How Tech Companies Lie to You.

[00:00] Tech companies have, I think, reached

[00:02] peak levels of deception. You will see

[00:04] incredible headlines everywhere you

[00:06] look. But as soon as you peel back the

[00:08] clever wording, you take away the hidden

[00:10] asterisks and you remove the sneaky

[00:12] manipulation of data, you realize that

[00:14] never in history has such little change

[00:17] been sold to us as if it's so much. So,

[00:19] I've teamed up with Marquez from MKBHD

[00:22] to show you how they get you. And I feel

[00:24] like we have to start with the magic new

[00:26] catch all term of the tech industry up

[00:29] to what we need to see and what we used

[00:31] to see a lot more of is this new product

[00:33] is x% better than the last one. This

[00:37] very simple idea basically doesn't exist

[00:39] anymore. Practically every single tech

[00:41] company quotes every single change as up

[00:44] to

[00:44] >> up to two times faster gets up to eight

[00:47] more hours

[00:48] >> is up to two times faster.

[00:50] >> You'll notice they don't even write it

[00:51] as up two. A lot of the time they'll

[00:52] just like mutter it quickly under their

[00:54] breath like it's some sort of pedantic

[00:56] footnote that you don't need to pay

[00:58] attention to. But if you think about it,

[00:59] any stat that starts with an upto

[01:02] doesn't mean anything. I can say this

[01:04] video is going to reach up to a billion

[01:06] people. And if it only ends up reaching

[01:08] my parents and then like one cousin in

[01:11] India, I was still right. And you could

[01:13] argue, well, you know, workloads are

[01:15] more complex now. It's harder to

[01:16] estimate exactly how much better

[01:18] something is. But the real reason this

[01:20] is being used is very clear. It's to be

[01:22] able to stick a massive number on your

[01:24] web page and not be sued for it. So if

[01:27] you see up to followed by a percentage

[01:29] improvement, honestly just disregard it

[01:31] and go search up specifically how much

[01:33] better that product is in exactly what

[01:35] you're planning on doing with it. But

[01:37] I'll leave the next one up to you,

[01:39] Marquez. Okay. So, in announcement

[01:42] keynotes and a lot of advertising

[01:43] specifically, a lot of companies like to

[01:45] do this thing where they combine a bunch

[01:47] of different specs from different

[01:49] versions of the same product into one

[01:52] page, creating what I like to call the

[01:55] imaginary spec. So, like one of the most

[01:57] common versions you'll see is a company

[01:58] will put uh like the maximum up to

[02:01] performance number alongside the minimum

[02:04] starting at price and they'll put them

[02:07] next to each other in a product where

[02:08] you can't actually get the maximum

[02:10] performance for the minimum price.

[02:12] Here's Rivian for example on the R1T

[02:14] website. You'll see, wow, 420 mi of

[02:17] range and a 0 to 60 in under 2.5 seconds

[02:21] starting at under $74,000. but not

[02:25] exactly because the one with 420 mi of

[02:27] range is the dual motor which has a 3.4

[02:30] seconds 0 to 60. Still quick, but the

[02:32] 2.5 second version costs $30,000 more

[02:36] and has 40 mi less range. And for

[02:38] $73,000, you don't get either of those

[02:40] things. So, yeah, this here is an

[02:43] imaginary spec. Oh, and by the way,

[02:46] that's another one while we're at it. EV

[02:48] range claims. Now, there are laws around

[02:51] how accurate your range claims actually

[02:53] have to be, just like with gas mileage.

[02:55] And some companies are a little more

[02:57] optimistic about that range claim than

[02:59] others. Fine. But the fact is, we are

[03:01] still pretty early in this battery tech.

[03:04] And the tiniest, even seemingly

[03:05] insignificant things can make a pretty

[03:08] significant difference to your range.

[03:09] And so even when you break it all the

[03:11] way down to specific Rivian models, the

[03:14] one that does the 2.5 second 0 to 60,

[03:17] you can see that 374 mile range claim

[03:19] right here. Well, when you actually

[03:20] click in, that's when you realize that's

[03:22] on a specific wheel with a specially

[03:24] designed sticky Michelin tire. And then,

[03:27] oh, look at that. You're actually

[03:28] getting 338 mi of range. You'll have to

[03:31] switch down to the standard sport wheel

[03:33] and tire to get the 374 mi of estimated

[03:36] range. So yes, even this here was an

[03:39] imaginary spec. And I promise you,

[03:41] Rivian is far from the only offender in

[03:43] the world of cars and in tech. And if

[03:46] you thought that companies exaggerating

[03:48] their specs to seem better than others

[03:49] is a problem, then how about when

[03:51] companies just invent entirely new specs

[03:54] so that you can't even compare them to

[03:56] others? When companies start to build

[03:58] loyalty, they want to be able to charge

[04:00] more for the same stuff. But how do you

[04:02] get away with that in a world where a

[04:04] comparison is just one quick chat GBT

[04:06] search away? Well, make it so confusing

[04:09] for customers to compare you that the

[04:12] easiest thing then becomes for them to

[04:14] just take your word for it that you're

[04:15] better. One of the most prolific

[04:16] examples of this right now is RAM. Any

[04:19] computer, any phone, any laptop, even

[04:21] your smartwatch needs RAM to be able to

[04:23] juggle tasks. And this is true no matter

[04:25] which company's product it is. But Apple

[04:28] now refers to their RAM almost

[04:30] exclusively as unified memory. They can

[04:33] say this because their RAM is actually

[04:35] part of their chip as opposed to a

[04:37] separate component, which does make that

[04:39] RAM a little more efficient in some

[04:40] ways. But it glosses over a very

[04:43] important detail that Windows laptops

[04:45] often have dedicated graphics cards that

[04:47] have their own additional pool of RAM.

[04:49] Whereas unified memory means that both

[04:52] the CPU and the GPU share from one small

[04:54] pool. So, you're pretty much always

[04:56] getting less RAM. And yeah, I mean,

[04:58] Apple executives have famously boasted

[05:00] about how their unified memory is so

[05:02] efficient that just 8 GB of it is

[05:04] equivalent to 16 gigs on Windows, but

[05:06] it's not really true. There just will be

[05:09] a hard cap on how much multitasking

[05:12] you're able to do, cuz 8 gigs is 8 gigs.

[05:14] But even so, can you see how this whole

[05:17] concept of unified memory still helps

[05:19] Apple? It makes something as simple as

[05:21] RAM feel like some sort of gray area,

[05:24] which means they can give you a lot less

[05:26] of it and they can charge you more to

[05:28] upgrade it than any other company. I'd

[05:30] say to be honest though, the worst

[05:31] example of the invented spec is the TV

[05:34] market. TV makers will try absolutely

[05:36] everything to make you feel like you're

[05:38] getting the real deal apart from

[05:40] actually giving it to you. Like when

[05:41] Highense tells you that a TV has a

[05:43] motion rate of 120, it doesn't actually

[05:46] mean that the TV has a 120 Hz refresh

[05:48] rate like you'd think. And like clearly

[05:51] many other people have been led into

[05:53] believing, motion rate is another

[05:55] invented spec that just means the TV is

[05:57] running High Senses motion smoothing

[05:59] software. Or let's say that you tell

[06:01] your less techsavvy buddy to make sure

[06:03] you get a TV that has OLED tech. What

[06:06] are the chances that they accidentally

[06:07] end up buying a Highense ULED or a

[06:10] Samsung QLED or a LG QED? I'd say pretty

[06:14] high. Even though all of these are in

[06:16] fact invented specs designed, I think to

[06:19] camouflage as OLED, even though they're

[06:22] actually much cheaper LCDs. Now, okay,

[06:25] maybe you're not convinced. All right,

[06:26] maybe you're watching this thinking, you

[06:27] know, it's fine if they make up specs as

[06:30] long as they're technically true.

[06:34] But I'll do you one better. What if

[06:35] there's madeup specs that are actually

[06:38] numerically factually false? I actually

[06:41] made an entire separate video all about

[06:42] this, but 1 in camera sensors are not 1

[06:46] in in any dimension. And 1.5K displays

[06:51] are actually not 1500 pixels in any

[06:55] dimension either. How is that possible?

[06:58] Well, it's because the way we measure

[07:00] things has changed. Like something like

[07:02] this camera, for example. This is a Sony

[07:04] ZV1. A lot of cameras like it. This

[07:06] camera has a 1 in sensor. It says so on

[07:09] their website. And that sounds amazing.

[07:12] A 1 in sensor in this little camera.

[07:14] Have you ever looked inside like a pro

[07:16] DSLR or mirrorless camera at the size of

[07:18] that sensor? That looks like about a 1

[07:20] in sensor. So this must also have a huge

[07:22] sensor like that.

[07:24] But it's not. It's way smaller.

[07:28] Why is that? Well, turns out this is a 1

[07:31] in sensor because in 2026 that's what we

[07:34] call a 1 in type sensor. See, before

[07:38] digital cameras, cameras didn't have

[07:40] sensors at all. They actually used

[07:41] vacuum tubes. And so, the size of the

[07:43] tube was actually what they measured.

[07:45] So, a 1-in vacuum tube would create an

[07:47] image area inside it closer to about 16

[07:50] mm diagonally. And that is actually

[07:52] about the size of the 1-in type sensor

[07:55] in this camera. So, it's 2026,

[07:59] but we're calling this a 1-in sensor

[08:01] because that is the size of the

[08:04] theoretical vacuum tube that would be

[08:06] required to produce an image the size of

[08:10] this sensor.

[08:12] Why? Why? Turns out 1 in sensor is a

[08:15] marketing name more than it is an actual

[08:18] measurement. And I have the same beef

[08:20] with uh displays because you've probably

[08:22] already heard a lot of smartphones

[08:24] recently have uh like 1.5K displays.

[08:26] You've heard this. You've seen a lot of

[08:28] these floating around. But none of them

[08:30] have 1500 pixel measurements. So what's

[08:32] going on here? See, this is where it

[08:33] gets weird. Okay, so intuitively we all

[08:35] agree that 4K, for example, is referring

[08:38] to the horizontal resolution, right? So

[08:40] this video is 4K because it's 4,000

[08:43] pixels across roughly. It's 4096 x 2048.

[08:47] Sometimes it's 3840 x 2160, but it's

[08:49] roughly 4,000 pixels wide. And 8K would

[08:53] be 8,000 pixels wide. But at some point,

[08:56] for some reason, we started calling

[08:59] 2560x440

[09:01] 2K,

[09:03] which is close but a little bit off. And

[09:06] then for some reason 1080p, which is now

[09:09] referring to the vertical resolution, is

[09:12] 1K, which is weird because 1080p is

[09:15] actually 1920x 1080. So it should be 2K,

[09:19] but now we're calling 1080p 1K. And so

[09:22] now smartphone companies are using 1.5K

[09:25] to refer to a measurement somewhere in

[09:28] between 1080p and 1440p.

[09:32] So, it's not actually 1500 across or

[09:36] 1500 tall. It just means somewhere in

[09:39] between 1K and 2K. And that's super

[09:42] annoying to me, but it's how we talk

[09:45] now.

[09:46] And that's if there's even a hardware

[09:48] change at all with new products. What's

[09:50] becoming increasingly common these days

[09:52] is this focus on vaguely defined new

[09:56] software features. So, if you're

[09:57] launching a new smartphone, let's say

[09:59] 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.