfinity’s cheapest figures also only apply on their top-tier plans, which cost real money: Unlimited Plus runs $40/mo and needs an active Spectrum Internet subscription, or a $10/mo surcharge without one; Xfinity’s Mobile Plus runs $45/mo. Neither recurring cost shows up above.

This table compares device financing only, holding trade-in and plan-tier questions constant so it’s apples-to-apples on that one dimension. It’s a fair single-column read, but not the whole bill.

The Adoption Hurdles

Three things stand in the way of the Apple lease catching on quickly, none about conflict with carriers.

First, it’s a harder sell. A carrier rep’s pitch is quick: device plan, add the upgrade fee, trade in whenever. Apple’s needs more steps: it’s a lease, not a purchase; pick the right term; no forgiveness if plans change; Klarna is the actual lender; and AppleCare+ is optional, at extra cost. That’s a lot to walk through at checkout.

Second, and more telling, the Apple lease is only available through Apple’s own channels, Apple Store and apple.com, not any carrier’s stores or websites. Recon Analytics’ consumer panel shows carrier stores and websites capturing roughly 83 to 90% of wireless purchasing preference, a share that’s climbed from about 83% in late 2023 to roughly 85% by early 2025 (n=59,920).

Source: Recon Analytics US consumer pulse survey (November 2023 to April 2025, n = 59,920).

Because the Apple lease lives inside that much smaller slice, its reach depends almost entirely on customers already planning to buy from Apple. Carrier reps aren’t overlooking it; they simply don’t carry it, a real ceiling on how fast this can scale.

Third, there’s an industry precedent worth taking seriously: getting devices back. Sprint’s leasing program, launched in 2014, generated real financial damage from customers who didn’t return devices or didn’t realize they were obligated to. SEC filings show write-offs tied to leased-device cancellations running into the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, adding up to well over a billion dollars in losses over the life of the program. Apple’s structure is cleaner, with fixed terms and an explicit end-of-lease choice rather than an open-ended plan, but the underlying risk of customers not returning a device they didn’t realize they only leased hasn’t been tested at Apple’s scale.

There’s a technical mitigant worth flagging. Code in the iOS 27 beta, reported by 9to5Mac, describes a “Restricted Mode” that lets a financing partner remotely lock a leased iPhone down to a bare app allowlist on missed payments, while subscriptions keep billing. A companion “Partner Finance Lock” would block erasing, reselling, or dismantling the device, even surviving a factory reset. 9to5Mac ties this to the Klarna partnership; it wasn’t in the iOS 26.6 release candidate, so treat it as directional rather than confirmed. If it ships, it’s a real answer to the Sprint problem: Sprint had no way to remotely disable or reclaim a device, and Apple appears to be building that capability into the OS itself.

What It Means for Carriers

Because a postpaid line with one of the Big Three is required to originate a lease through Apple, and no cable MVNO like Spectrum or Xfinity is an option at signup, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon come out ahead here: every Apple lease customer starts as one of their subscribers. That line is only required to enroll, though; Apple’s enrollment terms specify the carrier requirement at signup but are silent on whether service must stay active for the life of the lease.

That’s where the unlocked device changes things. Once the phone ships, a customer can move between AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile without owing anything extra on the device, unlike carrier financing, where leaving mid-term usually means immediately owing whatever’s left. Because the phone isn’t locked to any network, that freedom extends beyond the Big Three too: the same customer can walk away to Spectrum, Xfinity, a prepaid brand, or any carrier that will take a SIM.

There’s a bigger upside than foot traffic, too. Device financing ties up carrier capital, creates credit exposure to the same customers they’re already billing for service, and generates collections and write-off costs. Handing that burden to Apple and Klarna, while keeping the higher-margin service revenue, could be a net relief rather than a loss. If the Apple lease also gets people upgrading more often, that’s more foot traffic and attach opportunities on top. Faster upgrade cycles and lighter balance sheets both tend to help carriers, not just Apple.

Who Actually Wins Here

For the lowest device-only cost on a 1-2 year upgrade cycle, Spectrum’s Anytime Upgrade and AT&T/Verizon’s Flex programs lead through month 18, once you factor in the required trade-in and, for Spectrum, the Unlimited Plus plan and internet subscription. Anyone who wants to own the phone by year two is better served by T-Mobile’s or Xfinity’s standard installment plans. For those who don’t want their device tied to a plan tier, Apple and AT&T are the real options, since T-Mobile, Verizon, Spectrum, and Xfinity all require a plan upgrade, and Spectrum a home internet subscription, to unlock their best deal. For anyone who doesn’t mind never owning the phone, would rather skip the trade-in, isn’t tied to a specific, especially premium, plan, and wants a new phone every 12 or 24 months, the Apple lease delivers that freedom at a lower price.

The Bottom Line

Apple’s lease isn’t built to take customers from carriers, who remain its most important sales channel by far. It’s built to shorten the time between upgrades and sell more phones, a goal carriers can largely get behind too, since they profit from device attach and service revenue either way. The real open questions aren’t about who wins a fight that isn’t happening. They’re about how quickly Apple can make this option easy to explain and easy to find, given how much of the upgrade decision still happens on a carrier’s sales floor rather than Apple’s own.

 

Apple has launched a leasing program in partnership with Klarna. While Apple has experimented many times in the past with device finance options, this time may be different.

Firstly, let’s look at the issue Apple is trying to address. The US market recorded lowest device upgrade rates in last 3 years with the device lifecycle inching closer to 40+ months. The US carriers are posturing more controlled and targeted device subsidies in 2026, rather than broad based offers for switchers and upgraders. Even though carriers are raising subsidies with discounts going as high as $1,300, the reconciliation shows that headline offers on flagship launches stay aggressive while aggregate subsidy dollars are squeezed. It means subsidies are not disappearing, it is becoming concentrated and conditional. The subsidies are now more targeted to specific unlimited tiers with tighter eligibility for the existing base. It’s clear that carriers want to retain and attract high value subscribers rather than focusing on just subscriber number growth.

In the week of 22nd July, all three US national carriers reported Q2 2026 earnings. The story was same across all carriers, i.e. growth is now coming from pricing, convergence and retention economics rather than from handset subsidies.

  • Verizon was the most explicit in terms of direction. Their equipment revenue fell nearly 20%, more than $1.2bn year over year, on upgrade volumes down about 27%. The company attributed that to customers holding devices longer and to what it called a strategic decision to reduce spending on device subsidies. Promotional acquisition costs fell roughly 15% year over year and promotional retention costs about 17%, while the quarter still delivered 184,000 postpaid phone net adds and a record 40.1% adjusted EBITDA margin. Verizon has now demonstrated it can grow subscribers while spending less on devices, which retires the strongest historical argument for heavy subsidy.
  • AT&T grew wireless service revenue 3.3% on 432,000 postpaid phone net adds and credited customer growth plus pricing actions taken during the quarter, not device promotion. It raised postpaid phone ARPU while cutting churn to 0.86% and posted a 39.1% adjusted EBITDA margin, its highest since refocusing the business on advanced connectivity.
  • T-Mobile beat on EPS and guided third-quarter postpaid net adds to roughly 250,000, below the second quarter. Morgan Stanley and Bank of America both pressed management on whether it can keep raising prices without leaning on subsidies. The answer was that the business is increasingly driven by CLV (customer lifetime value) and network strength rather than promotional offers.

However, despite the net adds subscriber growth, purchase of new devices is expected to go down as the subsidies get more optimized. As per Recon Analytics survey, device subsidies was selected among Top 4 reasons for buying a new device.

Chart showing US consumer smartphone purchase drivers and subsidy importance

Now while the carriers are trying to control the subsidies, the price of devices are going up, especially with price of memory rising upto 300% for premium devices in just 12 months. This is causing further divergence between controlling the cost of subsidies and selling more devices.

So, the solution is to partially move the cost of subsidies elsewhere. And Apple has had several attempts at this in the past with iPhone Upgrade Program (2015), Apple Card Installments (2019), Apple Pay Later (2023), but this time it’s different. Because with third-party financing with Klarna, Apple has created a parallel channel that holds monthly payments low and lowers the device lifecycle without the cost of financing going to Apple or the carrier’s balance sheet.

As per Recon Analytics survey data on wireless channels, over 85% of the US consumers prefer buying from carriers directly, while only 15% prefer buying directly from third-party store or website. The third-party includes the big box retail as well as independent OEM stores & website. In a separate survey on store visitations, 5% indicated they visit Apple store for wireless needs. While apple store remains a smaller channel in larger market structure, it’s still significantly important to open a new channel with faster device upgrade option to consumers.

Prefered Purchasing Channel

Source: Recon Analytics US consumer survey (Nov 2023 to April 2025, n = 59,920)

USA Carrier Store Visitation Rate

Source: Recon Analytics US consumer survey (April 2025 to June 2025, n = 59,920)

Impact on Carriers

So far, Apple hasn’t opened the leasing program to prepaid, MVNOs, or cable carriers. Paying in full, a consumer can buy an unlocked device and activate with any carrier at checkout. Under the lease, that choice narrows to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile postpaid at signing. Notably, Apple Card Monthly Installments includes Boost Mobile and the lease program does not, which points to a negotiated agreement likely priced on activation volume.

It means the activation is still gated, but Recon Analytics confirmed with Apple sales specialists that consumers can switch carriers once the lease is executed, and the payment is owed to Klarna regardless of who provides service. The door to churn over to cable and prepaid is open under this program. What Apple still controls is the checkout gate and adding one name can have a significant impact.

Why it works for Klarna

The core mechanics behind a lease is that an installment plan amortizes the full price whereas a lease amortizes only capitalized cost minus residual, plus it charges a rent on the money at risk. The customer funds roughly half the asset’s economic life and pays rent on the rest. The chart below shows that on $35/month on Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max retailing at $1199 before tax. A consumer will pay $840 in 24 months (i.e. 70% full price) while the residual value of the device is still at $621 (based on ‘retail’ prices trends in refurbished market for iPhone 15 Pro Max). That gap creates the value for Klarna.

Meanwhile, Apple’s largest gain is cycle compression, not margin. Klarna earns net interest margin, Furthermore, Klarna also sold $1.2bn of those receivables in the quarter, so it may not be the ultimate holder of this paper at all. A win-win for all.