What kind of journalism is this? Seriously, are these articles neither proof-read nor passed by an editor before publishing?
> The device is thin, as far as tablets go, at 5.4 mm, unfolded. Closed, it’s nearly double that, at 11 mm.
11mm is _more_ than double 5.4mm.
> with a 19:5 aspect ration.
Aspect ration? Are aspects now too precious to waste?
> ...as Richard You takes the stage...
> ...according to mobile CEO Richard Yu...
Could we at least get some consistency in proper noun transliterations?
There's so much more that I feel like I'm reading an article published by a middle-school student. If so, then he did a great job. If this is supposed to be a professional journalist, though, then he should go back to middle school.
Posting first is a big deal for news media sites. This story will be replaced by others today so no one will care that there were problems so long as it shows up first in the Google news results this morning.
I agree with your criticism, but I don't get what is the problem with the first point (I am not a native speaker). Doesn't "nearly" just mean "close to" and not necessarily "less than"?
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.
True, but it's nowhere close to being final hardware.
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.
Since 79% of smartphone users use a case, how is this supposed to work out?
It seems to be me your two options with a mobile device are:
1) Make it durable so that it can be dropped on a variety of surfaces without big concerns of dropping or scratching. This might be a lot easier to achieve if devices got much lighter (or go the Toughbook route and harden it).
2) Allow it to support a variety of case types that a user can choose
This whole thing seems more like a prototype than a great idea. I think foldable and rollable computing devices have a future, but this doesn't seem fully considered.
I believe 79% of smartphone users are over-protective with their phones. What's the point to pay top dollar for a beautiful screen if you cover it with a cheap cover? You will change the phone in 4 years max anyway.
Wasn't there news last year that someone in China stole Samsung folding tech? Wonder if that is relevant with this new device that Huawei is working on.
I think it would've made far more sense to have two bezel-less LCDs butt together than try to get a flexible one to work without fatigue damage over time, but then again, I don't work in the marketing nor planned obolescence department...
I am very old school but if I want to fold something, I find the One Mix Yoga 2S much more usable -- a 7" 2-in-1 laptop, with a proper Intel Core CPU, PCIe SSD and 8GB of RAM. Oh and it's 670 USD... a quarter of this Mate X thing, or what.
While the dispay on the outside is nice, having a soft (bendable) material on the edge of the phone has to be prone to scratches, no? And then when you unfold, you'll have scratched middle of the display, which has to be the worst place to have the scratches.
While not that nice, having display on the inside of the phone at least protects it from scratches.
I'm looking forward to phones like these getting more mature. Screen size and pocketability are everything. This first generation from Huawei and Samsung is just step one down the path of what will eventually be a really compelling design.
It's about time the smartphone market had some shake-up. Phones haven't seen major form factor changes in several years now, yet their prices keep ticking up.
Neither Apple, nor Samsung can justify prices of $1000+ for flagship models when the benefits are so marginal compared to flagships of even 2 years ago. I paid $900 for a Galaxy S7 in 2016 and decided to import a Nokia X6 from HK for $300 instead of getting a new Galaxy.
Of course, I'm not going to pay $1500-$2000 to be a guinea pig for this new form factor, but it's good to see that in a couple of years, smartphones might not become yet another boring shopping list item.
New technology comes at a price. The have spent billions on R&D and this is a way to get some of the investment monetized. It is likely to be a niche product to test the technology and the market. Most likely in a couple of years we will have foldable screen phones that go for less than $1000
Mainly because a 1st gen phone like this will have lots of custom components inside that are probably machined in-house, which limits how many they can make. It then becomes rational to put a high price tag on it, to make sure they don't sell out in 5 minutes and to make the most revenue.
The only valid price for something is what someone will pay for it. They're priced like that because Samsung and Huawei think that there is a market for it.
Time will tell if they're right, but I can see the logic. High end smartphones are already at the $1,000 mark, and all they have to differentiate themselves from the $200 models is some nice design, and a slightly nicer screen processor and camera - they're fundamentally the same item. Manufacturers search hard for differentiation on a commoditised space, and this is the first major bit for years. This is a high end product, aimed at the '1%' who can afford to a stand out device.
Do you remember when iPhones weren't ubiquitous, and if there was someone in the group who had one everyone would want a go? That's what the manufacturers are hoping for.
Apple long ago paved the way for selling decent hardware at a very high profit margin, even taking into account R&D. They're a trillion dollar company for it. Other companies of course want to replicate the success.
A price like that tells me they're not producing these in very large numbers at all, probably in the low five figures max.
Makes sense, as this is new tech and they are trying to understand consumer demand and use cases for the product. Also, they may want to avoid costly recalls if it turns out that the V1 hinge isn't as sturdy in real world use as it was in their tests.
The cellphone market in developed nations have been somewhat stagnant in the past few years, so it seems that both Samsung and Huawei's foldable cellphone are looking to create a technology that adds a new level to the cellphone hierarchy.
It is likely that both cellphones are not going to pay itself off this year when accounting for R&D (assuming technology hasn't been stolen), but the value of being seeing as the leaders in the industry (brand value) and the increased availability of the technology will likely drop the cost of fold-able tech and hopefully propel the industry to the next level.
Whether these technological updates are true value-adder to customers remains to be seeing. We have seen people buy new cellphones yearly with a lot less changes to it.
I also think that if someone is willing to pay 2-4x more for a foldable cellphone, they are likely to pay a couple hundred to a customized case or at least something that will protect their cellphones. (@pwthornton)
I do not see the point of such a device to exist. Not a phone, not a tablet, do we really need something in between the two? Tablets have had SIM capability for a while now. I anticipate in less than years time these will no longer be talked about.
You may be right, but your comment makes no difference from the ones many of us wrote after the first iPad: "what is this thing for? what problem does it solve that is not solved by a laptop or a phone?". And we were wrong, there was quite a market...
I would love to have a such device. An iPhone X which transforms itself into an iPad mini? Yes, please! Definitely a better feature than some new colors(i.e rose gold), new emoji or glass back.
What's the point of hybrid? Not gas, not electric. What's the point of a non-prime lens? Not wide angle, not telescopic. What's the point of the Switch? Not mobile console, not TV console. What's the point of a multi-bit screwdriver? Not phillips, not flat.
You sound like one of the critical voices from the time when the iPhone came out. Is tablet and phone the end-all for form factors until the end of time? I'd argue no, they are but a momentary snapshot of current technology. Imagine this foldable thing a couple of generations in, not what it is today.
The technology isn't there yet, but I'd love a Westworld-style foldable device that goes from a phone to a decent-sized display -- iPad and iPhone all in one slim device.
So these basically fold out to a tablet-size screen area, don't obviously accommodate covers and cost more than current smartphone prices? I don't see it.
[+] [-] dotancohen|7 years ago|reply
> The device is thin, as far as tablets go, at 5.4 mm, unfolded. Closed, it’s nearly double that, at 11 mm.
11mm is _more_ than double 5.4mm.
> with a 19:5 aspect ration.
Aspect ration? Are aspects now too precious to waste?
> ...as Richard You takes the stage...
> ...according to mobile CEO Richard Yu...
Could we at least get some consistency in proper noun transliterations?
There's so much more that I feel like I'm reading an article published by a middle-school student. If so, then he did a great job. If this is supposed to be a professional journalist, though, then he should go back to middle school.
[+] [-] goatherders|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yiyus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcbro141|7 years ago|reply
See 1:28 : https://youtu.be/NnO08HnZf10?t=88
[+] [-] timdorr|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ehsankia|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] arthurcolle|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcode|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwthornton|7 years ago|reply
It seems to be me your two options with a mobile device are:
1) Make it durable so that it can be dropped on a variety of surfaces without big concerns of dropping or scratching. This might be a lot easier to achieve if devices got much lighter (or go the Toughbook route and harden it).
2) Allow it to support a variety of case types that a user can choose
This whole thing seems more like a prototype than a great idea. I think foldable and rollable computing devices have a future, but this doesn't seem fully considered.
Although this one looks significantly better than the Galaxy Fold, which reminds me of the Homer Simpson Car: https://patrickwthornton.com/samsung-galaxy-fold-is-the-home...
[+] [-] thefounder|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kerng|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gman83|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rorykoehler|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knolan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] userbinator|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chx|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megous|7 years ago|reply
While not that nice, having display on the inside of the phone at least protects it from scratches.
[+] [-] King-Aaron|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acjohnson55|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rchaud|7 years ago|reply
Neither Apple, nor Samsung can justify prices of $1000+ for flagship models when the benefits are so marginal compared to flagships of even 2 years ago. I paid $900 for a Galaxy S7 in 2016 and decided to import a Nokia X6 from HK for $300 instead of getting a new Galaxy.
Of course, I'm not going to pay $1500-$2000 to be a guinea pig for this new form factor, but it's good to see that in a couple of years, smartphones might not become yet another boring shopping list item.
[+] [-] mariopt|7 years ago|reply
Samsung foldable: $2,000
Huawei Mate X: $2,600
Why are these devices so expensive?
[+] [-] rnl|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phakding|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcode|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkangel|7 years ago|reply
Time will tell if they're right, but I can see the logic. High end smartphones are already at the $1,000 mark, and all they have to differentiate themselves from the $200 models is some nice design, and a slightly nicer screen processor and camera - they're fundamentally the same item. Manufacturers search hard for differentiation on a commoditised space, and this is the first major bit for years. This is a high end product, aimed at the '1%' who can afford to a stand out device.
Do you remember when iPhones weren't ubiquitous, and if there was someone in the group who had one everyone would want a go? That's what the manufacturers are hoping for.
[+] [-] agumonkey|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] userbinator|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jach|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsamuels|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rchaud|7 years ago|reply
Makes sense, as this is new tech and they are trying to understand consumer demand and use cases for the product. Also, they may want to avoid costly recalls if it turns out that the V1 hinge isn't as sturdy in real world use as it was in their tests.
[+] [-] megaremote|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gpetrium|7 years ago|reply
It is likely that both cellphones are not going to pay itself off this year when accounting for R&D (assuming technology hasn't been stolen), but the value of being seeing as the leaders in the industry (brand value) and the increased availability of the technology will likely drop the cost of fold-able tech and hopefully propel the industry to the next level.
Whether these technological updates are true value-adder to customers remains to be seeing. We have seen people buy new cellphones yearly with a lot less changes to it.
I also think that if someone is willing to pay 2-4x more for a foldable cellphone, they are likely to pay a couple hundred to a customized case or at least something that will protect their cellphones. (@pwthornton)
[+] [-] jamisteven|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yiyus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thefounder|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xster|7 years ago|reply
What's the point of hybrid? Not gas, not electric. What's the point of a non-prime lens? Not wide angle, not telescopic. What's the point of the Switch? Not mobile console, not TV console. What's the point of a multi-bit screwdriver? Not phillips, not flat.
[+] [-] danielbln|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Veen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TwoNineA|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TaylorGood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tanilama|7 years ago|reply
Definitely not worthy of the price tag.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gainsurier|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barbs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] einverne|7 years ago|reply