On one hand, I am very happy for what the cameras in so-called "phones" can do these days. They are vastly more capable than the cameras that once introduced many millions of people (including me) to photography, Kodak Brownies and Instamatics, and are likely to increase enthusiasm for photography and lead those enthusiasts to add other gear, once they push up against the inherent limits of what a "tiny lens camera" can and cannot do. (Those classic cameras also had lenses of very small aperture sizes and thus abundant depth of field and limited low light abilities, partly because that great DOF was needed for them to work with their fixed-focus lenses. And yes, it is ultimately lens size and more specifically front element size that imposes many of the limits on what a smaller camera can do, and only indirectly the sensor size.)
But some of this advertisement is so nonsensical that I have to suspect at least "prompting" from the advertising people. In particular:
a) Raving about the low f-stop of the camera-phone's lens, and comparing it to a lens of similarly low f-stop for a camera of far large format, as if he or any experienced photographer can be unaware that this says nothing about the phone-camera having comparable abilities in either low-light performance or depth of field control -- for reasons that have been thrashed to death in this and every other photographic forum.
b) Showing off the array of lenses that he uses, including obviously some telephotos (i.e. lenses for making images of a narrow angle of view), and then ignoring the severe limitations for "narrow angle of view" photography with this camera. Or any current phone-camera. Or any camera with front elements and effective aperture diameter small enough to fit into a phone or a pocket.