One event which took place at the Consumer Electronics Show on January 9 in 2007 was revolutionary. Eighteen years ago tomorrow, Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone1. It was the first iteration of the now dominant communications device, the smartphone. The iPhone is 18 and the world has changed.

The smartphone changed the world and all of our lives. Things have never been the same since. And for the camera industry, the iPhone and its peers resulted in a near-death experience. In 2010, well over 120 million cameras were sold.
This total had fallen 94 percent by 2023 when just 1.7 million units hit dealer’s shelves. This chart, published by Statista, demonstrates the full horror of the decline. The chart also reveals Leica’s urgent need to launch the M8 and M9. They scrambled to do so simply to avoid extinction.
Revolutionary
Tomorrow marks the 18th anniversary of the start of the era of the smartphone. It has brought many changes to the world, for better or for worse2. And almost as revolutionary as the iPhone itself was the Apple App Store, launched the next year. The idea of buying and installing software so conveniently was groundbreaking. Additionally, downloading and updating it over the air was a defining innovation.
The iPhone was not just a phone. It aimed to satisfy the burgeoning demand for what was then known as the PDA, or personal digital assistant. Hefty devices like the Hewlett Packard iPAQ were universal among business executives.
Earlier, the cult-like Palm Pilot had been hailed as the first widely accepted hand-held computing device. And the folding Psion Series 3 “palm-tops” had been introduced as early as 1993. But the biggest potential threat to the embryonic iPhone was the all-conquering BlackBerry, which offered cellular convenience and organiser capabilities. In the first few years of the century, no self-respecting executive was seen without a BlackBerry in their hand.
Most of these devices, with the notable exception of the prescient Palm, all had one thing in common. This was a physical keyboard. It was thus no surprise that keyboard warriors were disappointed in the iPhone. I was one of them. I just couldn’t see the future in a large screen with an integral virtual keyboard. It seemed more of a plaything than a serious business tool.
Some tech industry commentators were scathing. Even before the launch, John C. Dvorak, a leading Apple luminary at the time, called for Apple to pull the plug on the new phone.
“What Apple risks here is its reputation as a hot company that can do no wrong. If it’s smart it will call the iPhone a ‘reference design’ and pass it to some suckers to build with someone else’s marketing budget. Then it can wash its hands of any marketplace failures.”
Difficult choice
I avoided the original iPhone. One reason was that it was restricted to 2G. The much faster 3G cellular was already becoming the norm. Nevertheless, I surrendered a year later in the autumn of 2008 and bought the faster iPhone 3G.
This was despite it still lacking some basic features like copy and paste3 that I really wanted. Interestingly, my acquisition of the iPhone led to another surprising development. As a result of the iPhone, and my long-term enthusiasm for the Apple Mac, I started Macfilos in August 2008.
The PDA competition from HP and others soon disappeared. The iPhone and its copycat smartphones from the Far East took over the world.
If you had invested $500 in Apple stock in January 2007, you would now be sitting on $24,000. It’s all down to the iPhone.
In retrospect, the iPhone was the great disruptor. It has almost alone been responsible for the stupendous rise in Apple’s fortunes. Had you invested the $500 cost of the iPhone in Apple stock in January 2007, you would now be sitting on $24,000.
Apple’s growth
This growth stems primarily from the iPhone. But Apple’s fortunes received a massive injection from the App Store. Additionally, there was a hefty shove from the iPad, Mac, and other familiar devices from Cupertino. But the iPhone was the seed of success and remains vitally important for Apple.
This is a success story of monumental proportions. Nevertheless, the iPhone had one major unforeseen side effect. The integral camera was initially considered nothing more than a device for occasional snapshots. Yet, it soon became so popular that it almost killed off the entire photographic market.
Within a few years, the advance of the smartphone camera had indeed killed the industry’s major earner, the humble point-and-shoot. And, for a time, it was in danger of wiping out mid-range cameras, leaving just the premium devices on sale.
Despite this mass destruction, the smartphone is a great paradox. Sure, it saw off the cheap end of the market. But, in so doing, it set the scene for a resurgence in the high-end “real camera” sector.
The good news
It would not be hyperbole to state that the smartphone has saved the camera industry. It did so by flattering and encouraging a whole generation of snap shooters into aspirations of owning “something better”. Millions who never thought about buying a camera suddenly owned a quick and easy camera almost by default. They knew they needed a smartphone, and the camera came for free. As a result, everyone nowadays is a photographer.
It is difficult to take a technically incompetent photography with a smartphone — compositional talent is another matter, of course. But the results are powered by computational photography, HDR4, and now AI. These advances serve to flatter the user: “I never realised I was such a good photographer.”
What’s the next step? A proper camera, of course. Many smartphone photo-converts have gone on to choose high-end cameras. They are turning to brands like Fujifilm, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and the others. Yes, even Leica. With high-end smartphones now topping $1,000 or £1,000, it’s but a short step to a main-stream mirrorless camera. And even a Leica Q is not ridiculously expensive.
Taking over the world
The smartphone has indeed taken over the world. In the hands of the multitude, it has assimilated the tasks of dozens of formerly discrete electronic appliances. The point-and-shoot camera is just one example.
In the past 18 years, the ability of smartphone cameras has developed exponentially. Sensors, lenses, and processing technology are progressing with increasing speed. Top-end smartphones are now being used even professionally. Models like Apple’s iPhone Pro Max, the Leica-powered Leitz Phone 3, and the Xiaomi Ultra are even used for film-making.
Tomorrow, 9 January, is thus such an important date. It is significant both for the world of communications in general and for the photographic community in particular. Without the iPhone, the world would now be a quite unfamiliar place.
More on iPhone photography
iPhone and Fjorden in the Baltic
Leica buys Fjorden and embraces iPhone photography
Computational photography is taking over the world
A cup of coffee works wonders in supporting Macfilos
Did you know that Macfilos is run by a dedicated team of volunteers? We rely on donations to help pay our running costs. And even the cost of a cup of coffee will do wonders for our energy levels.
- The iPhone went on sale six months after the launch announcement, on 29 June 2007. ↩︎
- Smartphone addiction, the explosion of texting, social apps and stooping shoulders are some of the more undesirable corollaries of the iPhone and its ilk ↩︎
- Copy and paste came to the iPhone in 2009, two years after the first iPhone went on sale. ↩︎
- High dynamic range ↩︎
Mike. You know I like nothing more than tracking down the location of photographs which appear on Macfilos, so I set myself the challenge of locating where image seven was taken. The Scottish style of architecture behind the four moored boats gave me the first clue. After that with the help of Google Earth I was able to locate the exact spot where this delightful photograph was taken. Answer, it was “iPhoned” from the west end of the bridge on Commercial Road crossing the “Water of Leith” in Leith, which is just north of Edinburgh.
Chris
Well done. As someone who came to MacFilos as a result of William Fagan’s “Swiss Roll” saga, you have another tribute. I am sure Jon Cheffings will be impressed!
Well spotted Chris! We were in Edinburgh for a couple of days and decided to jump on a tram and head to Leith. It takes less than 15 minutes and we got a good walk around. It’s also where the Royal Yacht Britannia now resides, but the day we were there it was closed. Instead we practiced the old test for drunkenness which you may remember is “The Leith police dismisseth us.”
As is often the situation in relationships, my wife and I both. took almost identical shots. Her’s with the iPhone and mine with the Q3. I keep suggesting she has a better eye than me, but won’t try any of my cameras.
I use my iPhone much more than a real camera especially as it is so easy to share photos – but useless if you want to take a shot in a hurry as you have to get past the lock screen and unless you are careful it ends up in the wrong.
Also in this cold weather you can’t use it with gloves.
Mike wrote: “And even a Leica Q is not ridiculously expensive.” (Insert raised eye brows emoji here)
Retail price for a Leica Q3 is US$6,295. A Q3 43 is US$6,895. Well that is less than a Leica M11 for US$8,995.
A used Leica Q Typ 116 is only US$2,918.95.
(Prices from B&H Photo website)
Gordon,
Of course, the Leica Q is not exactly cheap, but neither is an iPhone 16 Pro Max these days. I was thinking in relative terms. If you are conditioned to paying such a lot of cash for a top smartphone, the difference between that and the Q is not ridiculously large. But, again, it’s all a matter if opinion.
I had your same response to the price of the Q
Let us not forget the analogy that several persons made with the advent of the iPhone: The iPhone is today’s Leica Model I, a paradigm shifting invention.
True that. What the Leica did for photography 100 years ago, the iPhone has done in the last 18 years. Both became objects of desire, as well as object of beauty and use.
On the 18th August 1994 I purchased a brand new Leica M6, exactly a week later on the 25th August 1994 my son was born. The M6 was intended for him when he was old enough (I still have it in my possession). Even though Leica re-issued the M6 recently (due to customer demand) my son prefers his iPhone for all aspects of photography, social media etc.
The irony of it is that he is probably the perfect Leica M series customer, now 30 years old and a chartered engineer working for Rolls Royce, but his generation never really encountered the 35mm camera era. However I still use his M6, but also have to admit taking lots of photos on my iPhone as well.
Let us not forget that this is all built on the new technology of wireless communication, a billion or trillion dollar/euro/franc/DM industry in its own right.
When I resumed driving a car after retirement, my spouse insisted I get a wireless phone. That was inexpensive; the data plan is what costs money (and isn’t covering me now, in Japan).
Sine qua non.
Dedicated cameras will be around for the foreseeable future. Just look at the history of photography. At first, in the 1800s, it was strictly the purview of professionals. No one else could tackle the complicated and expensive procedures necessary. Then came George Eastman and the box camera; now anyone could take pictures. Did view cameras suddenly disappear? They are still being used today. What about Instamatic cameras? Did 35mm suddenly disappear? 35mm actually boomed in the 1970s, even with snapshooters. Now we see digital camera makers incorporating some of the computational photographic techniques that smartphones have been using. As you say, smartphones have encouraged a new interest in Something Better. Even Something Old, as in the resurgence of interest in film photography.
The paradigm changes have been massive and, as the last 24 hours have shown, like to shift even further. It is now a brave new/’now teenage’ world for smartphones. The way that we consume information and images and communicate with them has shifted immensely in the past 18 years. When I, jokingly, refer to ‘proper cameras’ I am usually talking about film cameras and not about their digital brethren which effectively do the same thing as the camera in your smartphone. I recently spoke to an in-law who could not believe that people still bought standalone cameras. I cannot think of a single other device, introduced in the past century (which leaves out the pen, the knife, the wheel and automobile!), which has become so dominant, so quickly. If you go to any event or on a holiday you will see a sea of people with smartphones and almost nobody with a standalone camera. The reason for this is the easy communications possibility and apps like Leica FOTOs would just be regarded as a hindrance. I would like to think that people are ‘graduating’ from smartphones, but I have seen no evidence that is the case. A parallel would be people with online newspaper subscriptions wishing to go back to buying the paper variety. To point 2 above all I can say is that the device came first, but once the social media and communications possibilities appeared it was those possibilities that started to lead the way towards entities such as Meta which are now valuable in their own right. Whether some of the services and facilities available from those entities are, per se, ‘undesirable’ is a matter for debate, but they have certainly attracted the attention of some ‘undesirables’.
I will always be interested in and use so-called proper cameras, but I will also use a smartphone camera when it suits and I will regard it as a camera and the output as photos. The smartphone has created other impacts besides those in the field of photography, but the image possibilities must represent one of its greatest areas of impact.
William
What happened in the last 24 hours that I missed?
I think William is referring to the Shutterstock/Magnum merger.
Look across the Atlantic at the doings of certain social media moguls and fact checking etc. My reference to ‘undesirables’ is also relevant. This is not just about who owns social media, but also about some of the people who use it and what they post to a gullible audience.
William
Mike sent two messages to unsubscribe, don’t care other gear please unsubscribe,
Did you send the messages via smartphone? [;-)
John, I did notice that you had unsubscribed, but I suspect you must have been subscribed twice. I will look at this and make sure your name is removed. I’m sorry to see you go after all these years. Mike
Computational imagery is amazing in smart phones. IMHO the camera companies, including Leica should consider this as the next step. We don’t need more pixels. We need smarter sensors and processing to make better images at night and in other difficult situations and to eliminate the need for a tripod. For the Leica M (and the Q) I think the best upgrade would be software-based image stabilization and tone control. Combined with Leica glass, this would be a huge benefit.
Bill, this has been possible for some years, but it could impact the sales of interchangeable lenses and other ‘premium’ features on cameras. There is a possibility for someone to do what you describe. The initial unit cost would be high, but, if it took off (and that is a big ‘if’), the unit cost could end up much lower than that of today’s premium cameras. Whether this would attract a larger customer base is debatable. I am sure that this has been considered in Wetzlar and other camera manufacturer HQs.
William
I don’t know if software-based IS is actually that easy. It would require electronic shutter for starters because you’d be pulling down images continuously. Done naively, this would stop light collection when each image is being read. Then you’d need the processing bandwidth for the 60mp 14-15 bit raws, which is a pretty big step up from the standard 12mp 6-8bit raws of smartphone cameras. And then there’s also that most smartphones have much more processing power than our cameras. Finally there’s implementing the “software” to do it.
All-in-all I think it might actually be easier to somehow shoehorn 3 stops of IBIS (which would be terrific btw), similarly to how the X100 does it.