Moto Razr 2019: A foldable smartphone with no display crease | Hacker News Reader

Moto Razr 2019: A foldable smartphone with no display crease

arstechnica.com

395 pointssohkamyung269 comments

Open articleView on HN

Finding the actual patent it refers to was surprisingly hard so I spare you the trouble: [1][2]

Note that an industrial design is also registered[3] but it doesn't look as useful for understanding how it works.

[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10054990B1/en?oq=1005499...

[2] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...

[3] https://www3.wipo.int/designdb/en/showData.jsp?qi=8-m9YGJqGI...

This is the image from that patent that shows how it works https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b9/86/bc/ce509ae...

Doesn't this lead to a dent in the middle of the display?

You mean like a smooth depression, right? No, I think the screen pulls taught when you open it.

Ah, good point. Thanks.

Ironic that this is the first image the article shows when describing the folding yet the comment thread was started to save people time from looking around.

Kinda shows how many people don't click on the article itself

What does it mean to register a design? Is this some kind of attempt the expand the notion of "IP" beyond copyright, patents, and trademarks?

I’m not sure but is it referring to registering a design patent?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

Design patents have been a thing for eons. They're a lot harder to enforce than the usual utility patents.

Remember the Samsung/Apple patent cases? That patent over rounded corners on a tablet was a design patent.

Most interesting part is the patent picture that shows how they avoid a crease in the screen: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/US000...

I wonder how this is even patentable.

Given the standard quality of innovation in patents granted, this is better than average. Check out this patent for instance article about a patent amazon filed for a photo-studio setup https://mashable.com/2014/06/07/photographers-shouldnt-be-to...

Easy. You show that Samsung spent a zillion dollars trying to make a folding phone and the display still creases. Best way to demonstrate novelty for patentability is to point to an expensive failure to solve the same problem.

Maybe because the option of not folding it so sharply is now under patent, so Samsung didn't have that option.

Moto filed in 2017. These phones have all been in development for longer than that.

This was filed in 2017-05-31, so wouldn't have been published until 2018-12-01 (18 months later). Samsung likely wouldn't have know about it until then.

Because everything is obvious in hindsight?

This is obvious in foresight. That picture shows literally the first image I had in my head of how they were going to have fixed the problem.

Have you read the whole patent, or are you assuming they just made that one drawing and sent one copy to the manufacturer and one to the patent office?

Did you to talk to Samsung about fixing their foldable screen issue?

I imagine Samsung had their own reasons for not doing this particular obvious thing. In particular, you need the body depth to get away with the screen curve, which they may have decided they couldn't get away with.

The shape that the screen must make to fold flat while avoiding a crease is quite obvious. The mechanics of a hinge that keeps the screen protected and supported as it folds between open and closed states is not so obvious. I expect when you say "the first image I had in my head" you are only talking about the screen folded position, not the hinge that accomplishes this!

To a certain degree, I agree. Once you've identified that there's a minimum radius you can safely take the screen through, the folded profile of the screen is obvious. That you then need a moving support structure behind it to be able to apply pressure to the screen is obvious too.

I don't want to denigrate the obviously detailed design work that went into producing the hinge itself, and those details will have been an absolute nightmare to get right, but I'm also not seeing anything immediately which makes it more than conventional mechanical design.

Because there is no clear definition of what is patentable and what is not.

The excellent engineers at Samsung failed to crack this problem. A little while ago people were saying Motorola must just be showing advertising mock-ups, because how could they solve the hinge problem that a Real(tm) cell phone company could not, with all that engineering talent and R&D funding.

Maybe moving the hinges to the side and using sliding supporting plates is more complicated and less obvious than it looks? Problems do tend to look a lot simpler once someone else has solved them for you.

At a high level that’s literally the first idea that came to me for a creaseless design. The ultra thin hinge becomes a huge stress point, but flip phones prove it’s still reasonable.

However, the real issue is implementation. Trying to get the screen rigid over a void and fit all the components into a very confined space. IMO, this is what should be patentable not the idea of a void. Aka. Is it a viable phone or just a nifty demo.

PS: And looking at the patent that’s actually a big part of it. Their hinge design is has some very interesting tradeoffs, which might make this viable.

> Problems do tend to look a lot simpler once someone else has solved them for you

This is so true. I wonder if there's a law named for this phenomenon?

Off topic, but I find many managers fall into this trap. I.e. they don't recognize the difference between when someone exceptionally bright solving a problem very quickly and just moves on vs. a mediocre thinker who takes an inordinate amount of time to solve a problem, but then advertises their accomplishment like a metal of valor (and managers typically fall for it).

> This is so true. I wonder if there's a law named for this phenomenon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus

> An egg of Columbus or Columbus' egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact. The expression refers to an apocryphal story, dating from at least the 15th century, in which it is said that Christopher Columbus, having been told that discovering the Americas was inevitable and no great accomplishment, challenges his critics to make an egg stand on its tip. After his challengers give up, Columbus does it himself by tapping the egg on the table to flatten its tip.

At least they didn't try to patent "two screens with thin bezels next to each other"...

Hahaha that's gold.

I'm looking at you Microsoft.

Did you read all the claims?

Flip phones were an important design constraint when phones featured physical hardware buttons. It was easier to flip open a phone to unlock it then press the weird key combos that some phones used.

With touch screens this is no longer a problem, and the design constraint for a flip phone is less relevant. If anything it now increases the time to unlock a phone if you have to flip it open first then authenticate with thumbprint or face scanner.

I am interested in them from the savings in overall length which is the largest dimension. the side effect of folding of course being it may be come too thick.

however I am still in the camp of hoping we have reached peak phone size and instead will see more offerings along the sizes of early smart phones.

Flip phones are also smaller when folded, so they are more pocketable. That alone is more important for me than most considerations.

Smaller in one dimension. Thicker in the other.

it's an object in three dimensions

The point is that the fold causes a trade-off - x/y for z.

I've got some pants with deep pockets but tight enough that my cased iPhone is too thick to comfortably fit. A folding phone like this wouldn't work at all.

Preferred that way, honestly. My galaxy s8 is too thin to hold easily for me. Especially with the bezel-less curved-edge screen.

I miss being able to reach the upper half of my phone's screen with one hand. We've normalized it a lot now, but compared to older smartphone generations it is downright awkward to hold a phone today.

But I don't really miss flip phones per se. Just smaller smartphones. The galaxy s4 was around the upper limit of how big I'd like my phone to be.

The Galaxy S4 was pretty much the perfect phone for me. Just the right size for my small hands, replaceable battery, rootable OS, and plenty of power and storage expandability for the time.

I think most people just use the pinky shelf, or some other method of reaching the top of the screen. Iphones have that gesture to shrink the screen instead or something

The verge review said it’s no thicker than the original razr, and that was considered pretty thin when it came out.

My wallet is thicker, so it would be alright.

I know what you mean, player. I got a bankroll in my pocket right now.

I bought a thick, heavy duty case for my phone to make up for the lack of thickness/durability. Few if any mobile phones will stand up to average day to day knocks, drops and bumps.

Unsure why phone manufacturers insist on trying to make their phones thinner and more fragile when everyone wraps them in a case of some description.

> Unsure why phone manufacturers insist on trying to make their phones thinner and more fragile when everyone wraps them in a case of some description.

Because consumers don't actually buy what they say they want.

I'm always seeing people demand more durable screens and longer battery life, and Motorola made the Droid Turbo 2 with a massive 3750 mAh battery and a truly shatter-proof screen. People dropped it from a drone onto concrete from over 500 feet and it survived [0]. It takes more than one smack with a hammer to break the screen. [1]

And yet, nobody bought it, because when it comes to make a purchase, people still want phones that look sleek and modern, which means thin and a back made out of glass, because plastic is ugly, and metal interferes with wireless charging.

Motorola's been producing phones for years that have the features people actually ask for. They made Android phones with physical keyboards up to 2012 [2]. I remember seeing polls about phones with QWERTY keyboards back then and so many people saying they want one, but when it came to actually buy, they'd rather get an iPhone with a screen that shatters if you sneeze.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTJOL5ikuZA

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaiEIlPxnok

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droid_4

Same here. I cannot stand the size of phone's today. Mine is 6" and I hate it. My old Motorola G3 was the perfect size. I'd still use it, if it didn't eat SD cards (and only have a 4GB hard drive).

Yeah. I just got a new phone last week and after a bunch of research ended up settling on a Pixel 3a, which is even larger than the already-too-large 1st gen Pixel that it replaced. I hate it. There are no decent small (<5") phones on the market, and haven't been for half a decade. Sony's Xperia Compact line was the closest, but it 1) doesn't come with stock Android, 2) doesn't have a headphone jack, and 3) has been discontinued, which I guess indicates that these don't sell. Sigh.

I went straight from an iPhone SE to a Pixel 3a. I was really sad to give up my tiny screen.

> There are no decent small (<5") phones on the market

This is a major reason behind why I've stuck with my iPhone 5S since the end of 2013. Unfortunately, after 6 years, the battery life is now really suffering, and it's starting to feel a little sluggish. Up until the last 6 - 12 months it's been a great phone though.

An SE would be good for you if you can find a used one for a good price. It has the guts of the 6s in the body of the 5s so it should last you a few more years at least

I was surprised to discover recently that you can still buy a new (not reconditioned) iPhone SE direct from Apple but the link to them is on the refurbished part of the site.

All I'm seeing here: https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished/iphone is X's. Did you find the SE somewhere else on the site?

FWIW. Newer 5" screens have had their bezels shrunk down so some are as small as a typical 4.7" phone.

The Pixel 3a has teeny tiny bezels, and now my fingers accidentally activate stuff at the screen edges while I'm holding it. This is progress, I guess.

The Pixel 2 is almost perfect, and I have no real problems with it, although I'm not sure if I'll ever stop missing my beloved Nexus 5X. That phone was perfect in every way, except for some fatal flaw that randomly killed it. It was made from durable plastics and light enough that it didn't easily damage itself when dropped. All the current thin, dense phones made of painted metal will show permanent scars from almost any physical interaction with another solid surface.

Then you'll _really_ love the Galaxy S9 with the curved edges, where the natural resting spot for your fingers is on the curved edges of the actual screen.

There is excellent touch rejection on the edges when the contact patch originates from the edge. You can even customize touch rejection with a good lock plugin.

It doesn't work when you're using a case. I regret buying Samsung.

The Nexus 5 is an amazing phone around that size, although the newest AOSP that they'll run is Hammerhead and it's EOL as far as official security updates go.

> There are no decent small (<5") phones on the market,

True.

> and haven't been for half a decade.

The iPhone SE is less than 5 years old, and it's terrific. I've had mine for nearly three years and I just got the battery replaced. I'm not sure I'd buy an SE new today if I needed a new phone, but I'm going to hold onto it until it dies or another good small phone comes out.

I have an SE as well, but the camera is a potato, roughly on par with $200 Android phones from 3 years ago. Ok outside with good lighting, but a muddy mess everywhere else.

I also find typing on it to be much more inaccurate than larger phones (even with swipe typing).

The battery life and everything else is great, though.

I just bought a "new" SE refurbished for $100. It's still fantastic and runs iOS 13 marvelously. It's really your only option for a small device that runs a modern phone OS.

I would love a 6" screen if it had any breadth. My Samsung Note 3 just had a hardware failure forcing me to "upgrade". Even though the Note 10 has a 6.3 inch screen instead of the Note 3's 5.7 inch screen, the Note 10's screen is _narrower_ due to the change from an 16:9 aspect ratio to 19:9.

My search for a _wide_ phone led me to develop this: https://github.com/dotancohen/screensize/

I've run it across every phone on the market and no phone is available that has a screen as wide as the Note 3 had six years ago. But phone _height_ has increased over 30% on average.

Being smaller has its accessibility benefits as well for those with smaller hands(palms).

My thoughts exactly. I've been thinking about going back to a flip phone and using on of these pocket computers or a tablet for my computing. Sometimes I have my phone for the sole reason of needing to be available for family or work. Sometimes I have my phone because I want to read or kill time. I like to think if I split these devices up, I could free up some pocket space and disconnect a little more. I've already closed down all my social media except for my pseudonymous twitter account. Even that has been up for the chopping block with all this impeach pit chatter.

>It was easier to flip open a phone to unlock it then press the weird key combos that some phones used.

That depends if you had a lock code - in such case it was irrelevant back then already. Also it wasn't like you'd check the phone hundreds of time per day as most of the people do nowadays so it wasn't a big annoyance to unlock by pressing e.g. two keys in the keypad, but maybe that's just me.

One thing that many people appreciate as well was receiving a call and just open the phone to answer it.

Nobody had a lock code on the old Razr. What would you be locking? The ability to place a call?

Your text message history was rather private

Text messaging was available in the razr era but not nearly as ubiquitous as it is today. Relatively few people used it, and you were limited to sending and receiving small amounts of text only or maybe a very low res image (remember what early camera phones were like?) so those limited uses were also less likely to contain any sensitive data.

Texting was extremely common for my social circles at the time.

T9 was quite well used throughout the world during that era. Predictive spelling originated with Nokia. Just a few quick taps could spell out an entire sentence.

It was less well used in the US where you were charged a relatively exorbitant rate for sending and receiving texts. $.05/SMS + $.25/MMS

I'm in my 30s. When I was 15, texting in the razr era was just as ubiquitous in my school as it is for anyone right now. Sexting, gossip, flirting, hanging out, all of it, all day, everyone. My sisters could even touch-type entire essays to their friends under the dinner table while they ate and were not allowed on their phone.

There wasn't any image content, but you certainly don't need images to have messages you want to keep private.

I wouldn't want anyone I know going through any of my private conversations line by line. I don't see how razr 2004 vs iphone 2019 is any different in that regard.

>Text messaging was available in the razr era but not nearly as ubiquitous as it is today. Relatively few people used it

This isn't at all true in my experience, perhaps it's an age/generational thing? Personally, everyone that I know that texts today texted just as much back when they had flip phones like the razr

What kind of era are you talking about? Early to mid 90s? I'd agree. But after, for me anyway, around '98 texting was absolutely ubiquitous and it was absolutely the primary method of communication between everyone I know.

And calls can be quite expensive/valuable - I seem to recall some rumour of stolen mobile phones being used to call premium rate numbers and cash in (don't know how true it ever was)

The lock code also prevented pocket dialing, although with a flip phone this wasn’t much of an issue.

And yeah as others have said, it protected your texts and pictures. The razr already had a camera.

> One thing that many people appreciate as well was receiving a call and just open the phone to answer it.

What's a "call" and why would I receive one on my phone?

I think this phone has two main appeals. One is the smaller form factor, and the second is the nostalgia for those who owned a Razr back when it was the big hit item.

There's one other consideration: with a flip phone, the screen can be protected by a hard surface where scratches don't affect usage.

If they have an Apple-class thumbprint / face scanner with basically unnoticeable delay, the slight delay for flipping it open might be a reasonable tradeoff for the huge durability improvements for active people and there could be some nice mitigation techniques such as their small display for anyone who doesn't want to flip it open to see if they have a message.

How much damage occurs when the phone is in use and thus open? And how much durability does the screen itself lose to become foldable?

> the screen can be protected by a hard surface where scratches don't affect usage.

I think this argument is really grasping as straws.

How critical is longevity of screen, during the life span of a smart phone? Sure it gets damaged, here and there. No where near approaching a problem, where the market dictates a hard cover over the screen.

Considering the number of people I see using smartphones with cracked screens I'd say it's a problem worth engineering to prevent.

Depends both on what you do for a living and how you treat electronics. Some people don't use screen protectors, others have a screen cracked so bad they have a hard time reading from it.

People are using phones for longer than they used to and at least anecdotally screen cracks are a popular reason for finally upgrading. If I walk around the city it also seems to be a popular service based on the number of shops using their advertisement space for it.

The screen is well-protected while closed, but more susceptible to scratches while open, because they haven't figured out how to make the hardened glass that covers regular smartphones foldable. At least I remember reading that about the Galaxy Fold. Maybe they've solved the problem in the Motorola device.

I wonder how it will hold up over time with dust, dirt, or sand getting pressed in between the screens over an over.

Yeah, it's a really interesting engineering trade-off: I know multiple other parents who cracked a screen playing with their kids so you'd hope to avoid that but not get more damage from dirt, etc. I just hope that whoever is working on this has enough resources to test it thoroughly rather than getting hammered in the news post-launch.

I've been using the Gemini PDA for the past year; it's recently been replaced by the Cosmo Communicator. It has a normal glass screen that folds like a mini laptop to reveal a keyboard. Mostly I like the keyboard (I'm typing on it now) because I find it hard to get over 60 WPM on a smartphone. However it's also nice to have the screen protected.

Theres a much cheaper flip option. A case with a flap cover

I knew people who worked as servers who liked these styles of phones because they could text (with any type of prediction turned off of course) while the phone was opened in their pocket .. between doing rounds of their open tables.

Wow, I haven't thought of this usecase before. Sweet that with keypad phones you could use your muscle memory to text without looking at the screen.

Flip buttons could have instantaneous fingerprint readers.

My LG Stylo has this super annoying wake feature that works when you either shake the phone, or touch the screen a lot. It keeps turning on in my pocket just because of movement and sometime certain textiles allow my leg to even swipe the lock screen and press random stuff. Having a hardware button is better, but not perfect as depending on where it is, you could be accidentally pressing it when it's tumbling around in a backpack etc. Really the best solution to unintentionally waking your phone (at least for me) would be a flip phone.

The nostalgia factor of these for people who owned one years ago, and are now earning enough to waste money on one will be high.

Not going to lie, I want one, even though I appreciate my Pixel 3 camera nearly every day, and this has a rubbish camera.

It is good to finally see some innovation occurring in the Android hardware space however, although it remains to be seen how the software will cope.

I'd love to get it just coz it's cool to have a flip phone in 2019 that is actually a smartphone!

And half the size of other phones. Presumably less breakable in a drop. Less likely to snap in a pocket. Less limelt to scratch when not in use. This seems like a good form facator if they can fix the price.

How many phones have you snapped in your pocket?

I've crushed an xcover 271: https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_xcover_271-3415.php

Crushing this thing is actual an achievement

Okay how can... backstory?

I was visiting family. Phone was OK when I put it in the pocket, hopped on my bicycle, and rode back home. Next morning, I pulled a turned-off phone with shattered screen out of my pants' pocket. I no longer got a picture on the screen and it didn't seem to react at all to blind typing.

Not quite snapped, but I did lose the capacitive touch layer on my Nexus 5x sitting with it in my back pocket. Repaired it myself, during which I also managed to wreck the battery. ("Juicyfruit" smell... Definitely broke a cell.) So then I buy a new battery. Then the stupid thing bootloops a few months later, literally as I'm putting it in airplane mode leaving for a business trip. Not having a cell phone during a business trip is not fun at all.

The issue where they die randomly is IMO the only flaw with that phone.

I'd still be using mine otherwise. I went back to my Lumia 920 backup phone. Seven years old and the only thing wrong with it is no app updates in forever. I really wish the whole Windows Phone and Nokia partnership had a different ending.

The Pixel(1,2,...) is basically a heavier metal-frame Nexus 5X without the bug that afflicts Nexus 5Xs. Not a fan of the added weight but the OS is almost perfect.

Pants are made with pockets on the part you sit on, and people insist on using these pockets for some reason

I want to buy a phone with a good camera and I'm even considering stuff iphones for 1k$. Is the pixel 3 good from your personal experience?

My favourite phone to date. Always been an Android user though

The Pixel3a has the same camera and is cheaper. Look up comparisons between the top end phones and the 3a and they're extremely close.

The pixel 3a does not have the same camera as the new iPhones.

It has the same camera as the pixel 3, but no separate fixed zoom or wide imaging unit like in newer phones. It has the same CPU as the pixel 2, which can be pokey. All the computational imaging features in the pixel 4 are not in the pixel 3a.

That also partly explains the expensive prices of Supreme streetwear, coveted by a customer base who is now old enough to actually buy limited edition skater clothing.

I miss small phones with buttons that do a few features in highly productive manner (unlike the full attention, full fingers smartphone era). It might be a foot in the door.

You can keep this phone in your pocket without worrying that your car keys with scratch the face. There are many advantages to a flip phone.

Not to mention the lack of glass covering the screen means a screen protector in general is likely unnecessary. No hassle of dealing with stupid air bubbles or the inevitable edge chipping of the protector (which is somehow always way weaker than the screen itself anyhow)

You can already do that. Phone faces are orders of magnitude harder than metal keys. It's usually dirt in your pocket that scratches phones, and if a piece of dirt is on the screen when it flips closed then it will still most certainly scratch.

> seen how the software will cope.

Honestly I could give two shits about all these hardware gimmicks. I wish mobile ARM devices had some standard BIOS or UEFI or something. Only Microsoft forced their manufacturers to use UEFI and no one really uses devicetree.

I care more about being able to take a new device and install what I want on it, just like any off the shelf PC laptop and being able to install Linux.

PostmarketOS is making some big pushes, but the mobile space is missing the hardware compatibility that enthusiasts need to run things that aren't Google/Apple tracking devices.

There just aren't enough hobbyist in this market to demand that standardization. Linux got big because it could run on a lot of the standard hardware out there. In the mobile space, we need custom devices like the PinePhone and Libbrem 5 (that don't exist yet) just to get the same kind of freedom.

The fact that there are a ton of devices out there that should be more than capable and powerful enough to be really good mobile devices, but that are crippled by the newer versions of Google services that slow them to a fucking crawl, is really screwed up and wasteful.

Boot being nonstandard isn't really an issue. It's certainly a bit silly but it's never really stopped anything. It's the choice to disable user modification to booting that is the problem. That and hardware support being based on outdated binary blobs. Neither of these are solved by making a device use UEFI.

Did you see the "Retro Razr" mode image at the bottom of the article? Even better nostalgia factor!

Nobody talking about the price? $1,500 is more than any base iPhone- that's a really heavy price tag for a brand that has been dormant for so long.

Taking into consideration issues which iPhones and nostalgia this is perfect time for an iconic brand to enter the market

What issues with iPhones?

> Nostalgia

It's true, I was so excited as I scrolled down the page and convinced myself that I'd get one just because I loved my RAZR from 2005. But then I got to the $1500 price tag.

Now, I bought a $1350 phone a couple months ago so it's not that I wouldn't pay $1500 for a phone. The problem is everything that this phone is not (and that my other phone is). The folding screen is cool, and this is the perfect application for it. But, I think they're going to have trouble getting $1500 for someone's main phone if it only has one camera lens.

There will no doubt be some diehards, and if they can get the price of this down to typical Android flagship pricing then they might see some traction. But at $1500, it's going to be a very limited market (and maybe that's their goal).

> But, I think they're going to have trouble getting $1500 for someone's main phone if it only has one camera lens.

Has it really come to this?

I'd gladly buy a phone with a single mediocre camera as a daily driver if all the other specs are flagship-class (which sadly the Razr's are not) and if it means saving a few hundred bucks off the hardware and R&D of the latest and greatest camera tech.

Am I in the minority now?

I would never pay that much money for a phone without a very good camera. A cheaper phone with mediocre camera, why not, but a $1500 phone must have a perfect camera.

Early adopters are paying a premium because foldable screens are new, wait a couple years and you'll have cheaper phones in the same form factor.

It has two cameras, a 16MP front-facing camera and a 5MP camera for selfies. See the specs highlighted in the Verge article: https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/13/20963294/motorola-razr-n...

Fair enough. I was more thinking multiple primary cameras with different focal lengths. Most flagships now have 2+ primary cameras with different focal lengths.

the one thing i am nostalgic about are buttons. someone please bring buttons back! so i can once again dial a number without looking at my phone or letting the whole world know...

it's on par with the Samsung Galaxy Fold

Unlike the iPhone which is really stale (coming from an iPhone user), this is actual innovation. This is the bleeding edge.

If the concept succeeds, I’m sure prices will drop eventually.

It's the first version. Targeted to early adopters.

I'd totally buy a Razr if it had good camera and battery. Which unfortunately it doesn't. Yes it's more than any base iPhone but it's also a lot cooler phone design, and runs Android too.

Remember the price tag of the iPhone X? It also was the first OLED, the first "full-screen" iPhone, clearly targeted at "early-adoptors" and came with a steep price tag.

I think we need to wait for the Razr v3 (pun intended), which might be more suitable for the masses.

iPhone X was 1k USD and was considered to be grossly expensive at that price point, but other commentators point out that the note is similarly priced.

And hopefully a tad smaller.

If I'm getting the right idea about how big this is, I think I definitely want the iPhone SE version of this phone.

Here's hoping that's what they make the second V3.

Yes technically it's bothering but we all know they're cashing in on brand/history/foldable factors for now. Not surprising.

If they release 300$ in 2021 they may sell a few of them. I'd be tempted, and I usually only buy 2nd hand moto g <n>

Give it a few years and apple will release their own version at $800-1000 and call it the biggest step in phone technology since the first iphone.

This but it'll be $2000

And the masses will still buy it!

And Apple will support it for years to come!

(still bitter about Motorola's "support" of Z2 Force)

Do you mean the original or the 2nd one, and what happened? If you don't mind my asking.

...and the ESC key!

This needs to be an Onion article.

The Samsung Galaxy Fold is nearer to $2,000, but you do get a crease with that.

Even better, top of the line iPhone 11 Pro Max 512GB is still cheaper at $1449

When the original Razr first game out the price was also ridiculously. $1500 in 2000s money. The design was literally cutting edge. Laser cut keypad as sharp as a razor. By mid-2000 it had been commodified and you could get one free on most 2 year contracts.

They only revived that trend in the Razr, but learned it with the StarTAC, which retailed for $1000 in 1996, or about $1600 in today's money. I'm sure the DynaTAC was no better before it.

What do you mean by dormant? Motorola has been continuously making smartphones, and they are arguably one of the better low to mid-range choices in the United States. They’re owned by electronics giant Lenovo.

Motorola is far from dormant - they never stopped making phones, I had a Motorola smart phone as recently as last year. Verizon is currently offering five different Motorola phones on their website.

Yea, they still advertise and have tons of devices in retail locations. None of the big tech reviewers cover any Motorola products though; which is odd. When was the last time you saw Linus or Dave2D cover one? I think Marcus is the only big YouToober I've seen do reviews on them.

For the last 5 years or so I think Motorola has consistently had some of the best budget/mid-tier phones. If I'm not able to get a deal on my next phone, I'll probably get one of their $200 phones that is 90% as good as an $800 phone.

$1,500 covers high expected warranty costs, I think. First gen on something this different is going to have failures. Later when they understands what's needed better, we can expect a likely cost drop.

I am waiting to see just how many times you can actually fold / unfold before the screen breaks.

Maybe it will be a new feature, openable 10,000 times! Like battery life on smartphones, which was never an issue for dumb phones.

It wasn’t an issue on dumb phones because dumb phones weren’t interesting enough or good enough to use for six hours a day.

Apparently my Symbian phones didn't any issue lasting a couple of days.

C++, Java, Python, Camera, video, a multitasking OS, Internet access, lasting two/three days on single charge.

Yet my first Android device, running Froyo, could hardly last a full day, in spite of forked Java that was supposed to perform better than what Nokia and Sony were delivering.

I always had to carry spare batteries for my Symbian devices, no way did they last a couple of days under regular use. Same with my Sony Ericsson J2ME phones. Running stuff like IRC, streaming radio, bluetooth headphones, really sucked down the battery.

My very last one, Nokia 6120 classic did last a couple of days.

> The battery life of Nokia 6120 is impressive. To give you an example, a daily average of 5 minutes of calls and 20 SMS requires charging every four to five days. More demanding jobs, including active internet browsing in UMTS, will surely reduce durability to 2-3 days, but even so the phone does great. Charging takes about 2.5 hours.

https://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6120_classic-review-161.php

Try to do this with most mid range Android devices.

Indeed, and that's why a lot of people in China now buy a secondary "dumbphone" in addition to smartphone.

I believe we will end with 6.8~7.2 inch smartphones going mainstream in the West too soon.

People will be carrying their aircraft carrier sized smartphones in bags, or pouches, while using a dumbphone for talk.

Checkout Xiaomi Qin A1

In fairness, my Samsung S7 will happily last 2-3 days on a charge if I put it in "ultra power saving mode" (and this is a 3 year old device). And this still allows me to make calls/texts, use WhatsApp, the camera, and browse the internet. The Nokia 6120 presumably couldn't ever do much more than that.

> a daily average of 5 minutes of calls and 20 SMS requires charging every four to five days

I literally laughed out loud at that.

Modern smartphones have fantastic battery life if you switch off data and use them like dumbphones. When I travel sometimes I leave my home SIM with data off in an old iPhone and it easily lasts a week.

Most people still follow such patterns, not everyone is glued on their phone 24x7.

I am yet to own an Android device that lasts more than 3 days.

Do you literally switch off data, or just not use it? All those background connections for push notifications, etc take a huge toll.

My iPhone 11 Pro Max lasts 2 days with decently heavy use if I'm not going totally crazy on it, I haven't used Android in ages though.

Data is only switched on when required, we are far away from flatrates over here.

Snake would like a word with you

The Jerry rig everything channel on Youtube comes pretty close imho to real world scenarios, except for the burn test though.

For those not familiar with his channel, he tests new phones from a durability perspective, using Mohs hardness scale picks of varying hardness to see where screens begin to scratch (ie will keys scratch? sand?), and the infamous bend test simulating sitting down with the phone in a tight pocket. He also does teardowns, looking at eg rubber gaskets for moisture protection.

Fun thing from JRE: the apple glass used in the phones and watch aren't really that much different from any run of the mill middle-class phone today. It's pretty much a standard solution. Keys, coins won't scratch, but sand, gravel, stone might. He checks this against a (Tissot?) watch that uses a sapphire glass, and doesn't scratch.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWFKCr40YwOZQx8FHU_ZqqQ

I must say that Motorola really has some great products to offer. I was recently looking for a cheap replacement for my old Android phone and found the Moto G7 Power, which is awesome in my eyes. No bullshit stock android, a nice large screen and it runs on a single charge more than 6 days in my case [1]. It's crazy.

The camera is bad though, but that's one of the reasons why smart phones get more expensive each year. I won't buy into this ultra-resolution, low-light, AI photo craze.

IMO they should focus on that low-price segment and they will own the market. I don't see any value in foldable screen gimmicks.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/jWCEfpO

The problem with Motorola is the complete lack of software support. I have a G5+ and Motorola announced in March that it will not receive security updates anymore. That's just two years after the phone's release. It seems that Motorola doesn't care about software at all. The security patch level of my G5+ has been out of date by several months for practically all of the phone's life.

Most Android OEMs stop updating their phones after 2 years, no? That's not a problem exclusive to Motorola.

All Android One phones get security updates for at least three years. Samsung decreases the frequency of security updates after two years, but still provides some. Google updates its phones for quite a bit longer. Of all the phones I've had, Motorola has been the worst by far with respect to updates.

I like the form factor, but didn't need it to be a continuous screen. A clam shell with a distinct screen in each half would be more durable and would surely bring the price down too.

It did to get media attention.

Also your idea sounds pretty bad. No wide screen videos, and why not just put a keyboard in the bottom half to reduce costs further?

i think the idea is to make the os extend across screens much as you do on a desktop 2 screen setup not have individual screens. you could do it by making the 2 screens have no bezel on the side they meet and then making a clever hinge that brings those screens within 1mm of touching when unfolded

I never read documents across my multiscreen desktop display though; so I cannot imagine doing so on mobile. Consequently, I wouldn’t want apps or webpages spanning both screens unless they were specifically designed to.

People complain about a notch on an almost invisible place on their screens, having any kind of line running between two screens is very likely a no-no for designers.

What about 2 small keyboards, say 4 button on either side of the bottom screen? We can call it 3DS.

exactly what I thought. they would just need to do a clever hinge to allow the screens to get as close to each other as possible when unfolded (and minimize the bezel on the "join side")

This form factor but two screens with minimal break for half the price, sign me in!

Sony made a tablet like this ("Tablet P") some years ago, even made sure that their builtin apps (email, calendar etc.) would recognise the two screens and split the UI properly. I had one of those tablets and it was fun for a while, but ultimately was a total flop.

Yes, I don't know why some brands didn't already try this. But I think this is all about looking for foldable screen applications.

I wouldn't mind a thin gap between two screens as long as you won't notice it too much while swiping.

But maybe it's very difficult to make a hinge that keeps the screen a µm apart all the time.

Curious about the screen durability. In a testing of the Samsung fold phone [1], a fingernail was enough to leave a horrible scratch on these bendable screen surfaces...

[1] https://youtu.be/tZBk_Hb-X0w?t=245

Interesting video, thanks for sharing.

Along the lines of your question, is anyone reading a display engineer who can shed some light on why we are seeing foldables now? What have been recent engineering developments that make these things feasible now, and should we expect the number of these foldable screens to be growing exponentially for sometime?

What I like most about this is the long screen. Reading articles on it looks really nice. Fold it and it fits any pocket.

I can understand the high price, but I imagine most people will wait for a cheaper version.

I'm old and my vision is not what it used to be. Most sites optimize for young people's vsion in portrait, making them dificult to me, so I usually browse in landscape. Super long and narrow phones for me are a big no-no, I don't want to read articles 2 lines at a time.

Then I guess a foldable like Samsung's is perfect for you. Smartphone pocket size, tablet screen size.

It's a shame that competition based on displays (and large size) is all the rage, but the battery tech is in the stone age by comparison. Like, who wants a battery that stays charged under average load more than a day, or a battery that doesn't diminish in capacity after 8 months?

> the battery tech is in the stone age by comparison

Is this really the case? Legit question. I'm not very familiar with the state of battery tech, but I remember the release of that massive Energizer phone and I don't think I'd be comfortable trading that much size for a better battery.

The Energizer phone never released, it was cancelled.

My first smartphone was a Note 2. I put a 10 amp hour zero lemon battery on that, was great. I did the same thing with the Note 4. Nowadays everyone makes it ridiculous to swap a battery and I don't like the "wrap around style" but thankfully phones with 4-5 amp hour batteries with more efficient SoCs are available these days so it's not as bad.

I'd still love to see a large format phone with a 6-7 amp hour battery built in though. It would barely be any thicker and would mean once a week charge for me.

better displays are mostly engineering problems while better batteries are a science problem.

Hello, Moto!

Ah, the nostalgia! Used to own a V3X, and although really liked the device, quality wise it didn't last for more than a year (buttons needed to be pressed harder, the soft touch would peel off, etc)

(For reference, the Motorola brand is now owned by Lenovo, so presumably this could be considered a Lenovo phone.)

I once owned the original Razr (about 1-2 years after it was originally released). It was most definitely the worst phone I have ever owned, my first being the Nokia 3210 way back:

The keyboard was unusable, the UI was ugly and slow, bluetooth did not work properly. There were just so many issues. I remember it being released in Europe and it was one of the most expensive phones at the time; about a year or two later it was sold for peanuts.

All that being said, this phone runs android and does look quite cool. It might be a great phone at 1/6 of its price some day.

It was a big hit in the US, where Nokia was non existent. For a lot of folks this was their very first mobile phone, I’d say the equivalent of Nokia 3210/3310 in Europe. But yeah, unlike Nokia this wasn’t the best device on the market.

>the US, where Nokia was non existent

That's completely false. Nokia was by for the largest cell phone brand in the US in the early 2000s.

Agree completely. Nokia 6190, 8290, 5190, 3390, 2190, etc etc were all very popular US phones between 1998 - 2003. Malls were covered in accessory stores selling interchangeable face plates to customize the look of the phone to literally anything the heart desired.

I'm experiencing the Gell-Mann effect in this comments section where HNers recollect events just 15 years ago yet say things like "Nokia was nonexistent in USA" and "people didn't really text / use flip phones much".

It makes me question any HN historian chiming in on the past when people are so wrong about such a recent era.

Man, this was the era that was so ubiquitous with flip phone usage that "free ringtones" were the biggest spamsite genre of the time and entire kiosks at the mall existed to sell you custom faceplates and vajazzling decor for your phone.

I think one thing at play is that people regularly extrapolate their microscopic local experience into broad wisdom about the world. Nobody in their social circle had a Nokia? It was dead in USA. Nobody in their social circle texted much? Nobody did. They don't like spinach? Kids would never eat salad (which I just saw in another thread). Maybe it's a bug in the human software.

See my comment below to sibling. I think the real problem here is lack of exact timeline memory. The RAZR didn’t come out until 2004, not early 2000s. That said, very much agree with what you said about folks insisting on things that they are simply misremembering (or never knew in the first place and instead apply own biases).

You're right, but from what I remember the RAZR was the phone that ended Nokia's popularity in the US. I had a Nokia 6133 flip phone (better than the RAZR in every way), and at that point I was the only person I knew who still had a Nokia. Everyone else had a RAZR, LG Chocolate, Samsung, etc.

The RAZR didn’t exist until 2004[0], which is mid-2000s to me, not early 2000s. Nokia very much owned the GSM market in the US from 1997-2003. The problem is they didn’t innovate and got left behind (personal opinion on that part, but I feel it’s a justified opinion). I personally stuck with Nokia because a “cool looking” phone was less important to me than having Symbian. Until the iPhone came out, Symbian was the best OS imho (but that isn’t saying much).

I think the issue sibling comment to yours was getting at but not directly saying, is that humans have a bad habit of not remembering exact time periods for non-important distant past things. It’s why I cross reference on Wikipedia or other sources before stating things matter of factly for anything I’m pretty sure about, but not positive on. Wish more folks did that!

[0] confirmed on Wikipedia, as I wasn’t positive.

The original Razr did look extremely cool. At that time we were kind of accustomed to ugly, slow UI, which was why the first iPhones were such a hit.

The dimensions cited in the article (172mm x 72mm x 14mm) don't tell the whole story for a vertically foldable smartphone. That's the unfolded height. I don't see the folded height anywhere in the article, but once you use that figure to calculate the volume it won't be anywhere near "over double the volume" of the old Razr.

I don’t see how the volume could decrease in the bended state.

  172 x 72 x 14 = 173376
  53 x 98 x 13.9 = 72196.6
  173376 / 72196.6 ~= 2.4

(original Razr dimensions from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Razr)

In the folded state, the phone is 14mm thick throughout, but its height is significantly less than 172mm.

In the unfolded state, only the lip at the bottom remains 14mm thick. The rest is 7mm thick.

172 x 72 x 14 is a meaningless figure because it combines maximum dimensions from two different states. The fact that the lip at the bottom doesn't unfold probably adds to the confusion.

Edit: According to updated figures from GSM Arena, the folded height is 94mm -- even shorter than the old Razr. So the actual volume (ignoring curves) is 94 x 72 x 14 = 94,752mm^3 = only 31% bigger than the old one.

Woow. Ok, so this is going to get buried, but...

...while looking at the article I just spied "09JAN19" on the back of the display in the 5th image in the 3rd gallery (the teardown one).

Motorola have been working away at this for over a year.

And (probably...?) successfully kept it a secret.

And watched while Samsung's fold thing blew up.

With their own display probably already set in stone.

And it looks like they have a winner on their hands.

Hahh.

>while looking at the article I just spied "09JAN19" on the back of the display

>Motorola have been working away at this for over a year.

>And (probably...?) successfully kept it a secret.

They didn't. January 16th: https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/1/16/18185101/m...

January 21th: https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/21/18191330/motorola-razr-le...

Rumoured initial release of February 2019 and the Snapdragon 710 that is in devices for over 1.5? years already I wouldn't be surprised if similar problems as Samsung's lead to that late release now.

Their behind-the-scenes video shows them working on it for over 4 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74KHL9UWqr8&feature=youtu.be

I'm all in on smaller phones coming back but I'm none in for the >$1k price points.

Spending more than $200 on a phone is a waste of money.

I just built a very capable gaming PC for 1/3 of the price of this phone that does the same things my $200 old iPhone does.

Was that sarcasm? Or did you spent $500 on a gaming PC that's as powerful as your $200 iPhone? I'm confused.

Of course it was. He implies that it can't possibly as good as an $1000+ one. Thing is, the returns are diminishing beyond a certain money spent. The $800+ difference to me is ridiculous if you look closely what you get for the extra money.

I optimized for battery life in my last purchase, now I charge 2x / week, brings back the old Nokia memories from the 90s :)

Just give me physical buttons...

Quite suprising Motorola couldn't push the navigation bar down slightly, that wastes a lot of space at the bottom. I know the article says android needs a rectangular navigation bar, but a lot of phones with rounded corners on the display just crop the navigation bar (e.g. Oneplus).

Would this have been possible with that much larger bottom curve, or are there parts of the Android UI that would be cut off? The little hint that comes up to switch to portrait/landscape mode comes to mind.

I had the phone, and I love the form factor. I wish Apple could come up with something like this, as I could not move from iOS, to be honest.

They can’t, I think, because Moto patented adding a budge to keep the display from creasing?

Photos of the FCC specimen seem like there is distortion around the hinge. I wonder if straight lines would render straight on this display.

I don't give a damn about the phone itself, but if they include the old golf game from the original RAZR...I'm in.

But, i can see the crease in those screenshots >_>

Foldable displays are probably the future, but they need to be actual value (like a significantly larger display) for them to properly take off. Waiting to see the next generation Samsung phones, should be interesting once they get the form factor right.

The novelty will wear off quickly. The phone’s success will depend on the software. It’s thin and so going full screen makes no sense. Will it let me multitask with movie playing half and note editing in the other? How is the long thin screen going to make it better than a regular phone?

Recently I wanted to replace my iPhone 6 with a smaller & lighter alternative, and found myself looking at bigger phones marketed as “small smartphones”. A quick reddit search brought me results of people asking for small smartphones. For some reason, noone is working on it though.

The 2018 palm phone is interesting but probably too small for its own good.

It's not sold outside US unfortunately. And the battery is not sufficient as I heard.

If I could have two phones tied to the same cell account, then this phone would be a great daily workhorse. But I'd still want another with a good camera and good sound for the weekends. Alas, the phone is expensive enough, and I don't want two phone numbers.

Getting a carrier to do this adhoc is likely difficult, but technically it’s possible now. The Apple Watch for example does this and the carrier feature it leveraged to do it existed long before Apple used it for the watch. Under the hood, it’s still two different numbers, but the second one is masked by the carrier.

I’m still waiting for someone to make a modern, smartphone version of the Matrix phone. Nokia re-released it last year, but it’s not a smartphone.

https://youtu.be/Lweuy1X9Tcg

I'm kinda curious about the second screen. The author was wondering if it was a new Android feature or a Motorola feature. I'm wondering if it's driven by a separate processor running Android Wear.

Given that my 6" phone fix ok in pocket, this is a tough call. It's half the height, but also double the thickness.

Putting on external case also means casing on both sides when folded. Hrm.

I had one of these. It was really nice hardware but the OS / UI horribly complex (bit like Blackberry with multi layered menus) and battery life wasn’t great.

The fifth picture shows it running android.

The new version runs Android; the original certainly didn’t.

The article is about the new model, not the one from ten years ago.

This is a great idea, because everyone wants a screen that is 438 times as tall as it is wide.

I'm not so sure I would want to associate a modern, $1500 phone with an old razr. I can sense the nostalgia marketing tactic they are playing at but honestly I remember those phones for feeling cheap and breaking easily (and often).

Also, $1500 for a flip phone (that admittedly has a cool foldable screen that), this feels like a joke to me.

A 1400 dollars phone that cannot compete with an 1000 iPhone/Samsung? Delusional.

if there ever was a star trek communicator this was it. I used to have a dark blue moto razr and was probably the best flip phone i ever had, it was usable in both the US and abroad and very durable

Good concept but at $1500 it better blow samsung and pixel out of the way.

Did anybody else remember calling these Gatorolla's?

Hopefully, phone belt clips come back into fashion too

That screen will be toast after a year or 2,500 folds.

I don’t know why you’re downvoted because it’s true. It’s going to go snap like a 1980s lunch box hinge.

Apple got rid of as much mechanical stuff as possible. There was a good reason for it.

Eh, my RAZR v3 is still a champ.

How things haven't changed since 90s. The watch (Rolex) we wear is electronics and the flipphone now it's now an advanced Electronic with cool screen

will gaming be difficult with that chin?

Not ideal for video calls. That's a serious design oversight.

Why? It has a selfie cam just like any other phone

No it doesn't. It has one camera. You can only do video calls in the mini screen.

There's a selfie camera in the notch.

Just Good Old memories

I will never buy a Motorola phone.

Back in the early 2000's, my then girlfriend received a Motorola cellphone for her birthday. Her sister bought the same model a week later. The thing worked fine, but some time after the guarantee period expired, the screen flipped upside down. Very strange problem to have. Exactly a week later, the same thing happend to her sisters phone.

Since then, that brand leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

19 years to hold such a grudge is pretty long :)

I think it depends on the offense. I'm still upset with Sony over the rootkit scandal. It's actually why I chose to buy an Xbox One over a PS4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

My previous two phones were motorola, the moto x force was a workhorse for three years with a pretty much unbreakable screen, the joy of not having a case can't be underestimated. Regualar OS and security updates and very close to stock android and reasonably priced.

Motorola has changed hands twice since then. They are now part of Lenovo. The only thing that is the same is the brand name.

They acquired whole phone division though, not just brand. E.g. inventor specified in this patent also have patents for Motorola hinged/sliding devices back to 2006, so it seems Lenovo didn't bought their corpse only for brand, like with HMD/Nokia.

> They are now part of Lenovo.

Out of the pan and into the fire.

Who asked for this? Why? Who has a problem with the current height of phones? What will this enable? Did Motorola hit some kind of pocket-height-limit for their dream of an ultra tall phone?

I'll be happy if this becomes the CmdrTaco comment for the 2020 revival of the Moto Razr, but I doubt it.

Who asked for the iPhone before it was made? Who asked Alexander Graham Bell for the first telephone?

If you always wait for someone to ask for stuff, you'll always be chasing tail lights.

Those things were useful, this is not.

I'd say that this is useful in the same way that flip phones were useful 15 years ago. They provide more space than a candybar phone when in use, and take up less space when pocketed. And the screen is protected from your keys or other items in your pocket.

If I had a magic wand, I'd use it to fold my 6S and get something half as tall and twice as thick.

Shit, I’m pretty tempted by this. I’m still regularly using a purse with an outer pocket sized for a flip phone; it goes unused since a screen phone is way too tall and sticks out.

I just wanted faster horses.

Lots of punters want them.

Protecting the smartphone screen by folding it inside itself is a good solution for durability. So, I can see why they went this way. But, then they went and put a screen on the outside too, so that negates part of that benefit. At least the large screen is protected though.

Also, flipping your phone open/closed used to be fun. I'm not sure if it will still be, but it used to be.

Razr and the later V8/V9 had screens on the outside, and they were great. Just enough to show notifications, album art and music controls, and clock. Looks a bit large on this, but might give battery life benefits if there's less need to wake up the main display all the time. The camera bulge looks like it's more a risk...

> Who has a problem with the current height of phones?

I do. So, now we've cleared that up :)

I have a problem with the current width of phones. It's not enough. The aspect ratio too high for use as a phablet.

Actually, it was enough back when I had a Huawei Mediapad X1, with its 7" inch 1920x1200 display. When it came time to replace that aging phone, I couldn't find anything similarly wide.

I ended up with a 7.2" Huawei Mate 20X, which despite its longer diagonal, is significantly less wide.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com