[johndough]

USB 2.0 at 200 MBps sounds like a serious limitation. 1080P is of course more than sufficient for the average video conference, but it seems kind of wasteful to use a 48MP sensor and then discarding most of the information, followed by lossy compression.

[solardev]

A large sensor isn't just for raw megapixels (which are arguably kinda useless in a video conference where most people are tiny parts of the gallery anyway), but the image quality and light sensitivity and such should all be a lot better. It's better that they use the large sensor and onboard signal processing to interpolate a denoise a good 1080p frame than the opposite -- most webcams cram too many pixels into a tiny sensor and give you a large but shitty video. Many good cell phone cameras do the same thing (start with an oversized 48MP sensor, but interpolate it to give you a high-quality 12MP one; only a few let you access the raw unprocessed 48MP stream).

200 Mbps should be more than enough to stream good quality video. YouTube suggests 40 Mbps for 4k@60Hz (compressed) https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en#