Front Facing Cameras a requirement on phone?
Someone on Twitter today posted this:
And I had to think on this. Firstly, justifying the statement with Skype is bonkers. I rarely Skype, and when I do it is usually on a laptop or tablet. The issue is adding Skype to the debate causes 2 problems; it makes you think it is the primary reason for the argument and it is effectively making the argument that every phone Microsoft produces should support every possible feature from every possible business unit. THAT is ridiculous. Not the lack of a front camera.
But, having said that, I would say that the argument, otherwise, isn't baseless. I don't fully agree with it either. For me, I don't think front facing cameras are required in all phones, I also don't think back facing cameras are required in all phone. I think price point is the key here. On a budget phone I think front facing cameras should take precedence over rear facing ones for instance. But for mid end phones rear facing cameras are higher priority and on flagship phones you should always have both.
And here is the rationale... on budget phones the rear cameras are sub-par anyway, and the target market is generally younger people with small budgets. Youth are generally more concerned with selfies. Front facing cameras also tend to get a pass for image quality. So, if your budget is constrained, it makes sense to put the cheap camera where you can get away with a cheap camera rather than investing in a sub-par back camera. Reviewers would tear this to pieces, and consumers likely wouldn't accept it either, but from an objective standpoint it makes a ton of sense.
On a mid-range phone you can afford to put half-decent camera tech on the back of the phone. Also, not many people opt for the mid-range phones anyway. Putting a cheap front facing one in as well may get a phone worse reviews than simply not having one. Also, in the mid-range, not many people buy. People either want the cheapest or buy top of the line subsidized phones. Mid-range is probably going to more often be people buying phones outright who don't want bottom of the line and can't afford/justify top of the line. This is bound to be a more mature, less image centric crowd and selfies aren't likely to be a top priority. And again Skype is just a terrible reason.
Last is high end phones. This one is easy. Flagship phones need to have everything. You're charging top dollar, you need to give as many features as you can and they need to be using quality hardware.
I wholeheartedly disagree that every phone needs a front facing camera and I object even more to the notion that owning Skype implies a need for supported hardware. But I agree budget phones are one place where front facing phones are very important.
@thurrott To put out a phone with no front camera is ridiculous, EVEN MORE SO when you are the owner of SKYPE! pic.twitter.com/FAeskFnB6e
— Lion Lamb (@LionandLamb) February 23, 2015
And I had to think on this. Firstly, justifying the statement with Skype is bonkers. I rarely Skype, and when I do it is usually on a laptop or tablet. The issue is adding Skype to the debate causes 2 problems; it makes you think it is the primary reason for the argument and it is effectively making the argument that every phone Microsoft produces should support every possible feature from every possible business unit. THAT is ridiculous. Not the lack of a front camera.
But, having said that, I would say that the argument, otherwise, isn't baseless. I don't fully agree with it either. For me, I don't think front facing cameras are required in all phones, I also don't think back facing cameras are required in all phone. I think price point is the key here. On a budget phone I think front facing cameras should take precedence over rear facing ones for instance. But for mid end phones rear facing cameras are higher priority and on flagship phones you should always have both.
And here is the rationale... on budget phones the rear cameras are sub-par anyway, and the target market is generally younger people with small budgets. Youth are generally more concerned with selfies. Front facing cameras also tend to get a pass for image quality. So, if your budget is constrained, it makes sense to put the cheap camera where you can get away with a cheap camera rather than investing in a sub-par back camera. Reviewers would tear this to pieces, and consumers likely wouldn't accept it either, but from an objective standpoint it makes a ton of sense.
On a mid-range phone you can afford to put half-decent camera tech on the back of the phone. Also, not many people opt for the mid-range phones anyway. Putting a cheap front facing one in as well may get a phone worse reviews than simply not having one. Also, in the mid-range, not many people buy. People either want the cheapest or buy top of the line subsidized phones. Mid-range is probably going to more often be people buying phones outright who don't want bottom of the line and can't afford/justify top of the line. This is bound to be a more mature, less image centric crowd and selfies aren't likely to be a top priority. And again Skype is just a terrible reason.
Last is high end phones. This one is easy. Flagship phones need to have everything. You're charging top dollar, you need to give as many features as you can and they need to be using quality hardware.
I wholeheartedly disagree that every phone needs a front facing camera and I object even more to the notion that owning Skype implies a need for supported hardware. But I agree budget phones are one place where front facing phones are very important.
Comments
Post a Comment