Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Announces the Galaxy Fold, a Phone That Opens Into a Tablet (venturebeat.com)
At an event today, Samsung unveiled its foldable smartphone. It's called the Galaxy Fold, and it sports dual screens: one that folds in half like a notebook, and another that works just like any other. From a report: The roughly 200-gram Galaxy Fold flips open in portrait orientation, and the inside is coated with a film that gives it a photopaper-like appearance. It's got a protective polymer consisting of a cover window, a shock-absorbent film, and a polarizer that's 45 percent slimmer than the company's previous thinnest, along with a flexible layer and backplane. Samsung says the tech -- dubbed Infinity Flex Display -- took seven years to develop. Thanks to a highly durable adhesive, the Fold's 7.3-inch primary screen and "sophisticated" hinge system with interlocking gears can undergo "hundreds of thousands" of flexes without sustaining damage, Samsung says. The 4.6-inch secondary screen doesn't bend, and that's by design -- it puts apps at your fingertips when the Fold's folded in half. [...] It's available in both an LTE and 5G version, starting at an eye-popping $1,980. April 26 is the launch date.
Well heavy is relative. We have been getting use to lighter and thinner phones, mostly because that is the only thing interesting most phone makers can do their phone. I was kinda surprised when I upgraded my iPhone 6 to the X. The X was actually thicker and heaver then the 6. In many ways I think we as consumers like a device with some weight to it. We instinctively feel better with a heavier product. We feel it is better built, and has more in it... While often it is just because such a device may be filled with rocks to make it heavier, or just materials that are more fragile but heavier (such as the X's glass back)
I try to be aware of my consumer biases. But I expect it being bigger and heavier may not be a big problem.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's like someone said "Please list everything you would never want in a phone" and then priced it at "Please tell me what you would never pay for it".
The world does not need you.
Think of it as a foldable tablet that will replace your phone instead of a phone that becomes a tablet. I can see use in that. I never use my tablet because there are things a PC does better, and other things a phone is adequate for, and the phone is always charged and handy.
If my tablet folded and I could carry it around in my pocket instead of my phone... that's a good thing.
Not worth $2000 or even half that much to me- but it's still a good development. Give it a few years, apple will come out with one and be praised in the media for innovating and developing a new tech category and for keeping the price reasonable at $3000.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I am thinking more like 16-24 weeks.
Exactly what I'm waiting for. That's a real tablet. Until it's a decent size when unfolded, it's just another gimmick. Sadly, it seems they've missed their real market on this: nobody that will shell out $2k is looking for a small 4.6" phone. Big when folded, giant when unfolded is what will sell. They blew it.
Hopefully this is just an effort for them to stay on top as far as innovative phones. I just hope they don't scrap the idea if it doesn't sell well. Get it out there, get some QA help from the few early adopters, and then the Samsung Fold 3+ is an amazing phone. [crosses fingers]
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I guess it just goes to show preferences - I prefer smaller phones and tablets so these sizes would be about perfect for me. But there's no way in hell I'm paying $2000 for it. It's an interesting first try though.
Which is exactly the same with phones. The recent craze of "bigger screens" hasn't actually been larger screens, it's just been different shapes, the screen aspect ratio these days is 2:1 or in some cases even narrower (I've seen 19:9) It's pure marketing, screens are measured diagonally, and the narrower and taller the display, the larger that number appears for the same number of pixels. And worse yet, the usable area is smaller than before because we're now back to watching movies with black bars on the sides, playing games with black bars on the sides, and trying to read text that's like an old fashioned newspaper column (2 words wide, 50 lines long)
Now a 7.2 inch square, that's probably useful, though there are a bunch of other UI/usability issues to be considered first.
If Apple had made it a decade ago, when they cared about quality, it would be worth $2000. This decade... there've been so many cases where it was blatantly obvious that they didn't care about quality, that I wouldn't pay a two cent bonus for "Apple standing behind it".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Yeah, sorry but no way I'm gonna spend almost $2000 on a phone.
If you want to drop that much on a phone, be my guest, but at that price the whole idea is a total no-go for me.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...