>makes phone cheaper >a lot better front facing camera

>>59290834
Because it's one more moving part that will break over time.

File: image.jpg (90KB, 780x527px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 780x527px

>literally superior solution
Didn't take off
Why?

>physical features (blemishes) on MY smart device?????
s l e e k
l
i
m
m
e
r

>>59290886
>look mom, i just have to fold it like this...
terrible design.

>>59290852
if you drop your new smartphone, screen will shatter to fucking pieces.

lets say the pop up camera will automatically pop if you drop your smartphone, just to protect your screen.

literally would save you money.

you can't go wrong with this pop up camera.

File: mbimbi20.jpg (59KB, 661x463px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 661x463px

You deserve this

>>59290942
What the fuck am I reading

Because dumb Americans would break it

>>59290834
If selfie fags are fags then why do you want this flimsy, dirt-collecting camera?
Why not just get a phone with a real camera and you can just take selfies turned around without worrying which angle makes you look like a hambeast

>>59290834
Mechanical parts always brake first.
It looks gay.
User interaction required.
Looks fucking gay.
Who wants to fiddle with tiny plastic pieces?

>>59290962
I had this phone (and actually still have it somewhere in the basement) and it was amazing for its time and very cool

File: allahuakhbar.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>59291084
>>59291008
instead of 2 shit mid tier cameras

1 really good camera.

>>59290834
Because taxes

>>59290834

Because the CIA would need you to physically flip up the camera in order to spy on you.

File: 1481874201471s.jpg (6KB, 241x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 241x250px

>>59291312
THIS

>>59291184
?

>>59290834
A good camera already sticks out because its so big (the "camera bulge"). Having it attached on a movable part like that will make the camera stick out even more.

I think it might have been viable if it weren't for every manufacturer's "MUST MAKE IT THINNER" mentality.

>>59290834
wtf that's genius

>>59290834
Because people like to discreetly take pictures and videos of other people

Why can't they use the same sensor and a mirror?

>>59290942
I would rather have a slightly spiderwebbed screen than no working camera.

>>59291553
we are way past that but was a thing back then.

>>59291171
But you already get one really good camera, that's my point, it's durable reliable and could have a huge lens (like the Nokia whatever phone), you just can't watch yourself take selfies
What makes that camera "really good"? Is it because it's fragile, because it moves, because it's so small they couldn't fit a real lens in there?

>>59291312
>2017
>not knowing screens are cameras themselves
pshh

>>59292020
This is some jaden smith tier enlightenment... I'm going to bed

File: 2011BAF_(15419).jpg (2MB, 3968x2976px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3968x2976px

Serious question: why don't smartphones use in-built mirrors for the front cam? Identical resolution, low power consumption. I mean its good enough for actual camera companies why not phones?

>>59292908
Not that I agree with the thinner meme but wouldn't phones be an inch thick or more if they had that?

This >>59290852
Plus more parts they need to inventory. And the additional housing required takes up more precious space in an already small device.

>>59292974
If your phone has a lens the size of a dslr sure... but fair point, no one wants thick phones anymore.

>>59290962
>TRANSFORMERS
>MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
shit I'd buy that, looks rad as hell