Not to mention that most pictures taken with phone cams will be viewed on computer or mobile device screens, rather than being printed on photo paper. The resolution of good quality computer screens is generally under 3 MP, which means that a 5 MP photo won't fit onto most screens anyway.
My office computer has a 1280x1024 ViewSonic monitor. It's a nice monitor, but that's only 1.3 MP. My wallpaper is a photo I took about 8 years ago with a 3.2 MP camera. It looks beautiful, but of course had to be scaled down to fit onto the screen. The only alternative to downscaling is cropping, and both involve throwing away pixels.
Granted, it's good to have more MP on your camera than you need for computer display, especially to get a better result with digital zoom, which is essentially crop-and-enlarge. But 5 MP should be adequate for most purposes.
So, unless you're going for quality large prints on photo paper, that 8 MP image that you send to someone, which drains your battery in taking it and sending it, will end up with a large percentage of its megapixels being zapped so that the recipient can view it. This is "high end"?
The case for auto-focus makes sense. Even though good close-up photos can be taken with the EDoF camera, by people who know what they're doing, it's unquestionably easier to do with AF. I'm not sure that it's worth it, since I've had plenty of photos ruined by blurring due to AF lag, but I understand why people want it. But if I had to say which "high end" improvement I'd prefer in a BB camera, or any other 5 MP phone cam, it wouldn't be more MP. It'd be better optics. Even a slightly larger lens, of good quality, could improve photos much more than just shoehorning more MP in.