9to5Mac58%

Limited initial availability of the iPhone Ultra may be a feature, not a bug 61%

By Ben Lovejoy70%

7/6/2026, 4:20:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Anecdotal, and Recency Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 26.9% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 1,383 faulty-reasoning hits from 628 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.8% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,576 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.80% of the article peer group.

After conflicting reports about when the iPhone Ultra would launch, there’s now a clear consensus that it will be announced in September alongside the iPhone 18 Pro. 
It does, however, look likely that Apple may adapt the iPhone X strategy of announcing it in September and having it go on sale a little later, and a report yesterday suggested that launch availability may be very limited  
There had been some earlier reports suggesting that the iPhone Ultra launch might be very delayed, perhaps even into early next year. 
By last month, however, there was a clear consensus that any delay in the upcoming premium model going on sale would be a short one. 
It’s looking extremely likely that Apple will officially announce the folding iPhone in September, and that it will either go on sale alongside the iPhone 18 Pro or no more than a month later. 
Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has now warned that even with a gap between announcement and sale, the new model may be in very short supply. 
He said supply chain sources suggested that "only" one million units will be manufactured within the third quarter, with delivery times potentially stretching four to six weeks or more. 
How that number stacks up against likely demand for a device expected to have a starting price of around $2,400 and potentially max out at $3,000 remains to be seen. 
But I do think Apple may be perfectly content with limited launch availability, and here’s why. 
Apple’s Ultra strategy 
The first Apple device to get the Ultra label was the Apple Watch Ultra. 
While ostensibly aimed at adventurers, the company likely knew that there would be a demographic who would simply want the most expensive model with the largest face without ever going anywhere near a mountain-top or an underwater reef. 
That does appear to be the case, and the company now has an Apple Watch model with a starting price literally double that of the Series 11. 
It seems pretty clear the company learned from this. 
That learning is that there is a sufficiently large segment of the market willing to pay even more than Apple's normal premium pricing for the ultimate model to justify creating products specifically for them. 
This year we’re expecting to see both an iPhone Ultra and a MacBook Ultra. 
Essentially, the company is creating a whole new tier of products and testing the boundaries of just how much a certain segment of its customer base would be willing to pay. 
A winning formula 
If there’s one lesson luxury brands have learned, it’s that limited availability is not a bug but a feature. 
It’s famously impossible to walk into a Rolex dealership, hand over some money, and walk out with your desired watch. 
Indeed, if you want to buy a particularly desirable Rolex or Ferrari model, the companies even go so far as to force you to buy less desirable ones first in order to "establish a relationship" with a dealer. 
Most luxury brands don’t go quite that far, but they do artificially limit supply, and in doing so make their products seem more desirable. 
I’m in no way suggesting that Apple would do this deliberately, but if the manufacturing challenges of making an ultra-premium device are such that there is limited availability at launch, that's certainly going to be no bad thing for the company. 
Premium branding plus scarcity is a well-established winning formula. 
Apple Watch Ultra 3 from Apple’s official Amazon store 
Official Apple Store on Amazon 
Discounted AirPods Pro 3 
Wireless CarPlay adapter 
AirTag holders and accessories 
Mac Pro-style Mac mini casing 
NordVPN  privacy-first VPN with no logs and independent audits to verify 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.1%Ben Lovejoy: 5.4%9to5Mac: 2.7%Confirmation Bias19.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.8%9to5Mac: 2.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.8%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic11.0%This article: 9.9%Ben Lovejoy: 1.9%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.9%This article: 4.3%Ben Lovejoy: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias4.3%This article: 8.3%Ben Lovejoy: 3.7%9to5Mac: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias8.3%This article: 5.3%Ben Lovejoy: 5.4%9to5Mac: 5.3%Framing Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.2%9to5Mac: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Ben Lovejoy: 4.0%9to5Mac: 3.4%Optimism Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.6%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Ben Lovejoy: 8.5%9to5Mac: 4.6%Negativity Bias9.2%This article: 9.1%Ben Lovejoy: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias9.1%This article: 11.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.0%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error11.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 2.5%9to5Mac: 3.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.6%Ben Lovejoy: 2.3%9to5Mac: 1.8%Recency Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.9%Ben Lovejoy: 5.5%9to5Mac: 3.6%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.7%9to5Mac: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 5.4%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.2%Circular Reasoning5.4%This article: 8.3%Ben Lovejoy: 8.7%9to5Mac: 4.8%Hasty Generalization8.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.3%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 0.8%Bandwagon8.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.1%9to5Mac: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 10.5%Ben Lovejoy: 1.3%9to5Mac: 0.6%Begging the Question10.5%This article: 8.1%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 1.0%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.7%Ben Lovejoy: 4.2%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal16.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.4%Ben Lovejoy: 2.2%9to5Mac: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.9%Ben Lovejoy: 4.5%9to5Mac: 2.4%Unattributed Quote26.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.1%Ben Lovejoy: 6.4%9to5Mac: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice9.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 3.7%9to5Mac: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Lovejoy: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Ben Lovejoy: 10.6%9to5Mac: 15.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.7%

628 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.6%attributed speech574writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageMing-Chi Kuo • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMing-Chi Kuo • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ming-Chi Kuo

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words100% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote+29.3 ptsWriter: 24.4%Ming-Chi Kuo: 53.7%53.7%Biased Writer Voice-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Ming-Chi Kuo: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Ming-Chi Kuo: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.