Nokia rumoured to be working on penta-camera smartphone

[3dcandy]

Samsung Galaxy camera and camera 2 where the ones I remember. Galaxy Camera was 2013 and 2 was 2015. Both failed...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Not saying your wrong.. but I think it's far simpler currently. If zoom lenses etc. can be made to fit and cost isn't an issue why do manufacturers go down the twin sensor/lens arrangement? That must mean that a zoom lens is more than twice the cost of a sensor and lens assembly currently. I bet it's more to do with the fact that a zoom lens isn't reliable enough to be made that small and last the abuse a phone gets. Also remember that a zoom lens assembly would have to be tiny and IP68 rated to be in most models as well

My main issue is the cost of these higher end devices which seem to advertise their cameras as one of the main reasons why they are more expensive(even though breakdowns say otherwise). If you are going to charge £400 to £1000 for a phone,and big up its camera,at least try and do something different and this is my main issue. If you are going to charge £800 to £1000 for a phone,then I expect a largish sensor and something more complex than
which I might find in a £100 compact. They make a big deal about "computational image processing" which is just a PR bumpf way of saying they apply photoshop more intelligently and I suspect many of the cheaper phones could do it too as time progresses anyway.

You might notice I comment less about the "lower end" phones under £300 to £350.

Well, J think I'd think that the vast bulk of users fall into one of two categories :-

1) Phone users that use a phone camera for "snaps" but aren't demanding users, photographically.

2) Serious photography fans, for whom a phone's camera is just for snaps.

This Nokia idea, assuming it's true, is going to be too fiddly for type 1. As for type 2, it's entirely superfluous for snaps, and never likely to be enough for serious use.

Rather than trying to build decent optical zooms into phones, where size seems to be the absolute priority, I'm a bit surprised none of the major camera manufacturers making high-end compact cameras .... where size isn't overwhelmingly critical, haven't built a phone into cameras, for type 2's.

The issue I have is a lot of the £400+ phones big up the cameras on them,and they are just tiny sensored chips which are as small as 1/3",ie,more like a webcam and worse than even most £100 compacts.If you look at the parts breakdowns for many of these phones,its shocking how little is spent on the camera modules although its one of the most advertised features.

I can't see why they cannot integrate a 1/1.7" sensor in a slim device especially if they CBA putting a zoom in the thing. Most of the lenses are actually plastic,as you could tell by LG trying to big up using glass lens elements(I assume the glass elements were higher refractive index than the normal plastic used in phone camera lenses),as a massive deal in one of their phones,whilst quietly hiding the fact they reduced the sensor size from the previous model!!

This tells me they are not even making the most compact lens designs in the first place,just the most cost effective ones,which considering the £500 to £1000 of many of these kind of phones,they can go and do one,especially since they don't last as long as a standalone camera due to built in obsolescence.

Considering the cost of these high end phones,I don't see any real technical reasons for them not to integrate a larger sensor,and more advanced lens designs. But OFC its just cheaper to spend it on more BS PR bumpf and using the phone to overprocess the images even more,so they look all the same.

Its really a joke when you look at the pricing - you can get plenty of sub £300 smartphones with fast CPUs,3GB to 4GB of RAM,and a camera good enough for snap shots. That means for the price of these overpriced high end phones,I could have solid midrange phone,and also buy a 1" sensored compact like an RX100 with a Sonnar lens,and have the best of both worlds.

Nokia at least did something different with its PureView sensors. They used a 1/1.2" chip with a 40MP sensor,but you could have a lower MP output mode with lossless digital zoom,and the images were awesome for a phone.

At least that was thinking out of the box. It seems many of these companies are now run by bean counters who are more worried looking at the price of parts in the parts bin,and using the cheapest parts they can get away with.

[Saracen]

Nokias Pureview 808 phone was the closest thing I've seen to that. It was their last effort of keeping symbian relevant before they went all in on Windows Phone.

41mp sensor iirc.

Not what I'm on about. It's a phone with a csmera, however high the pixel count is, in it.

I'm talking about a camera, bd it SLR or high-end compact (Canon G-series, and up, to Leicas, etc) with a phone added. That is, a camera that a photo enthusiast would carry, both in terms of caoabiluty, form factor, UI, etc .... plus a phone.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Not what I'm on about. It's a phone with a csmera, however high the pixel count is, in it.

I'm talking about a camera, bd it SLR or high-end compact (Canon G-series, and up, to Leicas, etc) with a phone added. That is, a camera that a photo enthusiast would carry, both in terms of caoabiluty, form factor, UI, etc .... plus a phone.

Panasonic made one,ie,the CM1 with a 1" sensor but the issue is Panasonic is not known for their phones outside Japan so it didn't get any traction,ie,you needed to buy it upfront and it was never really offered on subsidised contracts like an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy. If it had been one of the lazy high end phone companies like Samsung or Apple who just swamp every billboard everytime they even fart,then perhaps it would have sold well.

Ultimately Samsung,Apple,etc are the main culprits behind this - they have the money,and network contacts to really innovate,but its cheaper to plonk in a POS camera in a £800 phone,and get some celebs to endorse it on Twitter,etc then bother to actually spend some R and D money on making the cameras any better. As a result so many people are probably not realising how much these companies are ripping them off.

It also means if they can get away with it,every other company just expends the minimal effort too.

In the end when MS destroyed Nokia as a phone company,that was the last hope of any real innovation in the phone camera industry really happening at any rate.

Edit!!

To just show the cost of some of the parts:

https://www.ifixit.com/Store/Parts/S...&display=list#
https://www.replacebase.co.uk/for-sa...ra-module-oem/

The replacement rear camera for a Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+ can be bought for £22 or $30.

So imagine how much that part actually costs for Samsung in reality?

The iPhone X cameras(both front and rear) come to a massive $35:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/iphone...markit-2017-11

The physical enclosure and the screen are the most expensive parts.

So a £800 to £1000 Samsung or Apple smartphone has cameras which cost under £30.

[spacein_vader]

Not what I'm on about. It's a phone with a csmera, however high the pixel count is, in it.

I'm talking about a camera, bd it SLR or high-end compact (Canon G-series, and up, to Leicas, etc) with a phone added. That is, a camera that a photo enthusiast would carry, both in terms of caoabiluty, form factor, UI, etc .... plus a phone.

Ah closest I've seen is a few cameras with a data sim in for upload anywhere capability.

[3dcandy]

The Galaxy camera was a camera sensor with phone added. Not a phone with a camera sensor added. Had a zoom lens. Technically a mirrorless camera setup. Canon et al have tried and mooted the idea and so I hear nobody is interested in it. They have added wifi and bluetooth and that seems to be enough. Mind you, imagine uploading a raw image on 4g, the ones from my camera are 22 meg a throw and if you get into video....
I have a Gear 360 and it's 2 gig for 10 mins of footage which has to be then converted. I think the issue is more about the fact nobody would do it or buy them rather than the technicality

[kalniel]

Been tried? Fair enough. Pased me by, but that's no grest shock.

One thing .... roughly when was it tried?

Sometimes, an idea is tried, and fails, before the tech, or the market, or both, are ready for it.

Was a while back. 2013 Samsung Galaxy

[Saracen]

-

Was a while back. 2013 Samsung Galaxy

Still looks rather like a phone with a compact's lens module bolted on. If it's a high-ish end camera, aimed at us lot, I'd expect camera features (manual exposure, aperture/shutter priority, bracketing, maybe flash, etc. And, where the interface is aimed at photographers. Hard to tell from that picture but it doesn't look like any of that.


Put it this way .... what I'm suggesting is that there are users, the photography enthusiasts, that ypu will rarely catch more thsn an arn's length from a "proper" camera. So, take a "proper" camera, and build a phone in. Not, I might add, for uploading photos, but for doing what you do with a smartphone.

Unless such a hybrid can replace a "proper" camera, it won't appeal to that type of user, because a phone that csptures snaps doesn't cut it, and never will.

Oh, and this is not as mass-market device trying to lure snartphone users. It's an enhaanced camera trying to lure users of other cameras.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Galaxy camera used a a smartphone sized sensor,ie, a 1/2.3" jobby so realistically wasn't any better than a smartphone when it came to image quality.

The CM1 used the same sensor as the RX100 series of prosumer compacts which was 1" and had far better image quality especially when it came to DR,etc and you could adjust everything like aperture and exposure,etc. You could actually vary the aperture(F2.8~F11). Its the only smartphone which I would consider has a good replacement for a proper compact or even mirrorless camera with a pancake lens,but a 1" sensor is pretty big and it was quite amazing they managed to shoehorn it into a hybrid device. It also had mechanical and electronic shutters too.However,Panasonic is not really a well known brand of smartphone outside Japan(no E-PEEN) and moreover,it would never get the same level of subsidies for network providers, that Samsung and Apple phones get(so people could get them "cheaper" on contract) let alone the billions of dollars of advertising.

You don't even need to go that far - something like a 1/1.7" or 2/3" sensor would do the trick too,especially if you were looking at a limited focal length zoom,ie,something between 28~75MM or even a fixed focal length lens.

Remember these are £600 to £1000 phones,not a "cheaper" sub £400 one,so not really any excuse for them to share similar sized sensors to a £125 one is there??

In fact do people know that almost of all smartphones cannot vary their aperture?? They are fixed aperture and only recently Samsung had a smartphone(it was a flip one) which could actually vary the aperture(marginally) but it costs a silly amount of money. They also don't even have normal shutters - they have "electronic" ones which mean they are even cheaper to make. Basically the same level as webcams.

Samsung and Apple are the reason cameras are so subpar in higher end phones,as they set the bar very low and at a rubbish level for the rest of the competition. If they CBA and sell loads of phones,why should any other company really push any more than it needs to be. Its exactly the same thing which happened with Intel regurgitating slightly faster desktop CPUs for years and years,since AMD was out of the picture,but at least Intel has to fund process node R and D which is very expensive.

It still does change the fact that people might want to put their head in the sand,but the £800 to £1000 Samsung and Apple phones use el-cheapo camera modules which cost between £20 to £30 in total with low grade lenses made mostly of plastic(yes plastic is used in normal lenses too,but there are reasons why it is used) due to cost.

If it weren't for their "revolutionary" cameras,a £300 phone would do exactly the same job.

Saying "camera quality" does not sell is not really true,since the major innovations that the high end camera phones seem to keep "selling" is image quality ALL THE TIME. Yet,as £500 to £1000 imaging devices they are subpar.

They are utterly destroyed by a dSLR/mirrorless camera and any small prosumer compact like even the ancient RX100 MK1 which could be had for under £300 for years is better and these devices are made for a profit.

So if a £300 camera can do a better job,you are still paying £300 to £700 extra for the phone bit,so by extension there is zero excuses for them to not spend more on the camera bit.

Plus you are paying £500 to £1000 every two years or so. Over say 10 years,that is a couple of £1000,for £150 worth of cheap camera modules??

Its this weird interplay of people who apparently want "image quality" but are willing to use a subpar,overpriced device which is absolutely trashed by an old 1" sensor compact which could be bought for under £300 for the last couple of years.

Except this imaging device cannot do anything different from a £300 phone yet costs two to three times more than a decentish compact.

Plus how many of these people who need the "ultimate" mobile image quality are printing any of these pictures all the time?? Whats the likelihood that a sub £400 camera phone would do as good a job for social media or even the standard 7x5" prints from the instant photo machines at a supermarket??

Remember £300 to £400 is still a lot for a short term disposable device - apply that to a CPU or a pair of speakers and how many of you would feel about one that barely was adequate for the job and was pretty much EOL in just over two years.

Now make that £800 to £1000. I think when it comes to smartphones,and especially Apple and Samsung ones people loose rationality at what they are selling you.

To put it in context if Nikon or Canon took the same camera module from an iPhone X or the latest Samsung Galaxy and sold it for "only" £150 as a camera not a single person would buy such a camera and they would be laughed out of the room by everyone.

Companies are not your friends - they are here to profit as much as they can off you,so if people have no expectations,don't expect the companies to have any too,in what they deliver to their "loyal" customers.

I honestly wish and hope the downturn in sales and people keeping their smartphones longer continues,since it forces the bean counters and their fans at Apple and Samsung to actually spend their billions of dollars on actual innovation,instead of hoodwinking their customers.

If these companies want to charge £500 to £1000 for phones,actually innovate for their customers not just innovate to line their pockets! Not only have better cameras which are worthy of expensive £500 to £1000 devices,have longer battery life,better build,better QC and treat your customers well,instead of trying to fob off subpar batteries on them which explode and have lifespan issues in under two years.

[spacein_vader]

-

Still looks rather like a phone with a compact's lens module bolted on. If it's a high-ish end camera, aimed at us lot, I'd expect camera features (manual exposure, aperture/shutter priority, bracketing, maybe flash, etc. And, where the interface is aimed at photographers. Hard to tell from that picture but it doesn't look like any of that.


Put it this way .... what I'm suggesting is that there are users, the photography enthusiasts, that ypu will rarely catch more thsn an arn's length from a "proper" camera. So, take a "proper" camera, and build a phone in. Not, I might add, for uploading photos, but for doing what you do with a smartphone.

Unless such a hybrid can replace a "proper" camera, it won't appeal to that type of user, because a phone that csptures snaps doesn't cut it, and never will.

Oh, and this is not as mass-market device trying to lure snartphone users. It's an enhaanced camera trying to lure users of other cameras.

I'm not sure even those photographers would be a market. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons why people choose one camera over another, but why add a lot of cost to the product that does not help its camera performance? The current solution (buy the camera with the features you want & then buy a phone with the features you want,) works too well.

Add in that as I understand it photographers keep their cameras for years, smartphones* tend to become unusably slow or unsupported after 2-3 years. So why would you invest in a hybrid.

*Yes you could just put a dumb phone in, but that limits your target market even further.

[DanceswithUnix]

Unless such a hybrid can replace a "proper" camera, it won't appeal to that type of user, because a phone that csptures snaps doesn't cut it, and never will.

I don't think photographers is really a market here. The ones I know all own and use a smartphone, but they all seem to collect cameras (to the point of addiction in some cases) so they already own a good tool for any photographic job you care to throw at them (although apparently a new lens always seems to help ). So you don't replace a camera, you just add another tool to the existing pool.

But then these people can make a cheap phone take better images than I could get out of a top of the range DSLR.

OTOH the people I hear talking about image quality on phones are not photographers. They want to transfer what they see to facebook without caring about any fiddly settings for things like the room being dark or facing into the sun, it should "just work".

[krazy_olie]

I really don't think sticking a phone in to a camera is going to make any sales, except maybe in Japan? I think a phone's form factor is not really suited for a zoom and you're best going for a fixed focal length.

Only "old Nokia" were using respectably sized sensors, save for that weird thing Panasonic made. I used an 808 for years, was years ahead, imaging and sound recording still best what's out there now. If we had a sensors even approaching that size with up to date processing we'd have killer cameras in phones but seems like none of the manufacturers cba and are just shoving all these weird multi lens and other silly features.

listen /watch this from 2013 which I recorded and I think it still beats pretty much any smartphone video at a concert in 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0DawgZaBzI

[3dcandy]

The Galaxy camera used a a smartphone sized sensor,ie, a 1/2.3" jobby so realistically wasn't any better than a smartphone when it came to image quality.

The CM1 used the same sensor as the RX100 series of prosumer compacts which was 1" and had far better image quality especially when it came to DR,etc and you could adjust everything like aperture and exposure,etc. You could actually vary the aperture(F2.8~F11). Its the only smartphone which I would consider has a good replacement for a proper compact or even mirrorless camera with a pancake lens,but a 1" sensor is pretty big and it was quite amazing they managed to shoehorn it into a hybrid device. It also had mechanical and electronic shutters too.However,Panasonic is not really a well known brand of smartphone outside Japan(no E-PEEN) and moreover,it would never get the same level of subsidies for network providers, that Samsung and Apple phones get(so people could get them "cheaper" on contract) let alone the billions of dollars of advertising.

You don't even need to go that far - something like a 1/1.7" or 2/3" sensor would do the trick too,especially if you were looking at a limited focal length zoom,ie,something between 28~75MM or even a fixed focal length lens.

Remember these are £600 to £1000 phones,not a "cheaper" sub £400 one,so not really any excuse for them to share similar sized sensors to a £125 one is there??

In fact do people know that almost of all smartphones cannot vary their aperture?? They are fixed aperture and only recently Samsung had a smartphone(it was a flip one) which could actually vary the aperture(marginally) but it costs a silly amount of money. They also don't even have normal shutters - they have "electronic" ones which mean they are even cheaper to make. Basically the same level as webcams.

Samsung and Apple are the reason cameras are so subpar in higher end phones,as they set the bar very low and at a rubbish level for the rest of the competition. If they CBA and sell loads of phones,why should any other company really push any more than it needs to be. Its exactly the same thing which happened with Intel regurgitating slightly faster desktop CPUs for years and years,since AMD was out of the picture,but at least Intel has to fund process node R and D which is very expensive.

It still does change the fact that people might want to put their head in the sand,but the £800 to £1000 Samsung and Apple phones use el-cheapo camera modules which cost between £20 to £30 in total with low grade lenses made mostly of plastic(yes plastic is used in normal lenses too,but there are reasons why it is used) due to cost.

If it weren't for their "revolutionary" cameras,a £300 phone would do exactly the same job.

Saying "camera quality" does not sell is not really true,since the major innovations that the high end camera phones seem to keep "selling" is image quality ALL THE TIME. Yet,as £500 to £1000 imaging devices they are subpar.

They are utterly destroyed by a dSLR/mirrorless camera and any small prosumer compact like even the ancient RX100 MK1 which could be had for under £300 for years is better and these devices are made for a profit.

So if a £300 camera can do a better job,you are still paying £300 to £700 extra for the phone bit,so by extension there is zero excuses for them to not spend more on the camera bit.

Plus you are paying £500 to £1000 every two years or so. Over say 10 years,that is a couple of £1000,for £150 worth of cheap camera modules??

Its this weird interplay of people who apparently want "image quality" but are willing to use a subpar,overpriced device which is absolutely trashed by an old 1" sensor compact which could be bought for under £300 for the last couple of years.

Except this imaging device cannot do anything different from a £300 phone yet costs two to three times more than a decentish compact.

Plus how many of these people who need the "ultimate" mobile image quality are printing any of these pictures all the time?? Whats the likelihood that a sub £400 camera phone would do as good a job for social media or even the standard 7x5" prints from the instant photo machines at a supermarket??

Remember £300 to £400 is still a lot for a short term disposable device - apply that to a CPU or a pair of speakers and how many of you would feel about one that barely was adequate for the job and was pretty much EOL in just over two years.

Now make that £800 to £1000. I think when it comes to smartphones,and especially Apple and Samsung ones people loose rationality at what they are selling you.

To put it in context if Nikon or Canon took the same camera module from an iPhone X or the latest Samsung Galaxy and sold it for "only" £150 as a camera not a single person would buy such a camera and they would be laughed out of the room by everyone.

Companies are not your friends - they are here to profit as much as they can off you,so if people have no expectations,don't expect the companies to have any too,in what they deliver to their "loyal" customers.

I honestly wish and hope the downturn in sales and people keeping their smartphones longer continues,since it forces the bean counters and their fans at Apple and Samsung to actually spend their billions of dollars on actual innovation,instead of hoodwinking their customers.

If these companies want to charge £500 to £1000 for phones,actually innovate for their customers not just innovate to line their pockets! Not only have better cameras which are worthy of expensive £500 to £1000 devices,have longer battery life,better build,better QC and treat your customers well,instead of trying to fob off subpar batteries on them which explode and have lifespan issues in under two years.

Problem is that for the vast majority of people they are good enough... end of. Most people still want a thin light phone not all day battery life. They want IP-68, great screen, GOOD ENOUGH camera. That's what they get. The market for a really decent camera in a phone just isn't there. If people want a great camera they'll buy one... and then tether it to their phone, crush the resolution down and post it on facebook which ruins it even more...

[3dcandy]

-

Still looks rather like a phone with a compact's lens module bolted on. If it's a high-ish end camera, aimed at us lot, I'd expect camera features (manual exposure, aperture/shutter priority, bracketing, maybe flash, etc. And, where the interface is aimed at photographers. Hard to tell from that picture but it doesn't look like any of that.


Put it this way .... what I'm suggesting is that there are users, the photography enthusiasts, that ypu will rarely catch more thsn an arn's length from a "proper" camera. So, take a "proper" camera, and build a phone in. Not, I might add, for uploading photos, but for doing what you do with a smartphone.

Unless such a hybrid can replace a "proper" camera, it won't appeal to that type of user, because a phone that csptures snaps doesn't cut it, and never will.

Oh, and this is not as mass-market device trying to lure snartphone users. It's an enhaanced camera trying to lure users of other cameras.

Why - what is the point of making a device that wouldn't handle as well as a smartphone, certainly would be stupid to hold next to your ear and talk into and would cost an arm and a leg. Yes the Samsung Galaxy camera range had small sensors... you just can't get the optics into the size people would buy. Again, people are not interested in a camera phone that's bulky or has a large sensor because something else would have to give. For example, the battery life on the Galaxy camera was abysmal because there was no room for a large capacity battery. You got something like 2 hours talktime and about 30 hours standby. So in real world useage - you'd get about 4 hours tops between recharges. So it's a rubbish camera, a rubbish phone with rubbish battery life....
From talking to people who sold phones at the time people were not interested at all. Demand was very weak especially in the UK. Samsung admitted that to do it justice a decent camera with smartphone functionality would be about £2k and still not be as good as a decent phone plus decent camera combo. Just too many compromises all round to sell

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Problem is that for the vast majority of people they are good enough... end of. Most people still want a thin light phone not all day battery life. They want IP-68, great screen, GOOD ENOUGH camera. That's what they get. The market for a really decent camera in a phone just isn't there. If people want a great camera they'll buy one... and then tether it to their phone, crush the resolution down and post it on facebook which ruins it even more...

The problem for the vast majority of people a £200 smart phone camera is good enough....end off. Most people still want a light phone and long battery life which cheap phones have:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/smartph...g-your-iphone/

They want waterproof phones, great screen, GOOD ENOUGH camera. That's what they get for under £400,which if enough people on the internet actually opened their eyes they would see,but the same people who go on about no one caring about image quality,then apparently then excuse make for £400+ cameraphones due to "better cameras" and it comes off as rather a contradictory stance. I think its more E-PEEN.

Most people I know,who use a smartphone as their main camera,can't tell the difference between a £800 smartphone and a £300 one. So basically you are saying £400+ phones are a waste of time. So basically outside being some "status symbol" explain to me why anyone objective should bother with a £1000 smartphone for snapshots when there are plenty of decent ones for under £400?? They can't because its an emotional judgement not an objective one.

I never understood the near massive defence of these £400+ gadgets on forums especially since the market trends show that older and cheaper phones seem "good enough".

The reason for the lack of growth, says Roberta Cozza, research director at Gartner, is that people are using their smartphones for a longer period before replacing them, with a lifecycle of two and a half years now not uncommon.

"Really, this is about the slowdown and a shift in the balance of in the market in the sense that you see it's reached a certain maturity and saturation," she told ZDNet.

"If you look at why people are extending lifecycles -- it's about the innovation of today and the benefits of upgrading," Cozza said, arguing that many don't see a benefit in upgrading their iPhone or Samsung Galaxy on a yearly basis because vendors are losing the ability to "show value" in their yearly product updates.

However, while Apple and Samsung are struggling to convince us to buy their latest phones -- especially as high prices can put consumers off -- Chinese manufacturers Huawei, Oppo, and Xiamoi have experienced a significant growth in sales

Huawei in particular has seen its share of the market grow rapidly, with almost 29 million units sold during Q1 2016 compared to 18 million during Q1 2015. The 10 million extra units have boosted Huawei's share of the market from 5.4 percent to 8.3 percent.

One reason the likes of Huawei are experiencing such a fast growth rate is that people using iPhones and Samsungs look at the latest models and are put off by the price, so instead upgrade to a Chinese smartphone which offers similar features, but is quite a bit cheaper to buy.

"Some of these new players are the upgrade cycle for a smartphone user who has a smartphone and is looking to upgrade -- but can't afford an iPhone a Galaxy S7. They can find those desirable features, but at a cost they can afford," said Cozza.

See the word - "innovation". Users are being put off by a lack of innovation and the fact that the prices are going up with little to show for.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...eir-old-phones

The reasons for buying a smartphone can be split into two camps. In the first instance, consumers are persuaded to buy new handsets through adverts that extol the handset’s camera, waterproofing, screen size, software or promised battery life. Otherwise, phones are bought for more prosaic reasons: the old one kept crashing; the battery kept dying; or that crack in the screen finally became too annoying.

The problem for the world’s smartphone makers is that the second set of reasons has become far more compelling than the first. People are waiting longer before upgrading – and phone makers are getting anxious.

Even the much-anticipated launch of Apple’s next iPhone is not expected to set the mobile world alight, though it may encourage many Apple users to upgrade at higher prices than ever before.

The market for £400 to £500 and above phones is stagnating. Its just as bad as people on forums justifying £2000+ Titan V and £2000 CPUs for gaming at 1080p where many would go LOLWTFBBQ.

People want:
1.)Better battery life
2.)Water proofing
3.)Innovation(that includes the imaging part of the cameras,but other aspects too)
4.)Lower prices
5.)Better reliability

Water proofing is not a big deal - my Moto G had it long before any high end smartphone. It shows how people are falling for all the marketing that Apple and Samsung push out they think its even a big deal. My Defy had it years ago and that was a sub £300 phone. Both waterproof to a metre under water. Other phones had it too. Meh.

Using your metrics,that means there is no market for £400 to £500 and above phones since they offer nothing that a cheaper one does.

The market is slowing down for high end phones,and less people are buying them and more people are buying cheaper phones due to stagnation at the high end.

Phone enthusiasts on forums have their heads in the sand about this,but the market does not lie. I told all of the naysayers years ago,defending the ripoff £400 to £500 and above phones would not work since they were not really doing anything that innovated 9 out of 10 times.Fad features,yes, but true innovation,not really.

I told people cheaper phones would start displacing the higher end ones due to feature stagnation. I told people Chinese companies would start to take more and more share due to pricing. Cheaper phones are increasingly displacing the more expensive ones as they functionally do the same,and none of the naysayers have actually used modern budget phones which can do everything a more expensive one does.Had loads getting annoyed that I said what I said on Hexus.

Guess what,its happening just like what I said would happen. It was not rocket science,it was obvious.

The market has shown cheaper phones are "good enough" and people with expensive phones now keep them far longer since they the upgrades are so pitiful its not worth it.

If they want high end phones to sell,they better innovate,but that is not really happening. Even the few innovations are just fads or can be applied to cheaper models quite easily since they are mostly software based. Its easier for people to wait a bit and get a cheaper version,or wait for the next cycle and buy the phone in a sale.

I said this for years,and people still are trying to argue that I am wrong. I am correct and will continue to be until there is more innovation.

If Apple,etc want to make imaging the focus of their phones,so they can charge £400 to £700 more over their more basic phones,then instead of getting legions of internet fans to defend them,which has no bearing in RL it appears,perhaps they can actually spend money and make them truly good imaging devices.

If they CBA,more people will buy cheaper phones,and find the cameras do the same job.

This is also proven by the fact that Apple and Samsung are so desperate they are trying to artificially gimp phones to die quicker:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a8172191.html

This is matched by the fact that sales for the iPhone X and iPhone 8,are lower than expected:

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/22/apple-...laims-7250159/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...ne-x-3wzbtxd2d
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/01/17...hone-8-orders/

The same goes with the Galaxy S8:

http://bgr.com/2017/07/11/galaxy-s8-vs-s7-sales-drop/
https://9to5google.com/2017/07/11/an...r-than-the-s7/

When companies are actively trying to gimp expensive phones,to force upgrades it shows that that people are less inclined to upgrade due to feature stagnation.

Its cheaper to force people to upgrade by using cheap parts and using software "updates" to complete the swindle,instead of trying to actually not reheat the same basic phone again and again.

The bean counters are running out of ideas - maybe its time to actual do some decent R and D and INNOVATE.

[3dcandy]

I never once mentioned price of smartphones for consumers being the problem...not once. People just want a good enough camera. Price is what they are willing to pay. The cheaper phones use the same sensor packages... they only difference is the better phones can process the images better, so apply more post processing to improve the photos. The cameras for the last couple of generations have been good enough, thus the stagnation. The point and shoot camera market is very poor these days because of smart phones and even the high end market is struggling in many ways. It's just how it is. Even Nikon and Canon are getting stung by not moving on with stuff like sensor technology!