A phone camera is used to capture moments you want to preserve for posterity. A laptop camera is used for conference calls and no one needs to see all my facial flaws in 4K detail.
So, no, I don’t consider this in any way to be a dealbreaker.
I think if you're the type of person that records youtube videos regularly, chances are you probably already own an external camera with specialized functionality.
How does that address the original point in anyway? This laptop's base price is almost $4000 USD. That's a lot of money to spend on a laptop and one would hope that it'd at least come with a decent webcam.
You can't unilaterally claim what people do or do not care about, though. That's reverse rationalization. A 720p webcam is however, objectively, third class in 2019.
Even then you likely want something better than a webcam, those cams are of such poor quality. Even if you get a Logitech C930 you're paying a lot for relatively little. They're not really meant (they certainly can be used for it though) recording as much as they are for streaming/conference purposes. Image quality there isn't nearly as important as it is for recordings. A cheap camcorder will likely give you a much better image quality. Or hell, get one of those LED rings that you can mount your phone in and you're better off.
When doing user research (and I for one reason or another don't have other/better equipment around), I've used the MacBook as camera, mic, and screen recorder, when applicable (attaching a non-Apple mouse, of course, because those things are bonkers).
In these situations, a higher resolution camera wouldn't hurt. A better mic is higher priority though, so I'm happy to see that in the specs.
Reality comes at you fast! Their marketing for the feature was a bit dodgy, but overall it’s pretty smart. People will choose the conferencing software which presents them in the best light, and if you don’t think it matters, even subconsciously, to the people watching then you’re missing out on a potential advantage.
Such a wonderful slippery slope, but technology is disruptive that way.
In that case why don’t they have a back facing camera with three lenses and a flash just in case someone wants to take a picture on vacation with their MacBooks? I guess they should also have an accelerometer, a gyroscope and a gps chip just in case I need to use it for directions....
I guess this is more a rhetorical question as taking pictures with a back facing camera is an extreme^10 edge case while doing video calls with the FaceTime camera for most users is a daily or at least weekly occurrence.
Why not? Apple sells ~200M iPhones a year, so they already are ordering millions of FaceTime cameras for the iPhones. Why not buy 10M more of the same model and put them in the MacBooks?
Just to be clear, I don't think Apple should put a back facing camera into their laptops. However, they should consider updating the FaceTime camera as it is regularly used by most people.
For the pro line I would expect something I could just use to record video of me doing training or youtube reviews(at least in a crunch). I don't think it's too much to ask for at this price point. If I want to do the video editing it would be simple at times to use it for voice and video recording as well.
At a $2400 price point. You should get a 1080p camera included regardless of your use. If you don't want that much detail on a webcam, you should have a setting to turn it down to 480p or something. But higher quality should the ceiling. Besides some people vlog and want that type of quality on facetime
At a $2,400 price point I expect a usable computer. I sincerely don't care about the camera - there's a 4K one in my pocket that interfaces instantly with my computer.
At a $2400, other users want high quality video. The computer should have the option for both audiences. Don't want high quality, fine just turn the setting down.
> I don’t consider this in any way to be a dealbreaker.
Fair enough. But for some people it might be.
It is much more comfortable to perform video calls via laptop than via phone because a phone typically needs to be held in position manually. Therefore, I believe that most people would, if given a choice, prefer to use a laptop for video calls.
Also, people might actually want their video to have high resolution. For whatever reason. Even to show their facial flaws. Not providing them an option to do that, despite the fact that the required hardware is cheap and available, is an unnecessary restriction.
Finally, if a high resolution camera was included and someone would not want to use that high resolution, they can simply switch the camera to a lower resolution mode.
> So, no, I don’t consider this in any way to be a dealbreaker.
There are plenty of premium and luxury laptops at that price point that have HD cameras, and they don't prevent you from running unauthorized software[1].
'Posterity' is a stretch? Snapchat would dispute that.
In fact, if a phone really wanted to take good pictures (and not just market 'megapixels') they'd have focus, light balance, shutter speed controls. About all they can do is take still portraits.
> if a phone really wanted to take good pictures (and not just market 'megapixels') they'd have focus, light balance, shutter speed controls
Any high-end smartphone can manually control the focus, white balance, shutter speed and shoot RAW. On the iPhone you need a third-party app to access it, but plenty of Android devices include that in their default camera.
So, no, I don’t consider this in any way to be a dealbreaker.