2 ms·

I don’t understand this view. Theory 1: People treasure memories and have been let down by pictures tnat don’t age well from cheap film cameras, then early dig

I don’t understand this view. Theory 1: People treasure memories and have been let down by pictures tnat don’t age well from cheap film cameras, then early digital cameras, then phone cameras. Phones have gotten good enough to replace separate devices for most people, but the cameras are still not as versatile. People will spend money for incremental improvements because the payoff will last decades and benefit their children. Apple invests heavily in camera tech to satisfy this need, and in marketing to communicate the benefits. Theory 2: sheeple buy whatever marketing tells them to, those rubes don’t see any real benefit. I just don’t see how anyone who enjoys even casual photography could go for theory 2.

orev 2y ago
If phone cameras hadn’t changed over the past 10 years, most people would still be happy with the quality of photos taken. Most photos are never printed out or viewed on any device other than their phone. They may be poorly lit, composed badly, and be blurry, but they still serve their primary purpose for most people, which is to relive a memory. That function is the same whether the sensor is 2 or 48 megapixels. Newer tech of course looks better, and people can definitely tell the difference when comparing them side-by-side. But there’s also an element of the reality distortion field when it comes to convincing people that they need to upgrade from a two year old phone to the latest release just because of the camera upgrades.