iPhone 17 Pro leak reveals camera upgrades and major redesign
Listen to article
Apple is preparing significant camera upgrades for its upcoming iPhone 17 lineup, with leaked details and dummy model designs offering and apparent early insight into what users can expect when the devices launch later in 2025.
Across all four models, Apple is expected to introduce an enhanced 24-megapixel front-facing camera, doubling the resolution of the current 12MP sensor.
This upgrade promises sharper selfies, improved low-light performance, and more detailed imagery.
The high-end iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max models will be equipped with three 48-megapixel rear cameras: a main Fusion lens, an Ultra Wide lens (carried over from the iPhone 16 Pro), and a new Tetraprism Telephoto lens.
The Telephoto camera will support improved zoom and cropping without loss of detail, and the Pro models are also expected to add 8K video recording and dual video capture features.
There are also rumours of a mechanical aperture, a first for Apple, allowing users to adjust depth-of-field and light intake for more advanced photography.
A major design shift is also on the cards — Apple is reportedly replacing the square camera bump with a horizontal camera bar housing the lenses, flash, mic, and LiDAR sensor in a new layout.
The iPhone 17 Air, positioned as an ultra-thin model at just 5.5mm thick, will feature a single 48MP Fusion lens, making it the only variant without Ultra Wide or Telephoto capabilities.
It will share the horizontal camera bar design but adapted to its single-lens configuration.
In contrast, the standard iPhone 17 will maintain its dual-lens vertical layout, with a 48MP Fusion and 12MP Ultra Wide camera, mirroring the iPhone 16.
While the front camera sees an upgrade, there is no confirmation yet on rear sensor improvements or design changes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Apple braces for turbulent WWDC amid technical, regulatory storm
Listen to article Apple is facing an unprecedented set of technical and regulatory challenges as some of its key executives are set to take the stage on Monday at the company's annual software developer conference. On the technical side, many of the long-awaited artificial-intelligence features Apple promised at the same conference a year ago have been delayed until next year, even as its rivals such as Alphabet's Google and Microsoft woo developers with a bevvy of new AI features. Those unfulfilled promises included key improvements to Siri, its digital assistant. On the regulatory front, courts in the US and Europe are poised to pull down the lucrative walls around Apple's App Store as even some of the company's former supporters question whether its fees are justified. Those challenges are coming to a head at the same time US President Donald Trump has threatened 25% tariffs on Apple's best-selling iPhone. Apple's shares are down more than 40% since the start of the year, a sharper decline than Google and also lagging the AI-driven gains in Microsoft shares. Apple has launched some of the AI features it promised last year, including a set of writing tools and image-generation tools, but it still relies on partners such as ChatGPT creator OpenAI for some of those capabilities. Bloomberg has reported that Apple may open up in-house AI models to developers this year. But analysts do not believe Apple yet has what technologists call a "multi-modal" model - that is, one capable of understanding imagery, audio and language at the same time - that could power a pair of smart glasses, a category that has become a runaway hit for Meta Platforms . Google said last month it would jump back in to this category, with partners. Such glasses, which are far lighter and cheaper than Apple's Vision Pro headset, could become useful because they would understand what the user is looking at and could help answer questions about it. While Apple has focused on its $3,500 Vision Pro headset, Google and Meta have seized on the smart glasses as a cheaper way to deploy their AI software prowess against Apple in its stronghold of hardware. Meta Ray-Bans all sell for less than $400. Analysts say Apple needs to answer that challenge but that it is not likely to do so this week. "I'm not trying to replace my phone - this is a complementary thing that gives me more world context, because it's got a camera and it sees what I see, and I can talk to it in natural language," said Ben Bajarin, CEO of technology consultancy Creative Strategies. "Apple is not positioned to do that." To be sure, Apple's rivals are not decisively ahead in smart glasses. Anshel Sag, principal analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy, said Meta's Ray-Bans still lack some features and Google has not yet landed its "Gemini" model in a mass-market pair of glasses yet. "Meta has the undisputed lead, but Google is catching up fast and probably has the best-suited AI for the job," Sag said. "Vision Pro is great, but it's a showroom product that developers can use." But Bob O'Donnell, CEO of TECHnalysis Research, said it remains far from clear that smart glasses will gain wide acceptance. O'Donnell also said it is not certain that Apple is at any particular disadvantage if it partners with a company such as Google, OpenAI or even a smaller firm like Perplexity for core AI technology. So far, O'Donnell said, there is not yet strong evidence that consumers are basing major hardware-purchasing decisions on AI features. "There's an argument to be made that it's OK that (Apple) is behind because, except for the bleeding edge, most people don't care," O'Donnell said.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Tesla's $380b wipeout marks biggest 2025 loss
Listen to article Tesla is the worst-performing large-cap stock this year, thanks to declining electric vehicle demand, Chief Executive Elon Musk's political controversies over his ties to far-right groups, and now, his public feud with President Donald Trump. Tesla shares slumped on Thursday, after Trump on social media threatened to cut off government contracts with Elon Musk's companies, following Musk's sharp criticism of the president's signature tax and spending bill on his X social media platform. The market capitalisation of Tesla Inc has fallen 29.3% to $917 billion so far this year, the biggest drop among big companies in the world. Tesla, which ranked eighth globally in market capitalisation at the beginning of the year, slipped to tenth as of June 5. The company's shares rose in early trading on Friday, as investors took some comfort from White House aides scheduling a call with Musk to broker peace after a public feud with Trump. Apple, which began the year as the world's most valuable company, has slipped to No 3 this year, dragged down by weak demand in China, Trump's tariff threats, and slower progress in AI. Its market capitalisation has declined over 20% this year, falling to $2.99 trillion as of Thursday. Meanwhile, Microsoft has claimed the No 1 spot in market capitalisation, driven by surging demand for AI services, including its partnership with OpenAI and the integration of tools like Microsoft 365 Copilot. Tesla shares clawed back from steep losses on Friday, as a war of words between CEO Elon Musk and US President Donald Trump appeared to cool amid report that White House aides were scheduling a call to help broker peace. Shares were up 5% in premarket trading after Musk signalled on X he was open to easing tensions with Trump, agreeing with comments from hedge fund manager Bill Ackman calling for a detente. The spat between the world's most powerful man and its richest erased more than $150 billion from Tesla's market value on Thursday, the company's biggest drop in one session. Short-sellers, or investors betting against the stock, pocketed nearly $4 billion from the drop, the second-biggest single-day of profit on record, according to data from Ortex. Tensions escalated after Musk stepped up criticism of Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, which proposes largely ending the popular $7,500 EV tax incentive by the end of 2025. In response, Trump suggested cuts to the government's contracts with Musk's companies, including rocket maker SpaceX. "It might be a bit too hopeful to think their relationship will ever go back to what it once was, but if cooler heads prevail and the tension eases, that would definitely be a big improvement for Tesla," said Tesla shareholder Matthew Britzman, who is an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. An open clash with Trump could pose multiple hurdles for Tesla and the rest of Musk's sprawling business empire. The US Transportation Department regulates vehicle design standards and would have a big say in whether Tesla can mass-produce robotaxis without pedals and steering wheels. Tesla stock is down 29.5% this year after a 14% drop on Thursday. Still, the shares trade at 120 times expected earnings, a lofty multiple compared to other automakers and even tech giants such as Nvidia. The shares have been on a turbulent ride since last July when Musk backed Trump's White House bid. They surged initially as investors bet on less regulatory pressure for robotaxis, but tumbled due to soft sales and brand fallout from Musk's political stance. Some analysts said the rift was likely to blow over as it would be detrimental to both the president and his biggest backer. "Those are obviously threats that are unlikely to come into fruition," said City Index analyst Fiona Cincotta. "I don't expect this to blow out into anything more serious than a war of words for a couple of days."
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Apple of discord
Listen to article When Jon Stewart does a segment on international politics or economics, you pay attention. My apologies for the double negative in the next sentence, but it conveys my sentiment adequately: there is nothing not to like there. Stewart and John Oliver both remain prescient in their comedic timing, activism and political acumen. Recently, Stewart hosted a segment with author and journalist Patrick McGee, who has written a book on the relationship between China and Apple. It is called Apple in China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company. The explosive book claims Apple accidentally built China into a tech superpower while trapping itself in the process. Based on 200+ interviews with former Apple executives, it posits that Apple's $275 billion investment in China exceeded the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe. Starting in 2003, Apple's pursuit of cheap manufacturing evolved into something unprecedented under Tim Cook. The company trained 28 million Chinese workers and transferred cutting-edge knowledge through what McGee calls "the Apple Squeeze" — sending thousands of engineers to educate suppliers like Foxconn. This massive technology transfer inadvertently supported China's plan for technological independence. Ironically, Apple created its own competition. Chinese companies it trained now outcompete Apple domestically, while Apple has discovered it can't easily leave — replicating operations elsewhere would cost hundreds of billions. As Apple grew more successful, it became politically captured, removing VPN apps and storing Chinese data locally to maintain access. McGee believes the world's most valuable company became trapped by its own success, transforming from a symbol of innovation into the unwitting architect of its biggest rival's rise. The book doesn't outright present a solution or reset to fix this paradox. The reason I mentioned the Jon Stewart interview at the outset rather than the book itself is that, in that interview, McGee seems to offer some alternatives. They discuss President Trump's desire to reshore the industrial base — agreeing with the principle, but noting it may not be possible given business bottom lines and balance sheets. McGee goes on to say: "I'm a big fan of friend-shoring rather than reshoring. Right, we should be doing what we did in China, but with allied nations like India, like Mexico." I'll get back to the idea of "friend-shoring" in a bit. But you have to appreciate that his timing is perfect. The world was still taking stock of the "deepseek moment" when more surprises were sprung: Chinese advances in quantum computing; the tough competition Tesla is facing from BYD and other Chinese EV companies; and, last but not least, the short-lived India-Pakistan war which tanked Dassault's stocks while skyrocketing Chengdu's. It's definitely a question on every analyst's mind: how did we end up here? Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world of magical realism and some twist of fate presented you the 'culprit' on a platter? I find McGee's quest to do just that. But the real world doesn't work that way. In fact, I remain highly sceptical of people who come bearing gifts of simplistic explanations. You are entitled to question my assertion that the explanation here is simplistic. This, of course, is a very well-crafted and documented book, full of internally consistent nuances. But there lies a problem too. Despite so much neatly packed information, the book has a broader contextual deficit. Remember, there is a very effective strategy to influence a reader's mind if you are a clever writer — and it involves the exploitation of the cognitive load theory. The theory states that our working memory can only hold a small amount of information at any one time, and that instructional methods should avoid overloading it to maximise learning. This method does the opposite. You subject the reader's mind to information overload. While too many details build your credibility, shock, horror (depending on the nature of information), and confusion can break your mental defences and leave you prone to the author's manipulations. Even if we want to put a positive spin on this, McGee's work has a context problem, an agency problem, and a resolution problem. Context problem — because there is hardly any in-depth inquiry into why other markets in the same price range (India, Mexico) lost this opportunity to China. India's case is quite interesting, by the way. It's not as if India wasn't in competition. In fact, an entire book can be written on how Maruti Suzuki and the service industry built India's economy today. But in the end, it's a matter of priorities: automobiles over smart technology; services over manufacturing; low-hanging fruit over strategic planning; training over immediate profit. We know who chose what. Agency problem — because at least its central thesis robs China of its agency. A cultural distinction has to be made. Perhaps a better rebuttal of this two-dimensional image of China is presented by Kai-Fu Lee in his brilliant book, AI Superpowers. It tells the story of original, intense entrepreneurial competition and innovation, strategic planning and investment, cultural factors that drive rapid iteration and risk-taking, and indigenous innovation capabilities. You can see why I'm suspicious. Resolution problem — because third-world problems are presented both as the diagnosis and the resolution. Friend-shoring, so to speak. This is what I hear: "Hey, this idea didn't work the first time. Let's do it all over again in similar situations and not learn anything from the mistakes. We invested in a third-world country and now it's giving us tough competition. Let's now pick another one with an emergent democracy deficit and replicate the model. What could go wrong?" I'm not a big fan of decoupling, but even if a de-risking effort has to be made, here's what I would have done: brought Apple's infrastructure to Canada near the US border. Canada has a lot of land and a smaller population. Then, in consultation with the Canadian and US governments, I would have brought in foreign, cheaper labour to the new plants and cities. This way, high-paying jobs like designing and engineering could be kept in the US, while building a product and labour value chain with total customisation options. This way, the US regains control of its technology and reshoring becomes feasible. Canada and the US move closer, talent from third-world countries gets a better life even in these anti-immigration times, and Canada adds to its working population. But for some reason, these guys won't tell you such solutions exist. India has an even stronger lobby than I originally thought.
