Being the age I am, I’m just old enough to remember flip-phones.
A relatively simple concept that has been on my mind lately for reasons I’ll get to. Widely considered obsolete unless you just want a cheap phone to make calls etc., these phones featured a screen on one side, a keypad on the other, with a hinge joint between the two.
The reason that this device has been dragged back to the front of my brain in recent weeks is because I am reminded of them every time I see this:
To be clear: I’m aware that this foldable iphone is not the first foldable modern smartphone (I know Samsung released them years ago also).
But I’m also left wondering: what is the point? I think I can perfectly understand the use of flip phones as they were when they were popular, but foldable phones I just can’t see the benefit. As far as I can see, these foldable type of phones offer little to no benefit that you couldn’t get from, say a regular iPhone or Samsung phone, in terms of the consumer and how they are used in general life. I get that the hardware/software may be different, but that’s not going to be a factor in most people’s daily lives (you’re not going to care about the type of core, or the screen resolution when you make a phone call, etc.) It seems like it’s more of a gimmick from the companies making them to try and make more sales, but even if that’s the case, the product must have something unique to offer, so what is it about foldable phones that are so unique besides the gimmick of folding?
Yes, this is the answer and it's not that hard to understand.
What is hard to understand is the value proposition. Flips are more expensive for a lower spec device, and they're very unreliable--they're still breaking alot; wouldn't expect more than 2 years out of one.
For most people in the pocket computer market, their needs would be more economically served by a high end phone and a mid tablet, or a high end tablet and mid phone, both items having a naturally longer life than a flip, and will each be used less, and are individually replacable.
All-in-all, flip phones are a fine concept, but at their price point and longevity, they don't make a ton of sense for most people. Just easier to carry a tablet or put up with the smaller screen.
The hell are you talking about? They tend to have roughly the same technical specs as their single-screen counterparts, with the only exception being the camera because of physics.
First, I meant folds, not flips..
Second, you are right; I had some old but also specific information I was misapplying.
That said, it will always be true that you're paying more for the screen; if you want to pay the same price for a foldable, you're sacrificing on hardware..
Think of it this way, for a lot of people (myself included), a foldable serves as both a phone and a tablet. Most of the time a foldable is cheaper and more convenient than an equivalent phone and tablet combined.
I personally used to use a tablet 2-3 days per week. But it would be super annoying because I wasn't using it often enough to charge it every night like my phone, so about half the time the battery would be dead or low. Because of that I often also had to carry a power bank and charge cable around with the tablet.
Maybe you don't have a need to a tablet or you use one daily and don't have this problem. But for me a foldable is a really useful compromise
Yes, my original comment was agreeing that folds are pretty durn nifty.
As for your price considerations, you are leaving out longevity. A regular phone and tablet will last you many times longer than a fold. In the long run, it will be cheaper to have both.
I also specified that either the phone or the tablet be high spec. Just as you don't always need to have a big screen, you also don't always need to have the latest CPU and most RAM. Buying a high end tablet and a high end phone to replace a high end fold would be overkill.
BTW - I had that same exact problem with my tablet, which I used maybe once a week. Every time I'd pick it up, it would be dead or almost dead. What's killing your battery is the radios--wifi, bluetooth or whatever. I used to have a program to automatically kill those things, but then Samsung killed access (which why I will never buy another Samsung tablet again). I started trying to remember to turn on Airplane mode, but that didn't turn off wifi for some reason. Then I tried remembering to turn it off. But how do you confirm a tablet is off without turning it on? Maddening.
I'm using the tablet more frequently now, so it's not as bad, but I think its helped to leave Battery Saver on full time.
We're all waiting to see what Apple brings out. Perhaps they have come up with a reliable design. Perhaps it will be junk. In any case I agree that the price is not justified for most people today even if it robust and reliable. Personally, I almost never by expensive phones as my use is not very demanding.
I think Apple is buying their screens from Samsung, so wear should be the same. And, Neo aside, Apple is not known for bringing costs down.
Which makes it frustrating that the tablet market is so tiny compared to the phone one. And many of them have worse specs than even entry-level smartphones (Samsung is still selling the S6 Lite, which has a paltry 4GB of RAM and can barely handle running a single heavy app without crashing).
And Samsung is really quite awful in terms of locking down the OS, second only to Apple, which really has some really good tablets; though it is so damn annoying that the mini has such extreme hardware. It's like they KNOW that's the form factor people want, so they make it as expensive as possible.
My daily drivers are a Pixel 7, a 10+ y-o gaming PC running linux, and a mid Galaxy Tab A, mostly for browsing. The Pixel downloads my torrents, and the gaming PC runs my media server and does some AI stuff.
I think I'm happier having several mid-range devices that are adequate for the task they are put to than having fewer devices that are more capable.