Comment by BigBubbleButt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by BigBubbleButt | Hacker News Reader

I've always found it odd nobody, specifically Samsung or Sony (since Sony already makes their own high-end CMOS sensors), doesn't ship a phone with a slightly superior sensor?

Yes, I get the unit economics of it (at least I think I do, I've never worked in the phone industry so that could easily be hubris on my part), but if you can spend an extra few dollars or even tens of dollars on your BOM for something that is clearly, objectively a better camera to everything else out there I don't see how Samsung couldn't trivially add a minimum $200 markup just for that.

And you don't even need that. You could add a sensor that's just a few dollars more expensive at scale - it seems the margins are trivially there since that would easily justify a $50 markup. I realize the optics also matter, but at this point it's really the sensors limiting the phones, not the cheap glass.

In an industry where everyone is struggling for an edge, it just seems painfully obvious to do this to me. I look forward to someone more knowledgeable telling me why all my assumptions are wrong though (I mean that literally, no snark intended!).

What do you mean by "slightly superior sensor"? Do you assume that there exist (or someone could produce with today's technology) sensors that are "objectively" better that the current phone sensors?

In my opinion the limiting factor in phone cameras is the size. Of course, for a given size a cheap, crappy sensor will give crappy results. But I wouldn't be surprised that sensors used in flagship phones are actually pretty close to the state of the art.

The issue with the size is that if you increase it for the sensor, you're going to have to increase it for the optics. In an era where manufacturers are convinced we want paper-thin devices, they're going to have to choose the one over the other.

I think he's postulating that the sensor+phone manufacturers could give themselves an edge by only selling less-than-top-of-the-line sensors to their competitors.

OK, I didn't read it like that. My reading was more along the lines of "manufacturers are cheap, when they could pay extra for a better sensor and mark up their product accordingly".

Unfortunately I don't remember where this was, but I read that the way Sony is setup they couldn't really do it.

This was related to "actual cameras", not phone cameras, but the article's point was that "Sony sensors" was a separate division, and Sony Cameras would be their client, just as, say, Nikon.

Nikon was supposedly taking part in the design of the sensors Sony would manufacture for them and this design was only to be used for Nikon. So if some engineer came up with some revolutionary idea, at least in theory, Sony cameras wouldn't be able to use it.

Not sure if this is the case with the phones, too, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least Apple took a similar approach with this.

I think it's a great idea to have a camera that is also a phone, rather than the other way around. I wouldn't care if it was an inch thick instead of a quarter inch if it had the actual best camera built in.

The biggest issue for low light is sensor size. Smaller sensors means more noise, and that noise is smoothed out with computational photography. That's why most manufacturers are going for more discrete sensors with different lenses, instead. Samsung does have a "periscope" design for the super tele in their latest phone that mounts the sensor vertically. Lenses are more important than sensor for sharpness, and there's obviously not a ton of room in these phones to put big lenses. Camera bumps are already growing quite large.

I don't think attempts at specifically photo-optimized smartphones have done that well when it was tried, and at least Sony is probably happy having their sensors in everyone elses high-end phones (which I think is the case). And in the form-factor of a normal high-end phone it's probably not just "just use a more expensive sensor", the top models likely are already near the top of what's possible sensor-wise.

What’s the point of winning the camera game just for one generation? 808 PureView did absolutely nothing in saving Nokia.

My take is that it's easier to sell parts to manufacturers who bear the expense of marketing.

Certain iPhones were manufactured by Samsung, cameras for a long time were almost exclusively supplied by Sony.

I guess someone ran the number on that and figured it would make more sense financially.

Tldr: Because Camera alone doesn't sell.

The Long answer. Adding a decent camera sensor also requires you market the crap out of it. And as shown by Huawei and Samsung, longer Zoom sells better than better sensor or image quality. For 90% of customers Flagship Smartphone Camera quality is good enough or fast approaching good enough. Zoom level makes lots of difference.

And that is assuming Sony's Smartphone overall are anywhere as good as its competitor such as Samsung and Huawei. I have no idea whether that is the case, but Sony's Smartphone sales are dismal in numbers. [1]

And finally, as far as I can tell, both Sony and Samsung are innovating like crazy to produce the best small sensor. There just isn't a super great small sensors sitting there waiting for others to pick up for additional $20 more. And if Sony decade to withhold those tech from Apple, Samsung will capture those market shares.

[1] If you look at overall annual shipment, Huawei, Samsung, Apple, Chinese Brands ( Xiaomi, Oppo, OnePlus, RealMe, Vivo etc.. ) They are 90+% of the market.

It probably depends on what scale these parts can be provided on. It is possible that for a digital camera the supply capability could meet the demands but would struggle with the volume required for a phone.

Samsung, Huawei, Sony, Apple, they're always trying to put the best and latest sensors on their phones.

Huawei was a leader to put larger sensor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com