M68000 said:

I guess I am biased, as I prefer a real camera and lens compared to tiny sensors and lens that a cellphone has.

You should obviously shoot with whatever makes you happy but great photography has always been about the eye behind the camera, not the hardware. Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh has now shot two feature films entirely on iPhone--not bad for "not a real camera" that doesn't have "real" lenses, huh? And per the phrase popularized by photographer Chase Jarvis for the title of his book, "The Best Camera Is the One That's with You," my iPhone is always with me when I'm out. All of Chase's photos in that now famous book, by the way, were shot with the original iPhone, which had a TWO megapixel camera. Like I said, it's the eye behind the camera that counts most. 

People also wildly underestimate the capabilities of the latest smartphones. I have a number of framed and stunning 13x19 prints in my living room and one 24x30, all enlarged from iPhone jpgs I shot, taken straight from camera, no filters, no post-processing at all, and the first question people ask when they see them is, "Wow, what camera did you use to shoot these?" They're blown away when I say "iPhone" because few people realize how capable it is when you have a decent photographic eye and know something about exposure adjustments, depth of field, choice of lens, etc. 

This is like an SNL satire commercial for iPhone: "And for iPhone 17, after years of research and development, we've even moved the logo!" (Cut to lab scenes of logo being "tested" in ridiculous positions.) So far we've got a "me, too" camera bar and a possible logo move. I'm guessing the iPhone presentation will largely be devoted to all the new technologies in the iPhone Air, blah, blah, which all adds up to a thinner, more expensive phone with the camera system of the 16e. Yay? By the way, here's the headline from a enthusiast site for Samsung phones, but the same story is pretty much everywhere:

Samsung is struggling to sell the Galaxy S25 Edge

Industry sources say that Galaxy S25 Edge sales are below expectations. So far, the phone doesn't seem to have attracted a large enough crowd to satisfy the Korean tech giant. It might be dangerously close to becoming an ambitious experiment that failed to post the expected results.

I would find this really alarming if I were Apple because I think new form factors tend to be a bigger driver of sales in Android world than they do for iPhone buyers, at least judging from the number of different Android form factors that are available. Apple, on the other hand, has had three sales failures in new form factors: the Mini, the Plus and the SE. I just don't see thinner + $$$$ + low end camera system being the formula for success in its fourth try.  

 

chasm said:

but it must be said it's (thus far) the best way to keep in touch with people you want to keep in touch with. 

Yeah, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. How about... Email? Texting? FaceTime? Phone call? Zoom cocktails? Meet ups in person? I ditched all Meta apps years ago and I have zero problem keeping up with the people who are important to me. Don't let "convenience" be your reason for contributing to Zuckerberg's businesses built on abuse of consumer privacy. 

anthogag said:

I don't use any services Meta offers and I get by just fine. People should dump all Meta services to protest Meta's relentless advance towards destroying data privacy. Meta is most likely feeding all the data they can get to further their AI research. Eventually they will try to use your data against you.   

AMEN. I cannot believe the idiots buying Meta's Dumb Glasses. Oh yes, sign me up to give the biggest corporate abuser of consumer privacy--a business for which abuse of consumer privacy is a foundation of its business model--complete access to what I see, say and hear in my life. Yeah, definitely, I wanna pay for that privilege. Meta Dumb Glasses no longer allow you to opt out of having your voice recordings stored on Meta servers--nothing nefarious about that!--and the same is true for video and still photographs unless you disable the "Hey, Meta..." voice activation, which of course puts a major hit on the useful functionality of the glasses. This is Meta's idea of "consumer choice" -- turn the product you just bought from us into near useless crap OR give us access to the cameras and allow us to store what you see, record and photograph. 

igorsky said:

Some of these comments are absolutely clueless. Car infotainment systems by and large SUCK. I own two Porsches and their infotainment systems are trash; I’d be using Ultra from day one. The digital dash on a Mercedes and Audi are an abortion…CarPlay Ultra would be a dramatic improvement. They know this and that’s why they’re blocking it. 

GM changed the game when--recognizing that car companies suck at infotainment--it partnered with Google to develop its own system and abandon support for both CarPlay and Android Auto. I was not only hoping this would fail in terms of car buyers rejecting the lack of support for these interfaces, but felt pretty sure it would--this seemed like a bridge too far, but I was wrong. GM sales haven't suffered at all. And this, not surprisingly, has opened the floodgates for other car companies to follow: partner with a tech company and develop your own system. Not only does this open the door to a consistent, new and ongoing revenue stream via subscriptions for the most desirable features, but it also provides what may be an even greater source of income: there is a ton of consumer data to be mined from inside a vehicle, which can be sliced, diced and sold off ad nauseam to interested third parties. And guess what? The million page EULA you hastily sign when picking up the car gives car companies the right to do that. 

I expect support for the limited, current version of CarPlay will continue here and there in new vehicles, but this is the beginning of the end for CarPlay Ultra. And Apple, with its core focus and marketing about maintaining consumer privacy, won't be part of designing a system that allows car makers to sell the data its system gathers. Google, which has never had an issue with profiting from the use and abuse of consumer data and privacy, feels no such contraints.