I think the point was that great photography can be done regardless of equipment, and these awards value talent in composition, a good eye, etc., over strict image quality given by expensive lenses. Also, to be fair, the iPhone may be expensive, but the camera in it is not (in terms of quality), it's still a phone camera (even if it's a decent one at that).

Well, when was the last time you could call, text or surf the internet on a camera?

Well, really, an I-phone does way more than a camera. You can spend several thousand for a good camera and all you're going to get is good quality pictures. Spend several hundred for a phone and you get a tool with hundreds of apps.

I once took a photo with an old Blackberry phone and sent it to National Geographic - a rainbow coming from a mountain to the sea which was shot on the drive between Rooi Els and Gordon's Bay, South Africa. Every now and then I still get comments on it.

Like $800.00, I agree

Logistically speaking, most high-profile awards have very strict image quality selection criteria, so it's quite likely that an iPhone photo would be rejected simply due to resolution, or image noise, or something even more arbitrary, like "must be taken with a DSLR". Conceptually, though, that is a very good point :D.

these photos were from a photography competition. it's not an open list.

I wonder too... It seems we are the most idle nation, taking photos whenever, wherever... Haha