 the rapid decrease in price has, however, had an effect on what users expect in terms of the quality available from a digital camera phone hardware platform. For reasons of cost, size and weight, the lenses used in camera phones are of relatively poor quality. The use of a CMOS sensor (for cost and power reasons) instead of the CCD sensor used in higher-end digital cameras also tends to result in higher image noise and lower sensitivity. Most users of course just expect their camera phones to be as good as an equivalently priced digital camera in terms of optical quality. While this is possible, it does imply additional cost and complexity and the only way in which a digital camera phone can be as good as an equivalently priced digital camera is either by subsidising the product, or to make the product in much higher volume. By default, Nokia achieved this because SO many of their phones include camera-phone functionality. Nokia became and still remains the largest vendor of digital cameras albeit with a phone included. Did Nokia sell more phones as a result of adding imaging functionality? Well yes almost certainly, but the offset cost includes the additional imaging component cost included in phones owned by users who never use the functionality and the additional customer support costs of sorting out users who cannot work out how to take a picture let alone send it to someone. Making Telecoms Work Digital Camera Software Users also expect their camera-phone software to be just as good as an equivalently priced digital camera in terms of functionality. All digital cameras and camera phones use digital processing to improve or rebalance the captured image. High-end cameras, however, do the job better and faster than low-end cameras and better and faster than most camera phones. Digital camera manufacturers set out to differentiate their camera products on the basis of what might be described as 'algorithmic value'. One example is the time it takes a camera to autofocus and the accuracy of the autofocus. To be a