[0:00] Tech companies have, I think, reached
[0:02] peak levels of deception. You will see
[0:04] incredible headlines everywhere you
[0:06] look. But as soon as you peel back the
[0:08] clever wording, you take away the hidden
[0:10] asterisks and you remove the sneaky
[0:12] manipulation of data, you realize that
[0:14] never in history has such little change
[0:17] been sold to us as if it's so much. So,
[0:19] I've teamed up with Marquez from MKBHD
[0:22] to show you how they get you. And I feel
[0:24] like we have to start with the magic new
[0:26] catch all term of the tech industry up
[0:29] to what we need to see and what we used
[0:31] to see a lot more of is this new product
[0:33] is x% better than the last one. This
[0:37] very simple idea basically doesn't exist
[0:39] anymore. Practically every single tech
[0:41] company quotes every single change as up
[0:44] to
[0:44] >> up to two times faster gets up to eight
[0:47] more hours
[0:48] >> is up to two times faster.
[0:50] >> You'll notice they don't even write it
[0:51] as up two. A lot of the time they'll
[0:52] just like mutter it quickly under their
[0:54] breath like it's some sort of pedantic
[0:56] footnote that you don't need to pay
[0:58] attention to. But if you think about it,
[0:59] any stat that starts with an upto
[1:02] doesn't mean anything. I can say this
[1:04] video is going to reach up to a billion
[1:06] people. And if it only ends up reaching
[1:08] my parents and then like one cousin in
[1:11] India, I was still right. And you could
[1:13] argue, well, you know, workloads are
[1:15] more complex now. It's harder to
[1:16] estimate exactly how much better
[1:18] something is. But the real reason this
[1:20] is being used is very clear. It's to be
[1:22] able to stick a massive number on your
[1:24] web page and not be sued for it. So if
[1:27] you see up to followed by a percentage
[1:29] improvement, honestly just disregard it
[1:31] and go search up specifically how much
[1:33] better that product is in exactly what
[1:35] you're planning on doing with it. But
[1:37] I'll leave the next one up to you,
[1:39] Marquez. Okay. So, in announcement
[1:42] keynotes and a lot of advertising
[1:43] specifically, a lot of companies like to
[1:45] do this thing where they combine a bunch
[1:47] of different specs from different
[1:49] versions of the same product into one
[1:52] page, creating what I like to call the
[1:55] imaginary spec. So, like one of the most
[1:57] common versions you'll see is a company
[1:58] will put uh like the maximum up to
[2:01] performance number alongside the minimum
[2:04] starting at price and they'll put them
[2:07] next to each other in a product where
[2:08] you can't actually get the maximum
[2:10] performance for the minimum price.
[2:12] Here's Rivian for example on the R1T
[2:14] website. You'll see, wow, 420 mi of
[2:17] range and a 0 to 60 in under 2.5 seconds
[2:21] starting at under $74,000. but not
[2:25] exactly because the one with 420 mi of
[2:27] range is the dual motor which has a 3.4
[2:30] seconds 0 to 60. Still quick, but the
[2:32] 2.5 second version costs $30,000 more
[2:36] and has 40 mi less range. And for
[2:38] $73,000, you don't get either of those
[2:40] things. So, yeah, this here is an
[2:43] imaginary spec. Oh, and by the way,
[2:46] that's another one while we're at it. EV
[2:48] range claims. Now, there are laws around
[2:51] how accurate your range claims actually
[2:53] have to be, just like with gas mileage.
[2:55] And some companies are a little more
[2:57] optimistic about that range claim than
[2:59] others. Fine. But the fact is, we are
[3:01] still pretty early in this battery tech.
[3:04] And the tiniest, even seemingly
[3:05] insignificant things can make a pretty
[3:08] significant difference to your range.
[3:09] And so even when you break it all the
[3:11] way down to specific Rivian models, the
[3:14] one that does the 2.5 second 0 to 60,
[3:17] you can see that 374 mile range claim
[3:19] right here. Well, when you actually
[3:20] click in, that's when you realize that's
[3:22] on a specific wheel with a specially
[3:24] designed sticky Michelin tire. And then,
[3:27] oh, look at that. You're actually
[3:28] getting 338 mi of range. You'll have to
[3:31] switch down to the standard sport wheel
[3:33] and tire to get the 374 mi of estimated
[3:36] range. So yes, even this here was an
[3:39] imaginary spec. And I promise you,
[3:41] Rivian is far from the only offender in
[3:43] the world of cars and in tech. And if
[3:46] you thought that companies exaggerating
[3:48] their specs to seem better than others
[3:49] is a problem, then how about when
[3:51] companies just invent entirely new specs
[3:54] so that you can't even compare them to
[3:56] others? When companies start to build
[3:58] loyalty, they want to be able to charge
[4:00] more for the same stuff. But how do you
[4:02] get away with that in a world where a
[4:04] comparison is just one quick chat GBT
[4:06] search away? Well, make it so confusing
[4:09] for customers to compare you that the
[4:12] easiest thing then becomes for them to
[4:14] just take your word for it that you're
[4:15] better. One of the most prolific
[4:16] examples of this right now is RAM. Any
[4:19] computer, any phone, any laptop, even
[4:21] your smartwatch needs RAM to be able to
[4:23] juggle tasks. And this is true no matter
[4:25] which company's product it is. But Apple
[4:28] now refers to their RAM almost
[4:30] exclusively as unified memory. They can
[4:33] say this because their RAM is actually
[4:35] part of their chip as opposed to a
[4:37] separate component, which does make that
[4:39] RAM a little more efficient in some
[4:40] ways. But it glosses over a very
[4:43] important detail that Windows laptops
[4:45] often have dedicated graphics cards that
[4:47] have their own additional pool of RAM.
[4:49] Whereas unified memory means that both
[4:52] the CPU and the GPU share from one small
[4:54] pool. So, you're pretty much always
[4:56] getting less RAM. And yeah, I mean,
[4:58] Apple executives have famously boasted
[5:00] about how their unified memory is so
[5:02] efficient that just 8 GB of it is
[5:04] equivalent to 16 gigs on Windows, but
[5:06] it's not really true. There just will be
[5:09] a hard cap on how much multitasking
[5:12] you're able to do, cuz 8 gigs is 8 gigs.
[5:14] But even so, can you see how this whole
[5:17] concept of unified memory still helps
[5:19] Apple? It makes something as simple as
[5:21] RAM feel like some sort of gray area,
[5:24] which means they can give you a lot less
[5:26] of it and they can charge you more to
[5:28] upgrade it than any other company. I'd
[5:30] say to be honest though, the worst
[5:31] example of the invented spec is the TV
[5:34] market. TV makers will try absolutely
[5:36] everything to make you feel like you're
[5:38] getting the real deal apart from
[5:40] actually giving it to you. Like when
[5:41] Highense tells you that a TV has a
[5:43] motion rate of 120, it doesn't actually
[5:46] mean that the TV has a 120 Hz refresh
[5:48] rate like you'd think. And like clearly
[5:51] many other people have been led into
[5:53] believing, motion rate is another
[5:55] invented spec that just means the TV is
[5:57] running High Senses motion smoothing
[5:59] software. Or let's say that you tell
[6:01] your less techsavvy buddy to make sure
[6:03] you get a TV that has OLED tech. What
[6:06] are the chances that they accidentally
[6:07] end up buying a Highense ULED or a
[6:10] Samsung QLED or a LG QED? I'd say pretty
[6:14] high. Even though all of these are in
[6:16] fact invented specs designed, I think to
[6:19] camouflage as OLED, even though they're
[6:22] actually much cheaper LCDs. Now, okay,
[6:25] maybe you're not convinced. All right,
[6:26] maybe you're watching this thinking, you
[6:27] know, it's fine if they make up specs as
[6:30] long as they're technically true.
[6:34] But I'll do you one better. What if
[6:35] there's madeup specs that are actually
[6:38] numerically factually false? I actually
[6:41] made an entire separate video all about
[6:42] this, but 1 in camera sensors are not 1
[6:46] in in any dimension. And 1.5K displays
[6:51] are actually not 1500 pixels in any
[6:55] dimension either. How is that possible?
[6:58] Well, it's because the way we measure
[7:00] things has changed. Like something like
[7:02] this camera, for example. This is a Sony
[7:04] ZV1. A lot of cameras like it. This
[7:06] camera has a 1 in sensor. It says so on
[7:09] their website. And that sounds amazing.
[7:12] A 1 in sensor in this little camera.
[7:14] Have you ever looked inside like a pro
[7:16] DSLR or mirrorless camera at the size of
[7:18] that sensor? That looks like about a 1
[7:20] in sensor. So this must also have a huge
[7:22] sensor like that.
[7:24] But it's not. It's way smaller.
[7:28] Why is that? Well, turns out this is a 1
[7:31] in sensor because in 2026 that's what we
[7:34] call a 1 in type sensor. See, before
[7:38] digital cameras, cameras didn't have
[7:40] sensors at all. They actually used
[7:41] vacuum tubes. And so, the size of the
[7:43] tube was actually what they measured.
[7:45] So, a 1-in vacuum tube would create an
[7:47] image area inside it closer to about 16
[7:50] mm diagonally. And that is actually
[7:52] about the size of the 1-in type sensor
[7:55] in this camera. So, it's 2026,
[7:59] but we're calling this a 1-in sensor
[8:01] because that is the size of the
[8:04] theoretical vacuum tube that would be
[8:06] required to produce an image the size of
[8:10] this sensor.
[8:12] Why? Why? Turns out 1 in sensor is a
[8:15] marketing name more than it is an actual
[8:18] measurement. And I have the same beef
[8:20] with uh displays because you've probably
[8:22] already heard a lot of smartphones
[8:24] recently have uh like 1.5K displays.
[8:26] You've heard this. You've seen a lot of
[8:28] these floating around. But none of them
[8:30] have 1500 pixel measurements. So what's
[8:32] going on here? See, this is where it
[8:33] gets weird. Okay, so intuitively we all
[8:35] agree that 4K, for example, is referring
[8:38] to the horizontal resolution, right? So
[8:40] this video is 4K because it's 4,000
[8:43] pixels across roughly. It's 4096 x 2048.
[8:47] Sometimes it's 3840 x 2160, but it's
[8:49] roughly 4,000 pixels wide. And 8K would
[8:53] be 8,000 pixels wide. But at some point,
[8:56] for some reason, we started calling
[8:59] 2560x440
[9:01] 2K,
[9:03] which is close but a little bit off. And
[9:06] then for some reason 1080p, which is now
[9:09] referring to the vertical resolution, is
[9:12] 1K, which is weird because 1080p is
[9:15] actually 1920x 1080. So it should be 2K,
[9:19] but now we're calling 1080p 1K. And so
[9:22] now smartphone companies are using 1.5K
[9:25] to refer to a measurement somewhere in
[9:28] between 1080p and 1440p.
[9:32] So, it's not actually 1500 across or
[9:36] 1500 tall. It just means somewhere in
[9:39] between 1K and 2K. And that's super
[9:42] annoying to me, but it's how we talk
[9:45] now.
[9:46] And that's if there's even a hardware
[9:48] change at all with new products. What's
[9:50] becoming increasingly common these days
[9:52] is this focus on vaguely defined new
[9:56] software features. So, if you're
[9:57] launching a new smartphone, let's say
[9:59] you're holding a big event and a live
[10:00] stream to tell people what's new about
[10:02] it, then the thing that is useful to see
[10:04] is what specifically is new about that
[10:08] product. A good example of this is the
[10:10] privacy display on Samsung's Galaxy S26
[10:12] Ultra. It's a software feature, but it's
[10:14] one that actually required them to
[10:16] physically change the way they built the
[10:17] display to work. So, it's made for this
[10:20] phone. But unfortunately, the vast
[10:22] majority of new features that we
[10:24] actually see marketed here are not that.
[10:27] Like if we pull up the Galaxy S24 event,
[10:29] they spent this much time talking about
[10:31] the new Samsung AI features and then
[10:33] literally just as long talking about
[10:36] Circle to Search. They talked about it
[10:37] like it's this revolutionary new feature
[10:39] that's only made possible thanks to
[10:41] Samsung's deep partnership with Google.
[10:44] Our partnership continues to go strong
[10:46] as we create new ways to do more with
[10:48] Google on Galaxy devices.
[10:50] >> But Circle to Search is also on Google
[10:53] phones. It's on Xiaomi phones. It's not
[10:55] really got anything to do with Samsung
[10:57] apart from just them being the first to
[10:59] show it. And they do this every year to
[11:01] buff out their presentations and try to
[11:04] make you associate those Google features
[11:06] with Samsung. And it's not just
[11:08] confusing which features are also coming
[11:10] to other brands. Where I think it gets
[11:12] really intentionally confusing at these
[11:15] launch events is which features that
[11:16] you're talking about are also coming to
[11:19] your own older phones. Don't get me
[11:21] wrong, it's a good thing that big
[11:22] companies support their older models. I
[11:25] mean, they kind of have to. They did
[11:26] promise you when you bought them. But
[11:27] the thing that's misleading is spending
[11:29] 60% of the next phone's launch event
[11:32] talking about how it's the coolest phone
[11:33] in the world and you should upgrade
[11:35] because it has all these nextgen
[11:37] features, but then never mentioning that
[11:38] those features are also coming to the
[11:40] phone that you're watching the event on.
[11:42] >> We added a brand new capability that
[11:44] goes beyond device control.
[11:47] Now Bixby can bring you up-to-date
[11:50] information directly in the
[11:52] conversation. So, you see how this new
[11:54] Bixby is being positioned as one of the
[11:55] perks of the Galaxy S26 series, but
[11:58] actually it can run on even a Galaxy
[12:00] S23. And this kind of stuff is genuinely
[12:03] most of these launch events now. And
[12:05] speaking of older products, what's with
[12:08] companies now who launch a new product,
[12:10] but then only compare it to another
[12:12] product that came out like 3 plus years
[12:14] ago? Apple is the worst for this. Like,
[12:16] take the latest MacBook Pros. So we go
[12:18] to the performance section and the
[12:20] headline number is oh would you look at
[12:22] that up to eight times faster AI
[12:26] performance. So they got the up to in
[12:27] there. They've got the specific use case
[12:29] all to make sure that they have this
[12:31] super impressive quotable eight times
[12:33] number but then also it's eight times
[12:35] faster than the M1 family. What?
[12:39] >> These are the M5 generation chips
[12:41] released in 2026 and they're comparing
[12:44] them to the M1s released across 2020 and
[12:47] 2021
[12:49] 5 to 6 years apart. And what they would
[12:52] say is, well, you know, many users will
[12:54] be upgrading from an M1. We're just
[12:56] being helpful. To which I would say, if
[12:59] I was using a worn down, slightly busted
[13:02] 6-year-old M1 laptop, my decision is not
[13:05] do I upgrade. It's actually do I upgrade
[13:08] to the M5 or do I instead buy the last
[13:11] gen M4 and save a bunch of money? How
[13:14] much difference is there between those
[13:15] two choices? I don't know. Apple won't
[13:17] tell me. All this is is a thinly veiled
[13:20] tactic to help take what is in most
[13:22] instances like 5 to 10% of real world
[13:25] improvement all the way into these
[13:28] astonishing sounding numbers like eight
[13:30] times. But let's be honest, this is a
[13:32] joke. It's a bit like if you were a
[13:34] world class runner, but then the way
[13:36] that you prove you're a world-class
[13:37] runner is by comparing your speed to
[13:39] when you were 8 years old.
[13:42] >> Now, there's another funny way companies
[13:44] compare to their previous selves.
[13:46] Specifically, smartphone companies when
[13:48] talking about the glass and how tough
[13:50] the glass is. Surely you've heard this
[13:52] before. This new smartphone or this new
[13:54] glass is twice as shatter resistant as
[13:57] the previous year. Wow. and then the
[14:00] next year it'll come out and say this
[14:02] new glass is now twice as scratch
[14:05] resistant as last year. That is amazing.
[14:08] How are they making such massive
[14:10] improvements in the quality of the glass
[14:12] every time? But it's not as insane when
[14:14] you realize that scratch resistance and
[14:17] shatter resistance are inversely
[14:20] related. So the more of one you have,
[14:22] the less of the other you have. Think of
[14:24] it like this. If you want something to
[14:25] be super super scratch resistant and
[14:27] super super hard, that makes it more
[14:29] likely to be a little bit brittle and
[14:32] shatter. But if you want it to be less
[14:33] likely to shatter, you make it a little
[14:34] bit softer, which makes it more likely
[14:37] to scratch. So instead of making some
[14:39] huge improvement every single year, like
[14:41] the headlines might have you think. It's
[14:44] actually more two different graphs, one
[14:46] for scratch resistance and one for
[14:47] shatter resistance. And they kind of do
[14:49] this. you know, scratch resistance does
[14:51] this every single year and shatter
[14:53] resistance does this every single year
[14:55] but in the opposite phase because
[14:57] they're not able to do huge improvements
[15:00] of both at the same time. There is some
[15:02] material science and they're both
[15:04] getting slightly better, but that's an
[15:05] easier way to understand that it's not
[15:07] as crazy as it sounds. It's no
[15:09] coincidence that, you know, the first
[15:10] generation of this dramatic new ceramic
[15:12] shield for the iPhone was four times
[15:15] better in drop resistance than any
[15:17] previous iPhone. And then when they
[15:19] finally got to ceramic shield generation
[15:21] 2, it was three times more scratch
[15:24] resistant. Specifically, every single
[15:26] one scratches at level six, deeper
[15:29] grooves at a level seven because it's
[15:32] still glass.
[15:34] >> But hey, at least tech companies are
[15:35] generous enough to upgrade the storage
[15:37] on our phones and laptops every few
[15:39] years.
[15:40] >> The new iPad Pro comes with double the
[15:41] storage, which is now 256 GB.
[15:44] >> Oh, thanks, Apple.
[15:46] Oh,
[15:48] so we got $200 more expensive. So they
[15:51] position it to you like they're doing
[15:53] you some kind of massive favor when in
[15:55] fact all they've really done is stopped
[15:57] selling the cheaper, lower storage
[15:59] model. And so you have to pay more. But
[16:01] at least that one's kind of easy to see
[16:03] through. The one that I find much
[16:05] tougher is what I would call the
[16:07] efficiency improvement trap. And it's a
[16:10] specific problem with the way that
[16:11] performance improvements are sold to us.
[16:14] Every year we hear a very similar story.
[16:16] >> Performance-wise,
[16:18] we're seeing a 23% boost and 20% more
[16:22] efficiency too.
[16:23] >> So, even just ignoring for a second how
[16:25] they slipped in that little OP up two
[16:27] behind him, even though he didn't
[16:29] actually say it, this guy is very
[16:31] clearly implying that this chip lets you
[16:33] game with about 20% faster performance
[16:36] while your battery lasts 20% longer. So,
[16:39] not only you're getting smoother
[16:41] gameplay, but you're also getting better
[16:43] battery life while doing it.
[16:45] >> But the important thing to understand is
[16:47] you don't get both. If your efficiency
[16:50] goes up by 20%, but then you're using
[16:52] all of that extra efficiency to get this
[16:55] 20% extra performance, then what you're
[16:57] actually getting is the same battery
[16:59] life. So when you then bundle that back
[17:01] in with the fact that the entire thing
[17:03] is only up to 23% faster and up to 20%
[17:07] more efficient and what we're really
[17:08] often talking about in these kinds of
[17:10] situations is an average expected
[17:12] improvement of like 5% to your
[17:15] performance and your end battery life.
[17:18] Surgical grade stainless steel
[17:22] aircraft aluminum military toughness.
[17:26] Tech companies feel like they're always
[17:28] super excited to sell you something that
[17:29] has maybe the most premium materials on
[17:31] planet Earth forged in an oven at a
[17:33] million degrees that only the most
[17:36] exacting customer could possibly accept.
[17:38] But you know what's funny about that?
[17:40] There's actually nothing super special
[17:42] about any of those things. In fact,
[17:44] they're actually quite common. Like most
[17:45] airplanes, it's true. They use a whole
[17:47] bunch of 6,000 and 7,000 series aluminum
[17:50] because those alloys are super strong
[17:53] and light and cheap enough for mass
[17:55] production and good quality.
[17:58] But that does also mean that when your
[18:00] phone uses aerospace grade aluminum,
[18:04] you know, it's technically true, but
[18:07] that's also true about a Razer scooter.
[18:08] And a whole lot of the stainless steel
[18:10] you'll come across in life is just 316L
[18:12] steel, which is an alloy that is one of
[18:15] many that is pure enough and high
[18:17] quality enough to be used in surgical
[18:19] tools and in the iPhone 14 Pros rails
[18:24] and in most kitchen sinks that you come
[18:26] across, which technically means the
[18:29] kitchen sink is also surgical grade
[18:31] stainless steel. It's not lying
[18:34] technically, but now you know.
[18:38] >> The truth is the specs of tech products
[18:40] are chosen around how those products are
[18:42] going to be marketed. And that's kind of
[18:44] a given. It's just business. But the
[18:46] issue is that very often in today's
[18:48] world, the specs that make a product the
[18:50] most marketable are not the specs that
[18:52] are most useful to a user. Take
[18:54] thickness. The spec that matters here
[18:57] really is the maximum thickness. You
[18:59] want to know how thick the new phone or
[19:01] laptop is at its thickest point because
[19:04] that's going to determine what bags or
[19:06] pockets you can fit it inside of. But
[19:07] the spec that companies talk about is
[19:10] thickness at a product's thinnest point.
[19:13] And as soon as that genies out the
[19:14] bottle, you can call it whatever you
[19:17] want to. Like Apple calls the iPhone Air
[19:19] the thinnest iPhone ever. And while
[19:21] that's true for this section of the body
[19:23] here, it's not true for the whole phone.
[19:26] I've got an iPhone 7 here, which is
[19:28] thicker than the iPhone 6, by the way,
[19:29] but still, this is thinner than the
[19:32] iPhone Air when you factor in the
[19:33] cameras. And it's not like you can take
[19:35] them off. It's just such dumb logic.
[19:38] Like if we carry on this train of
[19:39] thought, then what's to stop Apple at
[19:41] the next iPhone launch event taking all
[19:43] the rest of the components in the body
[19:45] and shoving them into one massive block
[19:47] at the end that you have to hold like a
[19:49] camera grip, but then calling the phone
[19:52] five times thinner than the last iPhone
[19:54] because all that's left in this part is
[19:56] the display. And then you've got Honor,
[19:58] who marketed their Magic V5 as world's
[20:01] slimmest foldable, but then people got
[20:03] it in their hands, put it side by side
[20:05] with Samsung's foldable, and found that
[20:07] that was actually slimmer. Want to know
[20:09] why? Cuz Honor in their measurements
[20:11] excluded not just the camera bump, but
[20:13] also the outer and the inner screen
[20:16] protector. You know, the one that you're
[20:18] not actually even allowed to take off
[20:20] yourself. That's not the only pointless
[20:22] spec, though, like screen brightness.
[20:24] It's become an arms race to just be the
[20:26] one quoting the highest number of knits
[20:28] possible. But the more the companies
[20:30] focus on just reaching a really high
[20:32] peak knit number, the less that number
[20:35] actually tells you about how bright the
[20:37] screen is dayto-day. They could
[20:38] literally be describing how bright one
[20:41] pixel on the screen could go while
[20:43] playing HDR content in direct sunlight
[20:46] for like 3 seconds. So this, for
[20:48] example, is an Honor Magic 8 Pro. The
[20:51] company makes a pretty big deal about
[20:52] how this has a 6,000nit peak brightness.
[20:55] That's the figure that's marketed. But
[20:57] if we pull up a plain white image on
[20:59] this phone and put it next to a Samsung
[21:01] Galaxy S25 Ultra, which only advertises
[21:04] a 2,600 nit peak brightness, you can't
[21:08] actually tell the difference at all in
[21:10] this day-to-day scenario. These are both
[21:11] on max, by the way. So, when you're
[21:13] looking at brightness numbers, just get
[21:15] rid of peak brightness. Look at typical
[21:17] brightness. And when it comes to phone
[21:19] cameras, what mostly matters is sensor
[21:21] size. The bigger the sensor, the more
[21:23] light and the more real detail that your
[21:26] shots have. What most companies spend
[21:28] far more time talking about is
[21:30] resolution, which beyond a certain point
[21:32] doesn't matter at all on a phone. Like
[21:34] the last four generations of Samsung
[21:36] phones have had a 200 megap resolution.
[21:39] They're still shooting their actual
[21:41] photos in 12. And don't even get me
[21:43] started on maximum zoom magnification.
[21:45] Look at this page for the Nothing Phone
[21:47] 4a Pro. The headline feature, the number
[21:50] one thing being used to sell this phone
[21:52] is world's first 140 times ultra zoom.
[21:56] Oh my goodness. I mean, my iPhone only
[21:58] has 40 times max zoom. So, it's going to
[22:01] get cooked, right? Okay. Zoom all the
[22:05] way to 40 times on the iPhone, 40 times
[22:07] on the Nothing. Oh my god. Right. Yeah.
[22:11] So, it's exactly what we expected. The
[22:13] nothing phone, regardless of whether you
[22:15] use the AI enhancement or not, just
[22:17] looks worse. It's just not capturing as
[22:19] much information as the iPhone. And AI
[22:22] can't help you there. Let me make
[22:24] something very clear. How far your phone
[22:26] can digital zoom has literally zero
[22:29] correlation with how good of a camera it
[22:31] is. What it actually does correlate
[22:33] with, though, is how low a company's
[22:35] standards are for what counts as a
[22:37] photo. Damn. Cuz I could literally go
[22:40] back to the first smartphone I ever
[22:42] owned if I wanted, take a photo, and
[22:44] just keep cropping in till all I can see
[22:46] is a single brown smudge. And
[22:48] technically, that could be 300 times
[22:50] digital zoom. Best zoom camera in the
[22:52] world everyone.
[22:54] Oh my god, I can't do this anymore.
[22:58] All right, so speaking of phone cameras,
[23:00] last but not least is the classic shot
[23:02] on a smartphone trope. First of all,
[23:04] several companies have already been
[23:05] caught lying about like sample images
[23:07] that were supposed to be shot on that
[23:09] smartphone that were just licensed from
[23:12] some professional photo shoot somewhere
[23:13] on a random DSLR, which is already
[23:16] crazy. But even the ones that aren't
[23:17] lying do feel like they're kind of
[23:21] stretching the truth with the amount of
[23:23] extra hardware that's being added to
[23:26] shoot it on a smartphone. Like the whole
[23:28] point I feel like of this, you know,
[23:30] awesome piece of content was shot on a
[23:33] smartphone is to sort of inspire and
[23:36] empower you to shoot your own awesome
[23:38] photos and videos with that tiny sensor
[23:41] and lens that fits in your pocket
[23:42] everywhere you go. But when there's a
[23:44] massive external stabilization rig and
[23:47] huge lenses and filters and all sorts of
[23:49] other things added to the phone and
[23:51] millions of dollars of lighting and set
[23:53] design to make that all possible, I
[23:55] guess it's still impressive, but it also
[23:57] kind of defeats the purpose a little
[23:58] bit. I can almost guarantee there are
[24:00] features disabled on those phones to
[24:02] make those accessories work. Like if I'm
[24:03] shooting with all that stuff, I'm
[24:05] disabling the built-in stabilization if
[24:08] I have a five figure jib to shoot with.
[24:10] Like if the only thing from the original
[24:12] phone that you're still using to shoot
[24:13] is just the sensor technically, then is
[24:17] it still shot on a smartphone? I guess
[24:20] technically yes. But I'm now actually
[24:23] way less impressed.
[24:26] So treat everything that these tech
[24:28] companies tell you with a heavy dose of
[24:29] salt. You don't need to upgrade every
[24:31] other year. Nothing's actually getting
[24:33] eight times better. And when you see a
[24:35] company bragging about their maximum
[24:36] zoom, run for the hills. If they can
[24:39] spot you, at least you'll be super low
[24:41] resolution. Thanks to Marquez for
[24:43] joining forces with me here.