The best camera is the one you have with you.
But when you stop down and focus on composition and best possible result in camera, you need a diferent tools.
For the general public smartphones are ideal to "capture" the moment.
But quality cannot be accomplished without a biger than smartphone lens. Even entry level Sony RX has a Zeiss in it.
Comparing smartphone computational photography to professional photography is simply a marketing trick. Full frame sensor and adequate lens will give you always more data to push in post.
Smartphones have stagnated as innovation, so manufacturers are seeking differentiation and buyers motivation trough "better pictures".
And I dare say, some are succeeding in delivering "better pictures" (quotes yours). I have compared pics from iPhone 6s and iPhone 12 Pro taken in the same conditions, and I can tell you the improvements are very real.
The smartphones cameras in general are good enough for general public and not so many of this audience will see the differences, especially when the most of the UX is to apply filters and post on Instagram, Facebook or other social channels which compress the heck out of the photos anyway.
Photographing an interesting composition with a camera of mediocre image quality is superior to not snapping a picture at all because you left the expensive DSLR at home.
“The best camera is the one you have with you”[1] because the one you don’t have with you can’t take the picture.
The professional will create meaningful photography with lowest quality tools available. The amateur on other hand, will produce meaningless pictures even with most expensive and advanced camera or some smartphone labeled "Pro".
For usual memorabilia use cases normal people will be fine with a smartphone from 2014.
But if you are professional, who has knowledge and desire to capture a moment with enough quality, you will never leave your house without a camera. And this camera never will be an iPhone or any other smartphone. This use case will be the extreme exception from the rule.
If we are in the digital realm of photography, here are some cameras that will be considered adequate:
* Fujifilm X100V
* Ricoh GR III
* Sony RX100 VII
With this you can produce award-wining work, with iPhone you will produce mainly self-esteem or some form of social validation.
Just because people are not submitting photos to competitions doesn’t mean they can’t see noise, blurriness or plain having completely dark pictures when in a dim room.
The quote, as I understand it is mainly used so people don’t invest into expensive and heavy gear they will ultimately rarely use. (And as a personal anecdote, I wish I have followed it and bought a lighter camera instead of a dslr back when mobile phones still sucked at taking pictures)
I have a problem with this "pro" label from Apple. But the biggest problem is that technically educated people are failing into marketing traps and false statements as "cinematic mode".
I assume you don't expect people like me, who are shooting since film era, and perceive photography as a form of art, to follow along.
The big camera companies have as well. How much better is Canon's or Sony's best camera this year than a year or two ago? They don't have the same constraints that a phone company has and it seems like there's not a lot of year-over-year advancement.
Interesting stat - the estimate is that this year 1.4 trillion photos will be taken.
In 2012 it was estimated that 3.4 trillion pictures had been taken in the previous 174 years.
https://fstoppers.com/other/stats-how-many-photos-have-ever-...
https://fstoppers.com/other/stats-how-many-photos-have-ever-...
I don't know, seems like almost all top-level comments are this comment. It's also the single most common comment on this topic, ever.
But sometimes that one isn't good enough
Just kidding, but your comment did sound a bit like an ad. Could hear this in my head in Tim Cook's voice :D