[teleclimber]

If linux phones are going to be a thing (pinephone, librem) they'll need great cameras and excellent image processing software t be even somewhat competitive with Google Pixels and iPhones and Samsungs.

Given how hard other manufacturers try and fail to make equally good cameras, it's going to be a steep climb for the open source community too.

So far I am not seeing much work being done in that space. Maybe this is a start?

I want an open non-spying phone but it's going to be hard to let go of the amazing camera in my pocket now (Pixel 3a).

[megous]

Not sure why you'd need a great camera in a phone. Normal sensor will be just fine for most use cases. I have a phone without a camera, and I don't miss it either.

It's much easier and better to use a camcoder to capture video. Easier to hold in your hand, easier to handle, less shaking, physical buttons, wrist strap, more control, larger sensor, faster to turn on and start recording, etc. I'd never exchange it for a phone for this purpose.

[catalogia]

> "If linux phones are going to be a thing (pinephone, librem) they'll need great cameras and excellent image processing software t be even somewhat competitive with Google Pixels and iPhones and Samsungs."

Couldn't they just find another niche? I think relatively few consumers know anything about photography. Even a proper professional DSLR would be useless to me because I know next to nothing about photography and tools don't make the artist. No picture I've ever taken has any artistic merit or technical merit.

Of course, good camera software is a good thing and for the segment of society that's enthused about photography it's going to be essential. I'm just not convinced it's the secret sauce to mass appeal.

Edit for response:

> Well, okay, what problem would you rather see them tackle?

I don't have such a preference. I expect volunteer developers will work on matters they find personally compelling. Those that find photography software compelling should pursue their passion.

[teleclimber]

The reason for a good camera is not to take artistic photography (although you can do that too and many do).

It's because people use that camera to record memories that they cherish. Just ask any new parent what happens to their phone's camera roll once number 1 pops out. Or ask young people to show you where they went on their last vacation: many times it'll be a bunch of cool shots taken on a phone.

These memories are priceless and having to record them with a device that is open but has the photo quality of a 5 year old device is not an attractive trade-off.

[jonas21]

> I think relatively few consumers know anything about photography.

That's precisely why you need good image processing software that works automatically. Nearly everybody wants to take great photos with their phone, but few people know how to configure everything themselves, and even those who do probably don't want to fiddle with every shot.

> Couldn't they just find another niche?

Well, okay, what problem would you rather see them tackle?

[sneak]

> Of course, good camera software is a good thing and for the segment of society that's enthused about photography it's going to be essential. I'm just not convinced it's the secret sauce to mass appeal.

We already have the hard data: almost without exception, people who use phones want their phones to take nice pictures.

For reasoning about camera software, it is entirely reasonable to assume that “the segment of society that is enthused about photography” is basically the exact same segment as “people who have phones”.

If you don’t believe me, show me a popular smartphone that doesn’t have a camera. :)

[catalogia]

I can show you a lot of people who rarely if ever use their smartphones to take pictures, and more still who primarily take pictures for utilitarian purposes (such as preserving the information on a whiteboard before erasing it, remembering where they parked their car, etc.) So I definitely don't agree that "owns a phone" and "enthused about photography" are basically the same groups of people. The former is much larger than the later.

> If you don’t believe me, show me a popular smartphone that doesn’t have a camera. :)

I can show you plenty that lack good cameras... I don't think that's a compelling argument anyway. iphones have barometers but that doesn't mean everybody who owns one cares about their altitude or predicting the weather.

[cameronbrown]

I really don't know how you could come to this opinion. Instagram/Snapchat are literally entire social networks built around photos.

You don't need to be enthused about photography to care about preserving memories either.

From personal experience camera quality is far more important than any other spec (except maybe the display) for the vast majority of people.

[thatfrenchguy]

> such as preserving the information on a whiteboard before erasing it, remembering where they parked their car, etc.) So I definitely don't agree that "owns a phone

You’re an engineer that doesn’t go on a lot of vacations then. My mom can see the difference between the photo quality of her iPhone 6 and my dad’s iPhone 11, and she’s everything but an expert.

[kick]

If linux phones are going to be a thing (pinephone, librem) they'll need great cameras and excellent image processing software t be even somewhat competitive with Google Pixels and iPhones and Samsungs.

This is a view without nuance.

Lots of people don't use, or only rarely use, a phone camera. It also implies that [GNU|other-free]/Linux "winning" a substantial share of the market is a plausible (or even desirable) outcome.

[GNU|other-free]/Linux is a terrible phone operating system for the majority of people. I say this as a person who has a PinePhone that's about to ship (and is planning on using it as my daily driver). I also take hundreds of pictures a year. The trick to solve the camera problem is just buying a good camera that isn't your phone.

If [GNU|other-free]/Linux gets 10% of the phone operating system market, the amount of malware (both in the literal sense and the Stallmanic sense) written for it will skyrocket. That's certainly not desirable, and at that point it's more or less an Android clone, which defeats the point.

The "average" user doesn't understand that they shouldn't download software from any website that offers it, for example. Android is already bad at sandboxing and keeping less-technical users safe. Imagine if less-technical users got their hands on a mobile [GNU|other-free]/Linux distribution. Chaos.

By foregoing a high-quality camera, it limits the market share of a device like this. That's good! Non-technical users should be kept very far away from it until it's baby-proofed or education improves. Anything else will harm them.

Freeing them is a good goal, but it probably won't come first, and probably won't come for a while. It's especially not something that should have the roadmap shifted around to match.

(The separation between "Linux" and "OS/Linux" is relevant here, because without it, there's no distinction between it and Android.)

[fortyseven]

> Lots of people don't use, or only rarely use, a phone camera.

Huh...? This couldn't be further from the truth. They may not be terribly picky about the technical details about them, but actual human beings take photos... all the damned time.

> The trick to solve the camera problem is just buying a good camera that isn't your phone.

Coupled with your other view on this, it's not worth discussing how ridiculously inconvenient that would be for what people take photos for: social media.

This may not reflect your own usage pattern, but it sure as hell is what real people do with their phones. Taking pictures of their casseroles and making duck lips with their friends.

[kick]

Twitter only has something like 70,000,000 active U.S. users, Facebook only has 244,000,000 in North America and Canada combined. That's nowhere near the entire U.S. population, and probably half of those take photos with their phones.

[cameronbrown]

You're forgetting the dozens and dozens of other social networks: Snapchat, Instagram, even email and SMS get heavy usage in the US.

[Iolaum]

> Android is already bad at sandboxing and keeping less-technical users safe.

Curious, can you name an OS that does a better job compared to android 10? (And maybe a TLDR comparison?)

[gbrown]

Any operating system that plans to stop supporting the hardware on devices worth hundreds of dollars (sometimes more) after a mere two to three years is deplorable in my book. I really dislike the iOS experience and its lack of customization, and I find the disposable upgrade cycle of Android phones incredibly wasteful.

Meanwhile, I'm happily running Fedora on a 2011 MBP with the latest security updates. I can't wait until Linux phones reach the level of support and security of laptops and desktops.

[kick]

All recent versions of iOS for both points.

An extremist version of the first point appears in Qubes, but Qubes doesn't really count as anything other than a research distribution.

TL;DRs aren't really helpful for this, but all three are pretty well documented.