The fold is not perfect. Seems they were careful with not letting journalists hold the device, only showing certain things on the display, etc.
See 1:28 : https://youtu.be/NnO08HnZf10?t=88
See 1:28 : https://youtu.be/NnO08HnZf10?t=88
Looks pretty bad, hence not letting the journalists hold it. I think they traded thinness for display surface uniformity. The Galaxy Fold is thicker, but uses the additional size to incorporate a stronger folding mechanism, which appears to put less strain on the screen itself.
Hopefully they figure this out before launch. It definitely doesn't look worthy of the $2600 sticker price in its current form.
In 2007, the proper web involved tons of Flash. Flash video players, Flash games, Flash-based interactive websites. None of those worked on the iPhone.
Its web browsing ability wasn't much better than what you could already get on keyboard-based phones like Nokia, Blackberry and Samsung. On the iPhone you did pinch to zoom, and on the other smartphones, you were served the WAP version of the page, or you could browse the full page with the scrollwheel.
That's a very revisionist version of events. Much of the initial disillusionment around the web on featurephones came from WAP being (mis)sold as the Internet on a phone.
If you go back and watch the original iPhone demo you can see that people were genuinely wowed by being able to browse the Internet ('the real internet') on a mobile.
In fact, 'it's not a watered down version of the internet' was one of the tag lines of one of the first iPhone commercials
Also worth noting that flagship phones have only gotten more expensive since the first iPhone. Remember when we all thought the first iPhone was too expensive?
This is 2k for what is essentially a prototype.
https://www.indiatides.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/iOS-vs...
What's happened instead is that they've become bigger and bigger. My smartphone prior to the iPhone had a 2.2" screen. After that, it quickly went from 3.2" to 3.5" to 4.3" and onwards, and my current one is 5.8".
I had a Motorola Q once and felt like I was holding up a big scientific calculator to my ear.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13990/huawei-launches-the-mat...
As a concept though, I think this design makes a lot more sense than Samsungs. It gets to use the same full body screen, rather than the strange tiny one Samsung does. The fold being part of the outer body also makes more sense than having a wedge inside.
1) if the foldable screen is more delicate, samsung's design protects it.
2) In samsung's design, the outer screen is used when it's folded.. and when you unfold it you use the entire foldable screen. In Huawei's design, one side of the screen is going to be used more than the other side, and as it ages that side may start to appear different than the less used side.
3) If you drop it, you'll have to replace the entire foldable screen vs Samsung, just replacing the smaller outer screen.
4) Going on the outside, there are two creases. The inside only has one. This may make it easier to hide the crease.
I don't actually think the screen should be more delicate than a typical OLED.
I don't understand your point about the creases.
You're theoretically right about the aging, but I suspect that it could be mitigated because it's fairly predictable.
I think the amazing screen in the folded state, avoided duplication and great looks greatly outweigh any of the possible disadvantages.
Besides maybe ... Space for components. It seems way too thin to accomodate a well sized battery with all of the added casing.
Why? From Anandtech..
Huawei calls the new hinge system a “Falcon hinge”. It’s to be noted that this seems to be the weak-point of Huawei’s design as it doesn’t look nearly as refined as Samsung’s attempt. At the pre-brief we weren’t able to actually get our hands on the phone, but one unit of the presenter had a notable “waviness” of the screen where the hinge was.
The number one concern of the Mate X however is the fact that it is a outwards folding phone. By nature of it being a flexible display means that we’re dealing with a polymer material which is softer than glass, and thus also more scratch prone. Samsung’s inwards folding design here will be much less prone to scratches, however the Mate X will be a quite more fragile phone in this regard. In fact it seems Huawei is aware of this as they also presented a protection case in which you can slip the whole device in, trying to address this compromise of this surely better looking, but likely less practical design.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13990/huawei-launches-the-mat...
Most of the time I'll want to use the phone in the folded mode and there you have the choice between a stunning full screen and an embarassing, added display.
The Samsung doesn't fold flat. That makes it bulky and leads to a very problematic force distribution (2 lines). The flat folding Huawei distributes the force over the whole phone. There are already phones with OLEDs and they seem to work fine (they do have glass surfaces to distribute point loads, however). Additionally it just looks great.
I'm not sure about the scratches. You could make the surface so soft it doesn't get scratched at all, but it probably wouldn't feel good. I do like matte screens that don't show scratches, but that'd slightly impair display clarity.
The "Falcon Wing" hinge (note how they learned from Apple about coming up with catchy names) is the strong point of the Mate X: Everyone has been wowed by it and how it allows the phone to fold flat and to be thin.
Questions about durability remain open both both the Fold and the Mate X. We shall see.
But in my view the huawei concept is far better better on pretty much any other metric (pending info on durability)
Care to name those? From your description, it sounds to me like the Samsung fold is sharper (probably harder to do than a loosely bent screen, yet they did it). I know very little about foldable screens, so I'm curious what other metrics I should be looking at.
Great point!
Samsung: https://youtu.be/-fcCQIdGpK8?t=175