I have two expensive full format digital cameras with good lenses, they still don't go anywhere close to my TLR medium format from the 1940s in terms of definition and 3D effect, regardless of whether they are used with modern lenses or vintage lenses from the same era.
They are potent in much more conditions, they are a lot easier to use, and smartphone cameras do even better in that regard. However, there are things that miniaturized and/or digital cameras will never be able to replace.

DSLR are a very good balance overall for quality pictures in most conditions and ease of use. Smartphone cameras are extremely useful to carry around, they are balanced for that, but they will hardly ever take the quality spot. Now that does not mean they can't be improved; they did get quite a lot better over the past years, and it's still welcome.

So you don’t think your expensive cams will be beaten by this tiny phone in the future? It’s just a matter of time.

So true.
Same you could say about 'vinyl' records instead CD, oops sorry MP3.
Conveniece beats quality (/privacy).

Fair enough. Do even find cams without software or phones without cams?

Maybe you can ask chen to not install anything at all on your devices so you can fix only the things you need.

No. A single word. It's that simple.

If you want a longer answer, have two words: sensor size.

The push to ever thinner devices combined with ever increasing pixel count makes things only worse. Cramming more pixels onto a smaller die makes each individual pixel smaller, thus reducing its light gathering quality. Making the device thinner forces the die closer to the lens which pushes the requirements on the lens optics beyond its comfortable range. Both effects combined result in shitty pictures that the common public accepts as the new norm thanks to aggressive marketing and general ignorance.

Vinyl is objectively worse than lossless digital audio, though. You don't get a soothing hiss when playing a CD, but quality-wise vinyl, which is physically destroyed by playing it, is worse than digital audio. There is, of course, a difference if the studio decides to master the record differently for vinyl than for CD, but that's just silliness like using heavy 180g vinyl plates instead of the lighter ones.

MP3 files also don't sound as bad as they're often made out to be in comparison to lossless audio, what gets cut is the super high frequencies the human ear anatomically can not hear. (I'm thinking V0 VBR or 320 CBR here, but even V2 VBR MP3 is usually near indistinguishable from its lossless counterpart). What they are bad at is efficiency, they take up a lot more space than, say, Vorbis or Opus. It doesn't help if they're badly encoded, either, but in general, 99% of the world population will not hear the difference between V0 MP3 and lossless audio even in a professional testing environment, and even if they do it will only be on a case-by-case basis. Lossless audio is for conservation (to put on CDs, vinyl, cassette, whatever you want, and to encode to lossy files), lossy audio is for consumption. All physical audio storage media are lossy by definition: vinyl and cassette get destroyed by playing them, and CDs eventually rot.

There's my man, I still have and (too rarely) use my full-manual Pentax lovely with 50mm/1.4 Takumar. Love the bokeh it creates on black&white images!

Of course they will never reach the same.

@pichlo gave you one answer, and I'll give you another and that's glass.
No manufacturer will ever bundle real optics with a phone.

It might be sci-fi to you but I think you are wrong. Never is a loooong time.

You raise a valid point.

Let us consider human eye. It's not that big really. You could imagine embedding something of that size to a mobile phone. And the human eye can catch some nicely detailed images, am I right? Even if you disagreed with that assertion, you might agree that if a human can't tell difference with his eye to that of a photo, it is ample enough quality.

So future mobile phones could use same techniques that human eye and brain uses to create pictures. That's just proof of concept.

Now, human eye was developed by Yahweh. I think we can all agree that Yahweh is quite powerful. But the word "genius" is probably not the word any of us would use to describe him. So it's not at all far fetched to consider that humans could design a camera that is smaller and more efficient than what Yahweh did with human eye.

Sound logic?