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.

> A laptop camera is used for conference calls

And youtube videos.

I agree that 4K can be considered excessive, but 1080p would be the appropriate resolution in 2019 for a high end machine.

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.

Judging by the number of upvotes it got, I'd say it addresses the original point rather well.

The laptop is already expensive. You want to make it even more expensive by adding a webcam that will undouactually cares about that kind of thing?

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.

Isn't the base price 2400?

What if you record YouTube videos sporadically?

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.

I agree. 4K is not necessary but at least 1080p would be nice.

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.

> no one needs to see all my facial flaws in 4K detail

Exactly. I would prefer a 200p camera.

Tack on a piece of mostly-transparent tape, to give your video calls that authentic softened look.

But that's what video post-processing is for. You can do all the touch-ups in real time in software.

> But that's what video post-processing is for. You can do all the touch-ups in real time in software.

Really? Which button do I click on Zoom or Hangouts or Skype to make that happen?

Zoom has a “Touch up my appearance” setting https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/115002595343-Touch...

Don’t know about the other two.

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.

You tell the programs to use FaceRig as the camera input device, and FaceRig gets your actual camera input.

I think you missed the point when you compared a $4000 laptop to a phone that tops out at $1,500 (which actually comes with 4 cameras)

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.

It’s not that I don’t think the criticism is valid about the camera, it’s just the idea of saying it should have the same hardware as a phone

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?

cause they want them to buy an iPhone as well, and iCloud sync to the MacBook.

That’s the only reason not to have a gyroscope on your laptop?

For $4000, it should be waterproof and come with a bodysuit for surfing the web, WHILE I'm surfing in the ocean. It's all related stuff.

Not at all. A laptop and a phone have different needs. I’m never, and I truly mean never, going to use a laptop to take a quality photo.

Why should Apple put a top of the line camera on it? Is the new Mac Pro worth less because it doesn’t have a camera at all?

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

The Facetime camera isn't remotely at the quality level a 2019 laptop should have. Even the $400 Surface Go has a better quality camera.

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.

You can build a usable computer for $500, honestly anything above $1,000 with a camera should have a 1080p camera.

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].

Even the Surface has better cameras.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=09032019a

Cringe

'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.

Snapchat is a terrible example; they don't actually use the camera to take pictures, they just take a screenshot of the camera on-screen view.

https://www.techjunkie.com/snapchat-compress-photo-quality/

Not surprisingly so if you've worked with Android's Camera(2) APIs

...and that's how people use their phone cameras. Very low-quality; very temporary.

Not everyone.

Snapchat has 170M daily users as of 2019.

And how many daily users do you think the Camera app has?

189 Million

That’s the estimated US iPhone install base. Apple said it was above 900M globally in January.

> 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.

There's a lot of Good-Enoughism and Apple apologism in the responses to your question, even though you never said this was a deal-breaker. You are fairly asking why this particular corner was cut for costs, and it does seem a weird place to save a few bucks when, as you say, the price is ~$4,000.

For what it's worth, the front and rear cameras on Microsoft's Surface products are both high-quality and it's generally a pleasure to do video conferences with Surface users. As some others here have pointed out, it's not necessary to have a high-quality video stream—it's not necessary to have video at all—but it's a better user experience to have a more life-like image of the people you're speaking with. In a group conference in particular, the oddball with the low-resolution 720 web-cam does stick out, looking like a relic from 10 years ago. Especially with a high-fashion status symbol such as an Apple laptop, that's an awkward position to be in.

To be honest, I am also really surprised by the apologism and the creative possible reasons that people come up with (e.g. "Apple couldn't handle the traffic the increased resolution would cause"). But you're right, I didn't say it is a dealbreaker for me and it actually isn't. It is still very likely that I buy this machine - yet stuff like this bothers me, especially at the price point that Apple is commanding.

Imagine buying the top of the class Mercedes S-Class only to find out that the steering wheel is far worse than the ones that Mercedes uses in other models - you'd somehow feel cheated.

The number of Apple apologists on Hacker News is really jarring indeed. I don't think it's too much to expect a decent 1080p webcam on a ~$4000 USD laptop touted to be "the best notebook" and for professional use.

The number of Apple haters on Hacker News is also really jarring indeed.

One might accuse me of being the “apologist” you speak of (IDGAF), but if you’re correct we live in bubbles even here on HN, it’s much better and more honest if we don’t pretend the other doesn’t exist.

Sure, there are probably Apple haters here too. Never said there aren't. But given that this is supposed to be a community of technically inclined people it's really bizarre to see people make incredibly silly excuses for a ~$4000 machine.

Steering wheel analogy seems a little too much, but how about an S-Class with a tiny rear-view mirror? You use it occasionally, and it is useable, but at that price you'd expect something a little better.

>You are fairly asking why this particular corner was cut for costs, and it does seem a weird place to save a few bucks when, as you say, the price is ~$4,000.

Because the marginal cost of a better camera doesn't yield a sufficient increase in marginal revenue.

I wonder what their models predicted as marginal revenue of the touchbar and butterfly keyboard mechanisms, and how that compared to their marginal cost.

Well, those are 2 of the 3 reasons I got a surface instead of a new MacBook when my 2013 finally died. Regular USB was the 3rd (and least important)

There are the features a company "tries" to innovate on, vs those they consider uninteresting and just try to find a quality/cost balance.

Maybe, but if I were designing this thing, both as an engineer or executive, it’d be a point of pride to me that the thing we advertise as the best laptop is actually the best laptop.

Especially if I know people are going to ask ‘wtf, why 720p’?

It makes no sense. I use a $100 Logitech Webcam and _regularly_ get comments about how sharp and clear the video is, using Zoom.

There's value in a better camera, even in laptops.

Is there value beyond the compliments you receive?

(I apologize for this sounding snarky - I am genuinely curious)

Who would you prefer doing daily standups or long stretches of remote pair programming with?

The one with the low resolution, low contrast, washed out, low fps video that makes it hard to read emotion or even detect where his/her attention is?

Or the one with sharp features, pleasant colour rendition, high resolution, and maybe even a pretty bokeh in the background?

Humans love pretty pictures. See OKCupids[1] image analysis vs attractiveness for example. Shallow DOF = More attractive.

See also hanselman's[2] thoughts on the matter of having a high quality setup for remote work.

[1]: https://theblog.okcupid.com/dont-be-ugly-by-accident-b378f26... [2]: https://www.hanselman.com/blog/GoodBetterBestCreatingTheUlti...

Neither. We usually turn the cameras off to hide the fact that none of us got dressed that morning.

We turn all that off because inevitably someone starts saying: I can't hear you guys, it's coming in robot voice, can you turn off the screen/video share?

It sounds like they don't have adequate internet to be working from home.

From home? I'm trying to work from whatever airport I am at. Video isn't that important but solid audio really is needed.

>the low resolution, low contrast, washed out, low fps video that makes it hard to read emotion or even detect where his/her attention is?

This is totally disingenuous. We're not comparing a 120p camera to a 1080p camera. We're comparing a sharp camera with great color rendition to a slightly higher resolution of the same camera.

Slightly offtopic - are there any webcams out there that can provide a shallow depth of field in realtime?

You can use a Black Magic Design Web Presenter which allows connecting 2 pro camera/lens setups via HDMI/SDI, and XLR mic inputs. It shows up as a USB webcam like normal.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicwebprese...

You can turn a Canon/Nikon DSLR into a webcam. Using SparkoCam.

So theoretically you can get a cheap old T3i + 50mm/1.8 and have a crazy good webcam with near-cinematic quality.

I was very excited by the idea. Ironically, it's only available on Windows.

You can do that on Linux too:

    modprobe v4l2loopback
    gphoto2 --stdout --capture-movie | ffmpeg -i - -vcodec rawvideo -pix_fmt yuv420p -threads 0 -f v4l2 /dev/video0

Not any good one that does it in hardware out of the box that I know of. There are mod kits for CS lenses for c920/930/brio, if you can live with a tighter shot. If you've an compatible RX100/A6000 or similar laying around, then an Elgato Cam Link like hanselman's setup above might be the easiest option.

https://www.elgato.com/en/gaming/cam-link-4k (1/5 the price of the blackmagic device above/below)

There's also some software "solutions", but I've no idea how good they are, probably not iPhone portrait mode quality.

I think the issue is that in most cases the problem isn’t the webcam, it’s the network that is carrying the stream.

Fair question, and I think yes! If you mainly do your meetings remotely (which I do), you want your interactions to be as high-bandwidth as possible.

There is value, and data, in real world interactions that is lost quickly in video calls. The lower latency, the higher the resolution and quality of the audio, the more you approximate a 'real' meeting.

This is way beyond baseline requirements for e.g. remote work, but it's _nice_, just as a slightly bigger screen is _nice_.

When doing conference calls with clients and vendors. We have high quality cameras in our conference rooms for a reason.

This is for audio, not video, as it's my "thing", but for the past year I've been doing all my video interviews with a Shure SM57 mic plugged into a nice preamp, into a good interface, and they've all gone much better than phone interviews. No one's ever said "wait, could you repeat that?" or "You're breaking up a bit". There's something to be said for smoothing out conferencing so it makes it more lifelike, and I'd assume that's even more true for video.

Or put another way, can you find any high-profile Twitch streamers using their integrated webcam/mic?

Could it be a limitation in thickness? Laptop display assemblies are thin, which means you need a very small lens and as a result probably can only fit a very small sensor. There's a lot more room for camera modules in phones.

That’s my guess as well. If you look at ifixit’s iPhone 11 tear down, the selfie camera takes up almost the full thickness of the phone[1]. The lid of the MacBook is much thinner. People are mentioning the front facing cameras of the surface are better, but they have much more depth to work with. I’m still disappointed the camera res hasn’t improved for almost a decade now, but I suspect you’re right in that the thinness of the lid is the limiting factor.

[1] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+11+Pro+Max+Teardown/1... BBC’s

When talking about a camera for video conferencing, having especial high resolutions does not matter. Having good quality 720p (sharp, little noise) is way better than having bad full HD. Even TV in 720p holds up pretty well on large screens as long as the source is good quality.

Unfortunately the cameras in Macbooks are not of the "good quality 720p" kind. They make blurry images with lots of noise, have poor low light performance, and the colors don't look right.

Facetime on iPhones is a lot better than Facetime on Macbooks

Same issue with the super weak bluetooth antennae in macbooks.

My iphone6's bluetooth antennae lets me walk all over the house while listening to something with my headphones (an essential modern experience!) while my $2000+ macbook pro will barely let me leave the room without losing connection.

Wifi antennae too. On bad internet, my laptop cannot even connect to a wap that my phone can, so I'll tether my phone to get internet.

I want my laptop to be a portable powerhouse of connectivity too!

I would AT LEAST expect 1080p. That's a huge bummer in the year 2020, when even my phone can do 4K. Conferences and Facebook livestreams just don't work with 720p :(

It's a fair point. If the camera were better, no one would be saying, "It's a great laptop, but the front facing camera, at 1080p, is excessive. I can't believe they did that." So I'm not sure why there are all these people trying to justify a low-res camera in these comments. :)

I wish they would take advantage of the thickness of the panel to make a bigger camera with a bigger lens. I don’t care about resolution at all, but I suspect conference call image quality might increase dramatically if it the lens could gather double the light.

They are probably not willing to sacrifice low-light performance and dynamic range for resolution. When you only have a few millimeters to work with, you can't make the sensor larger without making the lens wider, and no one wants a fish-eye for a web cam.

Camera quality is far from the biggest issue in videocalling. I can't even get the video to stream all the time at reduced resolution.

I don’t think Apple improved the front facing cameras on phones because of face time. I think it was because selfies became popular.

Perhaps better cameras would be thicker than screen currently has room for? I don’t really know how thick they would be.

For a given sensor size, increased pixel density has to decrease low light performance, because each pixel will get less light. Since this camera will be almost exclusively used for online video confrerencing, frequently in low light, I bet it will lead to an overall better user experience.

I suspect it is related to them pushing a much thinner bezel to squeeze in a 16" screen in a 15" chassis. If true, I'd happily accept that tradeoff since screen realestate is far more important to me than a jump from 720p to 1080p for my webcam.

I hadn't realised until you said that this is the same physical size as the 15" MacBook Pro. This is very cool. I care very little about the webcam...

The camera is in the screen half of the laptop, which is thinner than your phone.

I envy your internet connection where the limiting factor is the quality of the camera and not the speed of your internet, which ends up compressing the video massively anyway.

Going to join others by saying I wouldn't want a higher resolution, and would actually prefer no camera. I got a new Dell Latitude last year, that when speced out, is probably in line with the Macbook Pro lineup, and it has similar camera specs.

I wish I could downgrade my desktop camera to a 720p camera for the increased privacy of the narrower field of view.

Could be that they are not ready to support that amount of spike in traffic in their FaceTime services, so it's a way to limit it by not beefing up the cameras.

Most of that traffic is probably peer to peer (they use ICE), you only really need traffic relays for a few degenerative NAT cases.