Phones don’t have lights.

Mark Zuckerberg’s latest defense for Ray-Ban Meta glasses hinges on a seemingly trivial detail: the glasses emit a light when a photo is taken, while phones do not. This light, he argues, makes the glasses more intuitive for signaling a snapshot than our ubiquitous smartphones. However, does a single LED really outweigh the convenience and versatility of a phone’s camera?

Firstly, phones have been capturing photos for decades without the need for an additional light. The act of raising a phone to one’s ear or holding it out to snap a picture is already a universally recognized gesture. Moreover, many modern phones do have indicator lights for cameras—those tiny LEDs that blink when the camera is active. Zuckerberg’s glasses might shine brighter, but phones have been lighting up the world of photography for years.

Another point to consider: the glasses themselves are a bit bulky and require additional charging or battery management. Phones, on the other hand, are lightweight, pocket-friendly, and always within arm’s reach. When it comes to spontaneity, a phone can be whipped out in a flash, whereas the Meta glasses might need a moment to power up or be adjusted for comfort.

Lastly, the assumption that phones don’t signal a photo as effectively as the glasses overlooks the human element. When someone holds a phone up, it’s often accompanied by a glance, a smile, or a quick swipe—signs that are far more expressive than a simple LED. The glasses’ light is a nice touch, but it’s hardly the be-all and end-all of photo signaling.

In conclusion, while Zuckerberg’s light argument is clever, it doesn’t fully illuminate the phone’s supremacy in the photo-taking arena. Phones may lack the dedicated light, but they make up for it with convenience, familiarity, and a dash of human expression. So, when it comes to snapping a pic, the phone still reigns supreme, even if the Meta glasses are one step closer to the future of wearable photography.