Mr. Filloux, you largely echo the words of American professional photographer Thom Hogan, who has excoriated the traditional camera manufacturers for years for letting the casual-snap market slip away from them because they’ve never adequately responded to the simpler workflow presented by … well, pretty much any smartphone manufacturer and OS provider.
While some have not been kind about the processed bokeh of images like the one you present here, the fact is that it’s “good enough” — just as an MP3 copy of a song on a portable player is “good enough” and the other benefits (mobility, on-the-go selection, etc.) more than compensatory for the loss of some fidelity in the background.
Given Apple’s dominant position in computers for “creative” fields, the camera OS should come from them. But I agree it will not likely be an Apple-labeled product. Looking at Apple’s efforts in the self-driving car realm, though, might they consider licensing a “professional” camera OS built on what’s already there for iOS? They wouldn’t even need to make it their own product. Let Canon or Nikon or even Sony or Adobe or DxO label and market it. Those companies have an incentive to reach beyond the glass ceiling that the physics of smartphone cameras inevitably will reach — and provide happy smartphone camera users a big step up over whatever is coming from Apple, Samsung, Nokia, etc., in 12–18 months.