'Folding Phones Are the New 3D TV' (wired.com) 100
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from Wired, written by Lauren Goode: Samsung's newest foldables are even more impressive than the folding models that came before them. (The company first started shipping foldable phones in 2019, after years of development.) And yet, folding phones are still the 3D TVs of the smartphone world: birthed with the intention of swiveling your head toward a product at a time when the market for that product has softened. They're technically complicated. They're expensive. And their usability depends a whole lot on the way content is displayed on them, which means manufacturers could nail all the tech specs and still must wait on software makers (or entertainment companies) to create stuff to fill these space-age screens. All this does not bode well for the future of foldable phones, though some analysts are more optimistic.
Back in the early 2010's, global TV shipments started slipping, as developed markets became saturated with flat-screen TVs. And as prices for LCD TVs sank, so did profits. So TV manufacturers like Sony, LG, and Samsung began hyping the next expensive upgrade: 3D televisions. We tech journalists marched around the annual CES in 3D glasses, hoping to catch a glimpse of a 3D TV that would change our minds about this gimmicky technology. We grew mildly nauseous. We waited for more content. Five years later, 3D TV was dead. At the end of the last decade, WIRED's Brian Barrett summed up the great 3D TV pitch as "what happens when smart people run out of ideas, the last gasp before aspiration gives way to commoditization."
I know: TVs and mobile phones are different beasts. Mobile phones have fundamentally altered the way we live. Billions of handsets have been sold. But about four years ago, global smartphone sales slowed. By 2019, consumers were holding on to their phones for a few extra months before splurging on an upgrade. As smartphones became more secure and reliable, running on desktop-grade chip systems and featuring cameras good enough to decimate the digital camera market, each new iteration of a phone seemed, well, iterative. Enter foldable displays, which are either a desperate gimmick or a genuine leap forward, depending on whom you ask. Or, like 3D TVs, maybe they're both.
Foldables were also supposed to be the ultimate on-the-go device, for road warriors and jet-setters and productivity gurus who want to "stay in the flow" at all times. As I've written before, it's not exactly the best time to beta test this concept, while some of our movements are limited. The context for foldables has changed in the short time since they became commercially available. Of course, that context could always change again. Foldables may be the next frontier in phones, or in tablets, or laptops, or all of the above. They could become commonplace, assumed, as boring as a solid inflexible brick. Maybe we'll manage our decentralized bank accounts on a creaky screen as we shoot into sub-orbital space. Or maybe we'll stare into the screens, two parts fused into one, and hope that the future is something more than this. The biggest argument for foldables not being 3D TVs, as mentioned by research manager for IDC, Jitesh Ubrani, is the potential utility of foldables.
"Most people in the industry, and even many consumers, believe that ultimately there is just going to be one device you use, you know?" Ubrani says. "And this device will have the ability to function as a phone, as a PC, as a tablet. So where foldables can really drive the technology is by replacing three devices with one."
Back in the early 2010's, global TV shipments started slipping, as developed markets became saturated with flat-screen TVs. And as prices for LCD TVs sank, so did profits. So TV manufacturers like Sony, LG, and Samsung began hyping the next expensive upgrade: 3D televisions. We tech journalists marched around the annual CES in 3D glasses, hoping to catch a glimpse of a 3D TV that would change our minds about this gimmicky technology. We grew mildly nauseous. We waited for more content. Five years later, 3D TV was dead. At the end of the last decade, WIRED's Brian Barrett summed up the great 3D TV pitch as "what happens when smart people run out of ideas, the last gasp before aspiration gives way to commoditization."
I know: TVs and mobile phones are different beasts. Mobile phones have fundamentally altered the way we live. Billions of handsets have been sold. But about four years ago, global smartphone sales slowed. By 2019, consumers were holding on to their phones for a few extra months before splurging on an upgrade. As smartphones became more secure and reliable, running on desktop-grade chip systems and featuring cameras good enough to decimate the digital camera market, each new iteration of a phone seemed, well, iterative. Enter foldable displays, which are either a desperate gimmick or a genuine leap forward, depending on whom you ask. Or, like 3D TVs, maybe they're both.
Foldables were also supposed to be the ultimate on-the-go device, for road warriors and jet-setters and productivity gurus who want to "stay in the flow" at all times. As I've written before, it's not exactly the best time to beta test this concept, while some of our movements are limited. The context for foldables has changed in the short time since they became commercially available. Of course, that context could always change again. Foldables may be the next frontier in phones, or in tablets, or laptops, or all of the above. They could become commonplace, assumed, as boring as a solid inflexible brick. Maybe we'll manage our decentralized bank accounts on a creaky screen as we shoot into sub-orbital space. Or maybe we'll stare into the screens, two parts fused into one, and hope that the future is something more than this. The biggest argument for foldables not being 3D TVs, as mentioned by research manager for IDC, Jitesh Ubrani, is the potential utility of foldables.
"Most people in the industry, and even many consumers, believe that ultimately there is just going to be one device you use, you know?" Ubrani says. "And this device will have the ability to function as a phone, as a PC, as a tablet. So where foldables can really drive the technology is by replacing three devices with one."
Re:OP is a retard (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, nobody wanted folding phones in the first place... back in 1996.
The reason they originally took off was because they looked like the StarTrek (TOS) communicator. That is the SINGLE reason why the Startac was popular at all.
When the GSM models of phones came out, Nokia was still far far more popular than Motorola, and the flip phones were always so fragile, especially the V60i's and RAZR brand.
LG and Samsung jumped on the fliphone bandwagon and then produce absolute garbage. Nokia made a single model because of "demand" and nobody bought it, it was relegated to "free phone trash"
Then everyone threw them out when touch screens came out because nobody wanted keypads anymore. Not even RIM Blackberry owners. Apple ate RIM's lunch, Nokia's Dinner, and pretty much made it impossible to sell anything that was not a smartphone touch screen.
That's it. Folding touch phones are not desirable, unlike the flip phones, which were designed to protect the screen by having the keypad recessed lower than the screen so it couldn't make contact, folding touch screens are put under stress and start to delaminate at the hinge. They will have super-short usable life as the batteries will also be limited to being on the SoC side of the PCB. There are simply too many things to break. Not to mention all it takes is a grain of sand to get in the screen when you fold it, and you've shattered both halves of the screen.
By any account nobody wanted a return to the flipphone/folding phone. What we should be doing is instead of trying to fold it in half, is magnetically attaching a battery to the Front OR Back of the phone for extended battery life.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Further, the folding tech is so fragile that IF for some reason I absolutely needed the functionality, I would greatly prefer a proper hinge and two conventional screens side by side. Not ideal but a lot less fragile.
By comparison, the old flip phones (other than the too thin Razor) were quite sturdy. But not nearly as sturdy as the candy bar phone.
And I saw more than one flip phone set to play a recording of the Star Trek communicator opening when you opened it. That was the biggest selling feature
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, a regular slab in an Otter box would survive even more abuse. So will my old Kyocera.
Re: (Score:3)
The original RAZR was EASILY sturdier than pretty much any candy bar phone not made by Nokia. I've cracked a bunch of screens in my pocket just driving sports cars but I still had my 240SX when I had my RAZR and it was fine. Being smaller helps a LOT, you just can't get as much leverage across the device. It wasn't quite as durable as say a V300 and friends, but it was close.
Re: (Score:2)
...folding touch screens are put under stress and start to delaminate at the hinge. They will have super-short usable life as the batteries will also be limited to being on the SoC side of the PCB. There are simply too many things to break. Not to mention all it takes is a grain of sand to get in the screen when you fold it, and you've shattered both halves of the screen.
It's pretty disappointing how little faith slash dotters have in hardware development. These issues will be improved on and worked out.
If I was to wager a bet, I'd actually say that flexible screen tech will grow to become important even for non-folding devices. Things like the 12.9in iPad have issues in that they really can't handle much bending. The future of iPad will be a flexible screen on a flexible substrate. It will be the same with laptop screens and probably even phones. This is the only way they
Re: OP is a retard (Score:1)
There's this thing called physics...
Re: (Score:2)
Flip phones where a thing because it was the only reasonable way at the time to make phones smaller... as that was what was wanted at the time
The StarTac was the smallest usable phone - until bluetooth meant you didn't need the speaker and mike on one device
Graphical screens, and in particular touch screens meant they got larger ... until this was limited by practicality
The only problem folding screen solve is the odd niche between phones and tablets - but they are still not durable enough
Re: (Score:2)
...The reason they originally took off was because they looked like the StarTrek (TOS) communicator...
That's enough.
Re:moto Z with moto mods (Score:1)
What we should be doing is instead of trying to fold it in half, is magnetically attaching a battery to the Front OR Back of the phone for extended battery life.
Motorola has a line of phones for the Motorola Z, which has a magnetic back to hold "Moto Mods". I have an additional magnetically attached battery on my Motorola Z Force. While these phones were not quite market failures, they were certainly not shining successes, and the large majority of the market treated these phones as gimmicks, which they were. I believe this line is now discontinued, and Motorola/Lenovo/whoever-the-are are creating normal non-gimmicky phones again. I strongly doubt that the addit
Re: (Score:2)
This is dumb. Did you ever use a StarTac in 1996? It was about the best plain phone of its era, much easier to carry and better phone ergonomics than any of the Nokia candybars.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I have spent the last 15 or so years pining for the days of the flip phones. I hate lugging around a gigantic slab that I have to encase in plastic to protect a screen.
I want a flip phone running Android that is protected when closed and is half the size of a standard glass brick.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a Samsung flip phone and it was great lasted 9 years with a battery life of 4 weeks, The main advantage for me of a flip phone is you can't accidentally dial while its in you pocket, very useful while cycling with a phone in your pocket. As for the new foldable phones I don't know, I am not the person that cares too much about flashy, and definitely wouldn't pay more for it. I just use a foldable case, back then you didn't need to put your phone in a case.
Re:OP is a retard (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are not. The OP is spot on. Like 3D TV nobody wanted these things. An jus t like 3D TV these things will go away. An just like 3D tv, there is some on out there that likes them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Notably, most 3D TVs came with one (1) pair of the necessary glasses. Sales of additional glasses were nearly non-existent. That suggests that nobody really cared about 3D.
The industry press went gaga for it and created the false impression that everyone was buying one because that's what industry press does.
The INDUSTRY went gaga over 3D HOPING to bolster sales by getting people to run out and get a new TV (and DVR and BluRay, etc) even if their existing TV was fairly new. That hope didn't pan out.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they tried 1 pair and because of lack of content didn't buy a second. 3D TV may take off but you need content and movies to take advantage of it properly, 3D movies where mainly gimmicky 3D added, movie makers don't know how to properly take advantage of yet. This is the same as VR headsets for me, its really cool but there is a lack of good games to play.
3D TV, and folding phones may take off eventually, personal digital assistants like today's phones where around a long time before the iPhone but didn'
Re: (Score:2)
They've been trying to make 3D work usefully since 1953. So far, no go. Never say never, but I won't hold my breath either.
Every 10 years of so, it makes a brief re-appearance , gets some interest as a novelty, then fades away again.
Re: (Score:3)
They were a fad. A gimmick. Much like 3D movies. Are they still a thing? I honestly don't know. I also don't really care.
All the gimmicks in the world wouldn't turn the average turd that's brought to screen into something worth time and money to watch. But I digress.
3D was indeed a reason for people to go and buy a new TV. Maybe not those that just bought one, but those whose TV was 2-3 years old and they needed a new toy, so instead of buying a new computer or diswasher that plays la cucaracha when it's do
Re: (Score:2)
Like 3D TV nobody wanted these things.
No one wanted a phone with a glass screen and no buttons. ...
No one wanted a touchscreen laptop which gets fingerprints all over it.
No one wanted larger phones.
No one wanted 4K TVs, 1080p was sharp enough for everyone.
No one wanted
The reality as with all of the above examples is the Samsung despite the insanely ludicrous price actually sold a shitton of Z Flip phones. Not only despite the price, but also despite a suspension of sale, a reputation as being fragile as fuck, and a lot of negative press such as
Re: (Score:2)
I am very excited for that possibility as well.
I am not going to spend $1500 on a phone.
But when the cost for a flip phone Android device gets to $500 or so, I am all in. I really want to reduce the size of phone that I have (and I have about the smallest mainstream Android device you can get: Pixel 3A)
Re: (Score:2)
You could do all of that in the 90s with PDAs too, even pre-BT over IrDA, and that whole market fundamentally imploded even before smartphones became a thing. They worked great for some tasks, and were utter rubbish at others. At the end of the day, people like different form factors for different things, and the appropriateness of the form factor to the problem isn't going to change regardless of what kind of newfangled display and mechanics solution someone comes up with. Folding smartphones are nothing m
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who prefers not to carry a bag I find it extremely useful. I can go to any cafe and use my phone the same as a laptop, all with stuff that fits in my pockets along with my wallet and keys.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I do like the idea of foldable/rollable phones (I want the band on my swart-watch to be a display!!) I do agree with you that the Nintendo DS-approach would be welcome. Alternatively I saw a phone on TV (pretty sure it was a scifi-prop and not a real phone) that had a slide-up mini-screen I could also happily use.
Ah... well... I can dream.
Re: Foldable phone (Score:2)
There are models with slide up screens. Very few but I do remember seeing them. I think the biggest issue with them is a bezel.
Re: Foldable phone (Score:2)
I had two. First an Ericsson World Phone. It had a stylus and a resistive touch screen, cutting edge stuff at the time.
Then a Nokia Communicator. No touch, but much more usable that the Ericsson. That little keyboard was nice.
Phones are too big... until you fold them in half (Score:4, Interesting)
Phones have gotten bigger and bigger -- yes the phablets have mostly gone away, but the flagships are all 6", and when the Pixel 5 is considered a "small" phone there's something weird going on.
My wife is looking for a replacement phone that will fit in her pants pocket -- very few do, most will stick out. This is, to a large degree, the fault of fashion designers.
The smallest phone T-Mobile was showing under $500 in their store was the OnePlus Nord 200, and it's too big.
The Galaxy Flip would be ideal, if it weren't over $1000. If this gets to be the standard, lots of people will buy them, just for portability.
Re: (Score:1)
My wife is looking for a replacement phone that will fit in her pants pocket -- very few do, most will stick out. This is, to a large degree, the fault of fashion designers.
Nah. Your wife just needs to put on a few pounds and get a new wardrobe.
They say that a woman who gains a bit of weight as she ages tends to live longer than the men who point it out.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I prefer iPhone's 12 mini and 4S.
Re: (Score:2)
and yet, iPhone mini has apparently been the worst selling of all the 12 models.
That seems strange to me though. While I personally want t a big screen phone I know several people who want small phones. Like one of my friends actually bought a first generation iPhone SE (the one in the 4/5 form factor) a few months back just to get a small phone that was still usable.
Re: (Score:2)
Your friend should had gotten the 2nd SE!
Re: (Score:2)
He tried it and said that it was too big...
Re: (Score:2)
Then, a 12 mini! Even that wasn't small like 4S to me. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'm not sure sure it's the fashion designers.
I too have the same requirement, and my current 6.5" phone is at the very edge of acceptable - it'll just about fit in my jeans pocket, but I can't bend my leg as easily with it there. It's okay for walking, but sitting down is less than ideal, and any other contortions are all but impossible. I'd love a 5" phone again.
I also think a "flip" would be ideal - although it wants to be more durable than a regular flat phone, not less. I'm also not sold on th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they think there is consumer demand, but they are not doing this because there is an unmet consumer demand. They are doing it as a gimmick to charge more. That rarely works in the long run. Unfortunately for them, the consumer segment interested in this is not, for the most part, those willing to pay
I don't know, man (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't care less about the big Samsung foldable phones - i don't want a tablet.
But thew Z Flip has me genuinely considering investing in a new phone well before i was planning to. I dig the features, the Pixel 2 Panda-inspired aesthetics and, most of all, the form factor. Finally a phone i can comfortably operate with a single hand, and carry on a small pocket to boot.
If foldable clam shell phones go down in price i can totally see them becoming a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The larger foldables are interesting to me, or at least they will be when the prices come down.
I like large phones and being able to carry an even larger one folded up would be great. Just strip out the unnecessary stuff, the 9 cameras, and just a small notification/selfie outside screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't know, man (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, durability is the only thing keeping me on the fence. Battery life is also a big question mark.
I'm using a Pixel 5 these days, mostly because it is small, feature packed, rugged, and the battery lasts forever on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"The production process is considerably different than 2D production. "
No it isn't, not for shutter-glasses 3D. CONTENT production cost is more. But not more expensive for making for a 3D TV. Shutter technology requires no additional equipment for a modern TV, other than purchasing the optional glasses (which are cheap to make). Every modern TV has the processing power and a high enough refresh rate now to support 3D.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I don't understand why they don't just include 3D functionality in the newest TVs."
I don't understand either. There is pretty much ZERO cost to support 3D in any modern TV's using the most common technology- shutter glasses. All the TV is doing is rapidly flipping between two different views, something all modern TV's have the processing power and refresh rate to do, along with bluetooth already present. Maybe a $1 worth of patents or something to license? Just buy the optional glasses if you want t
Re: (Score:1)
4K is more of a gimmick than 3D ever was. Probably 98% of people would have no idea if they are watching 1080P vs. 4K on any sub-150" TV at standard viewing distance (typically 10+ feet). Cox cable just decided to downgrade all their interesting channels (SCI, NatGeo, History, TNTetc) from 1080P to 720P and I bet almost nobody even noticed that change (I certainly did).
so very true. it's all about the bandwidth the provider dedicates to the channel, not necessarily the resolution. if they're trying to cram 4K into a channel that used to carry 1080i it's gonna look like shit. but few people recognize compression artifacts and it doesn't seem like broadcast engineers hold any sway over business decisions anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The market has always been limited and has always shown the same pattern. A brief craze due to the novelty followed by a sharp decline. There were even a couple of 3D features on broadcast TV in the '70s with promotion weeks in advance and free glasses available at convieniance stores (no purchase necessary). Then it faded away, just like it did in theaters in the '50s.
Naturally a few people were more interested, but not enough to justify doing anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the TV by itself doesn't do much without a BluRay player that supports 3D and/or broadcasters supporting it. Neither do.
There just aren't enough people like you to justify the effort at this point. You might need to check out used TVs for sale to get one made during the craze.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot more people actually in need of CSM than there are interested in 3D. There was never a lot of content for 3D TV and there isn't likely to be any more. They've probably halted production on the glasses as well.
It might be nice if there was one or two models available for the enthusiasts, but I guess the size of that market just isn't big enough to interest manufacturers.
Re: I still enjoy my aging 3D TV (Score:2)
I'd had awful experiences with 3D TVs -- dim pictures, crosstalk, headaches from active glasses, etc -- and had zero interest in the technology. When I got my 2015 LG OLED, I didn't even try the 3D for months. However, once I did, I was hooked.
Bright picture, full resolution, passive glasses, beautiful depth -- LG's OLED had seemingly fixed all my issues with home 3D and it is glorious. And then they discontinued it after the next model, also meaning that few people got to experience this pinnacle of home 3
docking (Score:3)
> Most people in the industry, and even many consumers, believe that ultimately there is just going to be one device you use ... this device will have the ability to function as a phone, as a PC, as a tablet.
Right, so what you need is something that will function well as a mobile (whatever that means for you, for me it means fits in my pocket without breaking or being uncomfortable), and then different kinds of docks, like a tablet format, a KVM interface, the entertainment system in my car is mostly a dock, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Huh? Billions of people carrying smart phones in their pockets is not an example of the opposite? What do you think a smart phone is, if not a “personal computer”?
Re: (Score:3)
As soon as you solved the interface problem, I'm game. Until then, I sure as fuck don't want to work on a phone where the, well, let's call it a "keyboard", shares real estate with the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do all that already with a Galaxy Fold. Samsung has it's Dex desktop mode and the wireless video/input stuff is already there for things like Android Auto.
Interesting, but with drawbacks... (Score:2)
It wouldn't be bad to have a flip-phone that can end a call with a satisfying physical close action. However, the screens have to be made out of a thin plastic, and we finally have smartphones well made enough that they can take most indignities without scratches or shatters, even without a case. I'm not really looking forward to a piece of sand doing a number on a screen if it winds its way there while the phone is closed.
I think they are a nice option to have... since slider phones with hardware keyboar
Nothing to see here (Score:2)
I don't know, actually, whether most people believe that, but if it does happen it probably won't be a foldable phone.
What's a lot more likely is a smaller phone with a really good accessory system, so people who want to add a bigger display, keyboard, mouse, camera, etc. can do it seamlessly, adding/removing components on demand, carrying it around with permanently attached
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, actually, whether most people believe that, but if it does happen it probably won't be a foldable phone.
It will not be in the form factor of a non0foldable phone either.
These are just far too small to replace other computing devices. The display is small. The keyboard is small. The audio is small. The battery life is small. Small.
Small is good, for some things. Nobody wants a big phone!
But when I need to do a lot of typing, I need a much fuller sized keyboard. Now, of course I can get that external keyboard, but its 7x the size of the phone! So whats the phone for then? The keyboard can much more comfo
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there are a LOT of us out here with bad eyes that pretty much need a big phone in order to be able to see and use it.
Cellphones suck here (Score:2)
worst of both worlds, bulky phone, flimsy tablet (Score:3)
It's a bad idea from the start. What do we like about tablets? Sturdy frame, huge battery, lots of power, reasonably priced.
What do we like in a phone? portable, sturdy, thin, easy to slide in & out of our pocket.
Even just 1 fold means you get a flimsy phone with nearly twice the thickness and most cases stop working. Now this crappy, failure-prone, delicate device is priced more than a flagship phone. Yup...it's definitely the 3D TV of phones.
I am skeptical a lot of people are looking at their ipads and saying....man, I wish this thing folded in half, cost 5x as much, and was 10x as likely to stop working.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup...it's definitely the 3D TV of phones.
Yes, but what If we made a 3D folding phone? That’s gotta be the next big thing!
Re: (Score:2)
You're not thinking big enough. What if we made a 3D folding TV?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a sheet of paper the size of the tablet you want to use. Now fold it to the size of a phone you want to use. Now imagine actually using it.
I'm imagining something the size of a Kindle and a result being smaller than the phone I currently have. I don't know where your imagination is taking you but this sounds to me like an ideal device.
The only thing wrong with it right now is the price. Not every tablet needs to be the size of a TV and not ever phone needs to be the size of the a Nokia 8210
What do we like about tablets? Sturdy frame, huge battery, lots of power, reasonably priced.
Errr speak for yourself. What do you need power for in a tablet? Do you read the morning news in 3D VR or something? Same with a sturdy frame, that's only i
Re: worst of both worlds, bulky phone, flimsy tabl (Score:1)
By flimsy I'm pretty sure he's referring to the need for complex folding mechanisms requiring microscopic parts. But I'm not the physics genius you clearly are, so maybe I'm wrong.
Power for the display + collapsible frame (Score:2)
Errr speak for yourself. What do you need power for in a tablet? Do you read the morning news in 3D VR or something? Same with a sturdy frame, that's only important if its so big I could potentially damage it.
It takes a more powerful CPU/GPU to power the higher resolution display. I thought that would be obvious. Haven't you ever upgraded a monitor and noticed how much slower even basic web browsing becomes? I have a GTX 3060 and modern AMD Ryzen and a bunch of news web pages overload it and stall on a 4k display. The nice thing about an ipad is how sharp the display is and how smoothly you can scroll or just open an app. Try out a friend's iPad pro if you don't have one and you'll see what I mean. It's ve
Trough of Disillusionment imminent. (Score:1)
From the Gartner website:
Flip is kinda cool... (Score:1)
The new 3D TV... in other words, (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Given how well the previous generation has sold despite the ludicrous price and despite the negative press and despite the huge issues with reliability that led to a delay in release I wouldn't bet more than a dollar on that statement.
Not everyone is on your marketing train (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I get it.
As marketers and merchanteers, it is your metier to constantly try to enthuse us about the Next Cool Thing(tm).
But - like 3d TV, which is a great analogy - this one is so patently stupid even the gullible masses are like "what? why?"
Going to replace my TV or my pad? Maybe...but for less money, and with far fewer points of obvious failure...I'll just hold that phone with its ultrasharp, crystal clear display and ever-faster processor just that couple of inches nearer to my face. Voila, it's the same size profile as my 67" OLED on the wall.
And let me make this clear: it. will. never. replace. my. computer. Got that?
Because computers aren't just about the screen. Computers, as a tool for both work and entertainment, are about their human interface and input devices. If in some weird universe I couldn't have a monitor, again, I'd just use my single pane non-foldable PHONE on a stand a few inches from my eyes, as long as I could have a keyboard and a mouse, I could work just fine.
Again, your extra what, 3" of screen real estate simply brings nothing to offset the cost and point-of-failure.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a bit different view.
Current foldables are a bit questionable as they are still pretty thick folded, but as someone who originally thought that an iPad was a toy that I would never use.. until I got one and noticed how mcuch I actually use it in preference to the phone.
Basially the newest normal phones start to be almost "too thin" in some cases for a good grip, I can see a future where the folding one would olny be "quite thick" not "too thick" and then.. then the game is on, spcially if the price i
What if... (Score:2)
Multi-fold phones are the next logical step. (Score:2)
First gen phones will only fold one way, each gen will add a fold. And by 10th gen we'll have a 1 inch cube that folds out into a 1000 inch screen.
GSOD (Score:2)
It's a tech demo... (Score:2)
...nothing else.
They did it to show that the folding oled screens are now mature enough to withstand the abuse.
Expect a LOT of oled products to come in all shapes from now on, it's not the foldable phone, that was just a tech demo.
If you want to know the future, a small contact lens that fits over your eye, with a screen projector, now that's something you'd use. Instant monitor at any size, anywhere you are, no wearables needed, that's where the future is, but it ain't now - perhaps in 20 years, but it'll
Good purpose, wrong design solution (Score:2)
Folding phones are a bad idea: most of the time you are carrying the weight of two cell phones when you only need to use one.
Dual screens on the other hand is a good use case. When you're examining documents that are too small for a mobile screen, the possibility to expand your real state on demand supports a real need. Having a small lightweight device most of the time, but carrying an inexpensive second device in your bag that you can pull out when needed to join them, can be a real solution. (LG commerci
I'm not sure about that (Score:2)
A phone that is less than 5" when folded, but expands to over 8" when unfolded would be cool. That would give you the best of both worlds - phone and tablet. The thing is, as currently implemented by Samsung, you get the worst of both worlds, and a premium price.
If they carry on the way they are going, folding phones will be dead in a few years time. But, they don't have to carry on the way they are going.
Vive le foldable (Score:2)
I really need to replace my PC with a phone. Please design a phone that unfolds into a 24" screen. No, wait, two 24" screens.
Space age screens? (Score:2)
The space age was the 60's-80's. We've been in the information age for 30 years and arguably we're currently in the smartphone age. If it's truly space-age, why isn't it an analogue CRT?
Folding displays are a gimmick, but the form facto (Score:1)
Waste of money (Score:2)
3D TVs failed more because of content (Score:2)
Half of people loved 3D and half hate it. It all depends on the feel of it upon the eyes. Additionally, the quality of the content being a big influence as well.
But one of the major reasons 3DTVs failed was because of how content was marketed. A new movie would get released to DVD/Blu-Ray. In theory, the 3D versions were priced $5-$10 more than the standard versions. However, in practice, this was far from the case. The 3D versions would see a $5-$15 markup on the MSRP. However, few of us were purchasi
Re: (Score:1)
Foldable phones will fail for a similar reason. Aside from the obvious technical issues pointed out by others (reliability of hinges, screen cracking/breaking), the larger screen provided by the foldable phone will require app developers to retool their applications to take advantage of the extra real estate. With such little consumer interest in these devices, who would take the time to do that? Existing apps will have to be scaled and will look like garbage. Put simply, the "content" (apps) won't be there
Re: (Score:2)
Why are developers making apps that aren't resolution independent to begin with?
I've been shocked as phone screen sizes have shifted, like the iPhone "Plus" sizes and apps were basically getting zoomed like it was 1988. I figured resolution-independent raster everything would be in use with the exception of specific bitmaps.
Variation in screen size ought not be a big deal for developers, they should already be writing apps to be as resolution independent as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The business I work for switched to a new time card system a few years back. The first thing I noticed was that whoever designed the UI obviously had a very wide monitor, because some pages weren't designed to stretch or shrink in any meaningful way to fit the resolution of different monitors. Most monitors we had were too narrow and so you ended up with your time card stretching off the side of the screen and had to use a side scroll. When I pointed out this obvious short coming and the easy fix, eliminati
Re: (Score:2)
Go to Audible.com and look at audiobook prices. They range from $25 and up, want to listen to Stephen King's "The Stand", that'll cost you $63.
Audible is even weirder, since that $63 is basically the sticker price, but almost no-one pays it. For $15 a month you get credit good for any book of your choice(Including The Stand). For 99% of books it is cheaper to join their club, pay for 1 month, and cancel afterwards, and keep the book. If you run out of credits, you can wait a month or buy 3 more for $45, or as a "member" you can pay 20% off the sticker price. It is like a tiered used-car-dealership
One major difference (Score:2)
3D TV was dirty-cheap for the manufacturers to offer. It was extremely simple technology. It was a regular TV with different software and _tiny_ bit of (cheap) extra hardware. Manufacturers were hoping consumers would pay a premium for it. They did not. Manufacturers were not out of ideas for product improvement. They could make the sets bigger, make the color better, add resolution, increase framerate, and add motion smoothing...The exact stuff we are seeing today. The problem for manufacturers was that un