I’m someone with relatively small hands, plus I want my phone to be on the smaller side since I prefer to use my tablet/computer/tv to watch content. But this trend where many manufacturers tend to keep futures away from smaller phones to drive people to bigger phones is driving me crazy and really makes it hard for me to buy a new phone. I can understand not having everything like maybe a periscope lens or something else that is cost etc. but not to this level. Like take Samsung for example: S24 lacks uwb, 45w, a 1440p display, has a lower amount of ram and storage. Why? Why can’t the s24 have faster charging or uwb? Why is there no 512 version and why does it have to start with 128gb storage? Is it not a flagship? It costs 949€ in my place! Why do I have to give 200€ more to get the s24+ just to get these simple features? I don’t want a bigger phone! Google does the same! No uwb, no thermometer sensor, no telephoto lens. And don’t get me started with all the software features google is keeping for the 8 pro like they don’t have the same processor. Why? Are they cheap? No they are not. I’m just really annoyed by this cause I really don’t want such a big phone.
Apple has different design tradeoffs, they use smaller camera modules than Samsung, at least compared to the last few Samsung models, for example. They also tend to use smaller batteries, and charge them slower, requiring less cooling components. They also design more of their components in-house than other manufacturers, allowing them more efficient use of space. Their RF also tends to be inferior to Samsung, trading antenna design for space. Apple also uses inferior cooling solutions, relying on software thermal throttling to cut down on the physical size of the device. The whole trade-off of what can be fit in that smaller space is something each manufacturer has to make per model.
Optical zoom will always be superior to digital from the perspective of getting focused light onto a sensor, it’s just science. Digital methods will indeed continue to improve, I’ll leave most of that philosophical debate to those more passionate about camera tech, however. They’re definitely leveraging the new coprocessor to enable better image processing, in the same way Google leveraged their ML coprocessor to improve pictures out of Pixels a few generations back. Companies think software processing of images can “work around” image quality that requires physical hardware. (Look at Samsung Moongate.) It results in images that may end up being visually pleasing, but as for image quality, that’s debatable. (Zoom in on a Samsung zoomed picture of a pine tree for example, the way it tries to contrast/filter/process the branches makes them look like some 1990s Photoshop unsharp mask filter job meant for newsprint.)
Good conversation.