10 ms·
Can someone explain to me how Apple can justify only including a 720p FaceTime HD camera into the "the world’s best pro notebook"? The last iPhone that had thi
by insta_anon 7y ago
Can someone explain to me how Apple can justify only including a 720p FaceTime HD camera into the "the world’s best pro notebook"?
The last iPhone that had this FaceTime camera was the 6S, released in 2015. Since the iPhone 7 (2016) the phones have had at least a 1080p FaceTime camera. Given that FaceTime / Skype calls are such a common use case and rarely anyones uses external webcams anymore, why doesn't Apple use the existing camera system of the iPhone 11 for the MacBook?
Seriously, if I pay north of $4000 dollars for a laptop, why do I get an obsolete camera?
- macintux 7y agoA phone camera is used to capture moments you want to preserve for posterity. A laptop camera is used for conference calls and no one needs to see all my facial flaws in 4K detail. So, no, I don’t consider this in any way to be a dealbreaker.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago'Posterity' is a stretch? Snapchat would dispute that. In fact, if a phone really wanted to take good pictures (and not just market 'megapixels') they'd have focus, light balance, shutter speed controls. About all they can do is take still portraits.
- tantalor 7y agoSnapchat is a terrible example; they don't actually use the camera to take pictures, they just take a screenshot of the camera on-screen view. https://www.techjunkie.com/snapchat-compress-photo-quality/ https://www.techjunkie.com/snapchat-compress-photo-quality/
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago...and that's how people use their phone cameras. Very low-quality; very temporary.
- macintux 7y agoNot everyone.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoSnapchat has 170M daily users as of 2019.
- read_if_gay_ 7y agoAnd how many daily users do you think the Camera app has?
- bvda 7y agoNot surprisingly so if you've worked with Android's Camera(2) APIs
- kalleboo 7y ago> if a phone really wanted to take good pictures (and not just market 'megapixels') they'd have focus, light balance, shutter speed controls Any high-end smartphone can manually control the focus, white balance, shutter speed and shoot RAW. On the iPhone you need a third-party app to access it, but plenty of Android devices include that in their default camera.
- move-on-by 7y agoI think you missed the point when you compared a $4000 laptop to a phone that tops out at $1,500 (which actually comes with 4 cameras)
- macintux 7y agoNot at all. A laptop and a phone have different needs. I’m never, and I truly mean never, going to use a laptop to take a quality photo. Why should Apple put a top of the line camera on it? Is the new Mac Pro worth less because it doesn’t have a camera at all?
- insta_anon 7y agoJust to be clear, I don't think Apple should put a back facing camera into their laptops. However, they should consider updating the FaceTime camera as it is regularly used by most people.
- scarface74 7y agoIn that case why don’t they have a back facing camera with three lenses and a flash just in case someone wants to take a picture on vacation with their MacBooks? I guess they should also have an accelerometer, a gyroscope and a gps chip just in case I need to use it for directions....
- lowercased 7y agocause they want them to buy an iPhone as well, and iCloud sync to the MacBook.
- jmull 7y ago> no one needs to see all my facial flaws in 4K detail Exactly. I would prefer a 200p camera.
- clarkmoody 7y agoTack on a piece of mostly-transparent tape, to give your video calls that authentic softened look.
- mizzao 7y agoBut that's what video post-processing is for. You can do all the touch-ups in real time in software.
- calcifer 7y ago> But that's what video post-processing is for. You can do all the touch-ups in real time in software. Really? Which button do I click on Zoom or Hangouts or Skype to make that happen?
- realityking 7y agoZoom has a “Touch up my appearance” setting https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115002595343-Touch-Up-My-Appearance https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115002595343-Touch... Don’t know about the other two.
- zaroth 7y agoReality comes at you fast! Their marketing for the feature was a bit dodgy, but overall it’s pretty smart. People will choose the conferencing software which presents them in the best light, and if you don’t think it matters, even subconsciously, to the people watching then you’re missing out on a potential advantage. Such a wonderful slippery slope, but technology is disruptive that way.
- lightedman 7y agoYou tell the programs to use FaceRig as the camera input device, and FaceRig gets your actual camera input.
- fnordsensei 7y agoWhen doing user research (and I for one reason or another don't have other/better equipment around), I've used the MacBook as camera, mic, and screen recorder, when applicable (attaching a non-Apple mouse, of course, because those things are bonkers). In these situations, a higher resolution camera wouldn't hurt. A better mic is higher priority though, so I'm happy to see that in the specs.
- pier25 7y ago> A laptop camera is used for conference calls And youtube videos. I agree that 4K can be considered excessive, but 1080p would be the appropriate resolution in 2019 for a high end machine.
- lostgame 7y agoI agree. 4K is not necessary but at least 1080p would be nice.
- enraged_camel 7y agoI think if you're the type of person that records youtube videos regularly, chances are you probably already own an external camera with specialized functionality.
- CathedralBorrow 7y agoWhat if you record YouTube videos sporadically?
- BigJ1211 7y agoEven then you likely want something better than a webcam, those cams are of such poor quality. Even if you get a Logitech C930 you're paying a lot for relatively little. They're not really meant (they certainly can be used for it though) recording as much as they are for streaming/conference purposes. Image quality there isn't nearly as important as it is for recordings. A cheap camcorder will likely give you a much better image quality. Or hell, get one of those LED rings that you can mount your phone in and you're better off.
- computerex 7y agoHow does that address the original point in anyway? This laptop's base price is almost $4000 USD. That's a lot of money to spend on a laptop and one would hope that it'd at least come with a decent webcam.
- 7y ago
- heedlessly3 7y agoAt a $2400 price point. You should get a 1080p camera included regardless of your use. If you don't want that much detail on a webcam, you should have a setting to turn it down to 480p or something. But higher quality should the ceiling. Besides some people vlog and want that type of quality on facetime
- hugi 7y agoAt a $2,400 price point I expect a usable computer. I sincerely don't care about the camera - there's a 4K one in my pocket that interfaces instantly with my computer.
- pc86 7y agoYou can build a usable computer for $500, honestly anything above $1,000 with a camera should have a 1080p camera.
- heedlessly3 7y agoAt a $2400, other users want high quality video. The computer should have the option for both audiences. Don't want high quality, fine just turn the setting down.
- whywhywhywhy 7y agoThe Facetime camera isn't remotely at the quality level a 2019 laptop should have. Even the $400 Surface Go has a better quality camera.
- heavyset_go 7y ago> So, no, I don’t consider this in any way to be a dealbreaker. There are plenty of premium and luxury laptops at that price point that have HD cameras, and they don't prevent you from running unauthorized software[1]. Even the Surface has better cameras. [1] https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=09032019a https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=09032019a
- pbasista 7y ago> I don’t consider this in any way to be a dealbreaker. Fair enough. But for some people it might be. It is much more comfortable to perform video calls via laptop than via phone because a phone typically needs to be held in position manually. Therefore, I believe that most people would, if given a choice, prefer to use a laptop for video calls. Also, people might actually want their video to have high resolution. For whatever reason. Even to show their facial flaws. Not providing them an option to do that, despite the fact that the required hardware is cheap and available, is an unnecessary restriction. Finally, if a high resolution camera was included and someone would not want to use that high resolution, they can simply switch the camera to a lower resolution mode.
- PretzelFisch 7y agoFor the pro line I would expect something I could just use to record video of me doing training or youtube reviews(at least in a crunch). I don't think it's too much to ask for at this price point. If I want to do the video editing it would be simple at times to use it for voice and video recording as well.
- le3dh4x0r 7y agoCringe
- jobvandervoort 7y agoIt makes no sense. I use a $100 Logitech Webcam and _regularly_ get comments about how sharp and clear the video is, using Zoom. There's value in a better camera, even in laptops.
- jagged-chisel 7y agoIs there value beyond the compliments you receive? (I apologize for this sounding snarky - I am genuinely curious)
- jobvandervoort 7y agoFair question, and I think yes! If you mainly do your meetings remotely (which I do), you want your interactions to be as high-bandwidth as possible. There is value, and data, in real world interactions that is lost quickly in video calls. The lower latency, the higher the resolution and quality of the audio, the more you approximate a 'real' meeting. This is way beyond baseline requirements for e.g. remote work, but it's _nice_, just as a slightly bigger screen is _nice_.
- pi-rat 7y agoWho would you prefer doing daily standups or long stretches of remote pair programming with? The one with the low resolution, low contrast, washed out, low fps video that makes it hard to read emotion or even detect where his/her attention is? Or the one with sharp features, pleasant colour rendition, high resolution, and maybe even a pretty bokeh in the background? Humans love pretty pictures. See OKCupids[1] image analysis vs attractiveness for example. Shallow DOF = More attractive. See also hanselman's[2] thoughts on the matter of having a high quality setup for remote work. [1]: https://theblog.okcupid.com/dont-be-ugly-by-accident-b378f261dea4 https://theblog.okcupid.com/dont-be-ugly-by-accident-b378f26... [2]: https://www.hanselman.com/blog/GoodBetterBestCreatingTheUltimateRemoteWorkerWebcamSetupOnABudget.aspx https://www.hanselman.com/blog/GoodBetterBestCreatingTheUlti...
- the_hoser 7y agoNeither. We usually turn the cameras off to hide the fact that none of us got dressed that morning.
- abtinf 7y agoI wish they would take advantage of the thickness of the panel to make a bigger camera with a bigger lens. I don’t care about resolution at all, but I suspect conference call image quality might increase dramatically if it the lens could gather double the light.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoSame issue with the super weak bluetooth antennae in macbooks. My iphone6's bluetooth antennae lets me walk all over the house while listening to something with my headphones (an essential modern experience!) while my $2000+ macbook pro will barely let me leave the room without losing connection. Wifi antennae too. On bad internet, my laptop cannot even connect to a wap that my phone can, so I'll tether my phone to get internet. I want my laptop to be a portable powerhouse of connectivity too!
- dan-robertson 7y agoI don’t think Apple improved the front facing cameras on phones because of face time. I think it was because selfies became popular. Perhaps better cameras would be thicker than screen currently has room for? I don’t really know how thick they would be.
- Invictus0 7y agoCamera quality is far from the biggest issue in videocalling. I can't even get the video to stream all the time at reduced resolution.
- floatingatoll 7y agoI wish I could downgrade my desktop camera to a 720p camera for the increased privacy of the narrower field of view.
- Ambroos 7y agoCould it be a limitation in thickness? Laptop display assemblies are thin, which means you need a very small lens and as a result probably can only fit a very small sensor. There's a lot more room for camera modules in phones.
- jjcm 7y agoThat’s my guess as well. If you look at ifixit’s iPhone 11 tear down, the selfie camera takes up almost the full thickness of the phone[1]. The lid of the MacBook is much thinner. People are mentioning the front facing cameras of the surface are better, but they have much more depth to work with. I’m still disappointed the camera res hasn’t improved for almost a decade now, but I suspect you’re right in that the thinness of the lid is the limiting factor. [1] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+11+Pro+Max+Teardown/126000 https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+11+Pro+Max+Teardown/1... BBC’s
- lalos 7y agoCould be that they are not ready to support that amount of spike in traffic in their FaceTime services, so it's a way to limit it by not beefing up the cameras.
- pi-rat 7y agoMost of that traffic is probably peer to peer (they use ICE), you only really need traffic relays for a few degenerative NAT cases.
- _ph_ 7y agoWhen talking about a camera for video conferencing, having especial high resolutions does not matter. Having good quality 720p (sharp, little noise) is way better than having bad full HD. Even TV in 720p holds up pretty well on large screens as long as the source is good quality.
- jakobegger 7y agoUnfortunately the cameras in Macbooks are not of the "good quality 720p" kind. They make blurry images with lots of noise, have poor low light performance, and the colors don't look right. Facetime on iPhones is a lot better than Facetime on Macbooks
- ssully 7y agoGoing to join others by saying I wouldn't want a higher resolution, and would actually prefer no camera. I got a new Dell Latitude last year, that when speced out, is probably in line with the Macbook Pro lineup, and it has similar camera specs.
- bhauer 7y agoThere's a lot of Good-Enoughism and Apple apologism in the responses to your question, even though you never said this was a deal-breaker. You are fairly asking why this particular corner was cut for costs, and it does seem a weird place to save a few bucks when, as you say, the price is ~$4,000. For what it's worth, the front and rear cameras on Microsoft's Surface products are both high-quality and it's generally a pleasure to do video conferences with Surface users. As some others here have pointed out, it's not necessary to have a high-quality video stream—it's not necessary to have video at all—but it's a better user experience to have a more life-like image of the people you're speaking with. In a group conference in particular, the oddball with the low-resolution 720 web-cam does stick out, looking like a relic from 10 years ago. Especially with a high-fashion status symbol such as an Apple laptop, that's an awkward position to be in.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago>You are fairly asking why this particular corner was cut for costs, and it does seem a weird place to save a few bucks when, as you say, the price is ~$4,000. Because the marginal cost of a better camera doesn't yield a sufficient increase in marginal revenue.
- bhauer 7y agoI wonder what their models predicted as marginal revenue of the touchbar and butterfly keyboard mechanisms, and how that compared to their marginal cost.
- allover 7y agoThere are the features a company "tries" to innovate on, vs those they consider uninteresting and just try to find a quality/cost balance.
- erobbins 7y agoWell, those are 2 of the 3 reasons I got a surface instead of a new MacBook when my 2013 finally died. Regular USB was the 3rd (and least important)
- jakobmi 7y agoI would AT LEAST expect 1080p. That's a huge bummer in the year 2020, when even my phone can do 4K. Conferences and Facebook livestreams just don't work with 720p :(
- munificent 7y agoThe camera is in the screen half of the laptop, which is thinner than your phone.
- fastball 7y agoI envy your internet connection where the limiting factor is the quality of the camera and not the speed of your internet, which ends up compressing the video massively anyway.
- pkulak 7y agoThey are probably not willing to sacrifice low-light performance and dynamic range for resolution. When you only have a few millimeters to work with, you can't make the sensor larger without making the lens wider, and no one wants a fish-eye for a web cam.
- _coveredInBees 7y agoI suspect it is related to them pushing a much thinner bezel to squeeze in a 16" screen in a 15" chassis. If true, I'd happily accept that tradeoff since screen realestate is far more important to me than a jump from 720p to 1080p for my webcam.
- egwor 7y agoI hadn't realised until you said that this is the same physical size as the 15" MacBook Pro. This is very cool. I care very little about the webcam...
- savrajsingh 7y agoIt's a fair point. If the camera were better, no one would be saying, "It's a great laptop, but the front facing camera, at 1080p, is excessive. I can't believe they did that." So I'm not sure why there are all these people trying to justify a low-res camera in these comments. :)
- callalex 7y agoFor a given sensor size, increased pixel density has to decrease low light performance, because each pixel will get less light. Since this camera will be almost exclusively used for online video confrerencing, frequently in low light, I bet it will lead to an overall better user experience.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]