I disagree. Smartphones aren't even close to catching up in photo quality to where cameras were years ago. Cheapo point and shoot (film!) cameras from the 90s can run circles around the image quality being produced by modern smartphones.

Smartphone pictures are grainy, frequently out of focus, noisy as shit, and either too dark or burning with the brightness of Krypton's sun. They're terrible. The crappy Panasonic film point and shoot my family had in the early 90s made better pictures than this without any fancy manual controls or knobs.

But it doesn't seem like it matters. People don't really care about how good their photos look, but rather that the photo exists and is being shared. Smartphones didn't win the camera game because they were better cameras (in fact, they are almost always atrocious, terrible cameras), they won because they were handy and way easier for spontaneous, off the cuff shots.

I'm not a fan of this watch myself, but IMO the camera is fine.

Side note: "going back" to 1.9 megapixels might just mean better pictures. The megapixel race in smartphone cameras has gotten pretty ridiculous. You are just getting more pixels full of noise, discoloration, and horrendous image quality. The bottleneck in image quality isn't resolution, it's sensor tech and lens quality - neither of which has made it into smartphone advertisements for a long, long time.