Other A Foldable iPhone will Flop

[Pbwallstreet]

This is completely false.

Why is it completely false.

 

[ayephoner]

No way I'm reading all that on a 6" screen!

Now, if I had a bigger screen, I absolutely could.

 

[surferfb]

Why do they want a larger display that fits in their pocket?

Let me break this down more.

Why does someone want a car that turns into a plane?

Why does someone want a lawnmower with wings?

Why does someone want a laptop that turns into a tablet?

Why does someone want a desktop computer that folds up into a portable laptop?

Why does someone want a 50” TV that rolls into a small tube case?

Etc.

The point is, which I keep repeating: 1. These convertible devices compromise their primary and secondary function where they are worse than their dedicated versions. 2. People use a tool or a device that is purpose built and purpose designed for that purpose.

Some discussion. People do not use a 50” screen and mouse standing in line at Costco because that use case makes no sense. They use a smartphone. They may wish they would have that for what they are doing at that time (e.g., daytrading), but they need a portable device like a smartphone that has tailored interfaces and interactions for that small screen and form factor and can be used with one hand.

A tablet also doesn’t make as much sense in use cases calling for smartphone portability. There also seems to be this idea that there is such a critical demand for tablet use cases. There isn’t. Tablets peaked long ago and have always been a subset of the smartphone market.

Studies and market research shows that tablets have a narrow set of use cases for people, which has expanded a bit due to them becoming more capable for productivity. But they are more awkward to hold in the hands and less efficient to interact with because the screens are larger and require both hands to use.

If we take the use case of a person commuting for work… on a train… would they want to fold their phone out into a tablet? You may think they could be productive working on the train… What about a keyboard? That has to be a separate item for them to carry. And the tablet itself as I have repeated many times is compromised. And the tablet does have to compete with the smartphone. With the advent of larger screened smartphones, the use cases and value of a tablet got diminished. Many people don’t use or want a tablet.

The same can be said of convertible laptops. People use laptops for specific reasons. To make a convertible laptop, it compromises the laptop and tablet where it becomes worse at both of these dedicated devices.

The push for a larger display that folds into a pocket-sized device is really just the latest version of trying to make one tool do two jobs poorly: like a car that turns into a plane or a laptop that doubles as a tablet.

Dedicated devices succeed because they are purpose-built: smartphones are designed for mobility, one-handed use, and tailored interfaces, while tablets fill a narrow, secondary role that has already been diminished by larger smartphones. Forcing the two together doesn’t create a superior experience; it compromises both, leaving users with a device that is less effective than either of the dedicated versions it tries to replace.

Not going point by point here, but just some thoughts.

Even if I were to give you that a foldable “compromises their primary and secondary function” (I don’t agree, to be clear) it’s entirely possible that for some use cases one device that does two things well is better than two devices that do the same things excellently. I gave you one use case up thread from my own day to day work.

Ultimately, it seems you’ve made up your mind that those of use who are interested in the device are wrong to be interested in them and our use cases are made up. But I’d suggest you consider that it’s possible you’re making a classic mistake in reasoning: “Because I don’t see the appeal, that means there is no appeal.”

There’s no shame in that, I’ve done it in the past too. But especially at Apple’s volume, even 2% of 230M phone sales a year at an average selling price of $2000 is $9B in revenue. Even assuming every buyer of the foldable is moving from the Pro line, that’s almost the equivalent of each foldable user buying two phones instead of one. So even if it “flops”, it’s likely to increase Apple’s bottom line.

 

[HuskerNKS]

Not going point by point here, but just some thoughts.

Even if I were to give you that a foldable “compromises their primary and secondary function” (I don’t agree, to be clear) it’s entirely possible that for some use cases one device that does two things well is better than two devices that do the same things excellently. I gave you one use case up thread from my own day to day work.

Ultimately, it seems you’ve made up your mind that those of use who are interested in the device are wrong to be interested in them and our use cases are made up. But I’d suggest you consider that it’s possible you’re making a classic mistake in reasoning: “Because I don’t see the appeal, that means there is no appeal.”

There’s no shame in that, I’ve done it in the past too. But especially at Apple’s volume, even 2% of 230M phone sales a year at an average selling price of $2000 is $9B in revenue. Even assuming every buyer of the foldable is moving from the Pro line, that’s almost the equivalent of each foldable user buying two phones instead of one. So even if it “flops”, it’s likely to increase Apple’s bottom line.

It's funny, the OP keeps calling out "compromises" and when we show those not to be true (like stating folding phones are the same thickness/weigh as the iPro 17 pro), he goes to the iPhone Air as his example of current iPhone capabilities. The shining example of compromises.

Less battery life, worse cameras, 2x instead of 8x zoom, downgraded GPU, slower charging, worse cooling, no mmWave, USB 2 instead of USB 3.

At this point there is really no point in discussing something with someone when there is a 0% chance they are open to other opinions, but will write war and peace length posts to try to get others to adopt theirs. It's been an entertaining thread if nothing else. 😂

 

[jclardy]

I could see Apple doing something different than the rest - everyone is making plastic screens that scratch easily, look bad and feel bad - my guess is Apple will make a device similar to the surface duo, but apply some extreme engineering at the hinge so that only the transition needs to be malleable, rather than the entire display.

As for the usefulness aspect - I think there are a lot of use cases that give foldables an advantage - reading for one is much nicer as is web browsing and watching video. It would basically be an iPad Mini when opened. You also get the advantage of a display to preview selfies taken with the main camera when flipped open. And a built in stand for shooting photos/video.

Personally - I'd enjoy it. It would eliminate my iPad from my device lineup, as I use my iPad as my "couch computer" when just doing relaxed tasks.

 

[jclardy]

Why do they want a larger display that fits in their pocket?

Let me break this down more.

Why does someone want a car that turns into a plane?

Why does someone want a lawnmower with wings?

Why does someone want a laptop that turns into a tablet?

Why does someone want a desktop computer that folds up into a portable laptop?

Why does someone want a 50” TV that rolls into a small tube case?

Your examples are a miss for the tablet use case. I have an iPad and it is great - but I rarely use it because if I'm going to carry around a tablet, I need a bag. And if I have a bag, I can just take my laptop which serves the same purpose for me. A foldable means I am able to always carry my iPad in my pocket. And that iPad is always in perfect sync with my phone, because it is my phone.

That is the advantage. Is it a small tablet? Yes, but if you are questioning that, then you are questioning why the iPad mini exists which is an entirely different conversation.

 

[ayephoner]

Why is it completely false.

A touchscreen device does not make communicating on the internet better than anything with a physical keyboard.
For viewing photos/video, it's not better than pretty much anything with a bigger screen.
For taking photos/videos, it's not better than a quality, dedicated camera.
For playing games, it's not better than a dedicated gaming console (or gaming pc).
For audio, it's not better than something that can play truly lossless flacs (or other lossless files).

You get the point (though you'll likely pretend that you don't)

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Not going point by point here, but just some thoughts.

Even if I were to give you that a foldable “compromises their primary and secondary function” (I don’t agree, to be clear) it’s entirely possible that for some use cases one device that does two things well is better than two devices that do the same things excellently. I gave you one use case up thread from my own day to day work.

Ultimately, it seems you’ve made up your mind that those of use who are interested in the device are wrong to be interested in them and our use cases are made up. But I’d suggest you consider that it’s possible you’re making a classic mistake in reasoning: “Because I don’t see the appeal, that means there is no appeal.”

There’s no shame in that, I’ve done it in the past too. But especially at Apple’s volume, even 2% of 230M phone sales a year at an average selling price of $2000 is $9B in revenue. Even assuming every buyer of the foldable is moving from the Pro line, that’s almost the equivalent of each foldable user buying two phones instead of one. So even if it “flops”, it’s likely to increase Apple’s bottom line.

I haven't made up my mind. We're having a discussion. I'm trying to see anything that makes a foldable smartphone something that is useful and will hit mainstream. As it is, what is being oversold here is tablet use cases. Smartphone marketshare is around 90% compared to tablets at around 10% and internet usage is mostly from smartphones compared to tablets. The tablet market has been around a long time. It peaked years ago and even with all of the innovation and advancements, the market, in terms of number of iPad units sold for Apple for instance, is still less than it was several years ago. The market has been rebounding a bit.

Smartphone screens have gotten significantly larger over time, making them compete even more with tablets. And interfaces for the smartphone are now mostly tailored for that screen size. The tablet still has to compete with laptops for productivity as well.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Your examples are a miss for the tablet use case. I have an iPad and it is great - but I rarely use it because if I'm going to carry around a tablet, I need a bag. And if I have a bag, I can just take my laptop which serves the same purpose for me. A foldable means I am able to always carry my iPad in my pocket. And that iPad is always in perfect sync with my phone, because it is my phone.

That is the advantage. Is it a small tablet? Yes, but if you are questioning that, then you are questioning why the iPad mini exists which is an entirely different conversation.

But why do you want to use a tablet? That is the point. What is the use case.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

A touchscreen device does not make communicating on the internet better than anything with a physical keyboard.
For viewing photos/video, it's not better than pretty much anything with a bigger screen.
For taking photos/videos, it's not better than a quality, dedicated camera.
For playing games, it's not better than a dedicated gaming console (or gaming pc).
For audio, it's not better than something that can play truly lossless flacs (or other lossless files).

You get the point (though you'll likely pretend that you don't)

This doesn't really answer the question. I asked why the iPhone when it was launched was not a better phone than phones of that time; why it wasn't a better iPod than iPods of the time; and why it wasn't a better internet communications device than laptops and desktops and PDAs and smartphones of that time.

 

[ayephoner]

This doesn't really answer the question. I asked why the iPhone when it was launched was not a better phone than phones of that time; why it wasn't a better iPod than iPods of the time; and why it wasn't a better internet communications device than laptops and desktops and PDAs and smartphones of that time.

Yes it does. Your exact quote was "The iPhone made everything it converged better."

I said that was false. You asked why.

Stop being so disingenuous and such a contrarian.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Yes it does. Your exact quote was "The iPhone made everything it converged better."

I said that was false. You asked why.

Stop being so disingenuous and such a contrarian.

And in that post I stated the 3 things it converged. So let me make this even more clear, as this is what I said:

"The iPhone never was just a phone. Steve Jobs unveiled it as three devices in one: a phone, an iPod, and an internet communications device.

I know the leap that is being made that folding it into a tablet is another logical convergence step. But it isn’t, because it makes the smartphone and tablet worse than their dedicated counterparts. The iPhone made everything it converged better."

What I was referring to was the three devices in one. That is what I meant. I never mentioned a camera.

 

[kamikazeeMC]

When the iPhone released, websites did not have responsive designs suited for the mobile screen. It wasn’t better, it was a more convenient way to access from a device that fit in your pocket. Foldable phones add the convenience of a tablet screen in your pocket.

 

[ofarlig]

When the iPhone released, websites did not have responsive designs suited for the mobile screen. It wasn’t better, it was a more convenient way to access from a device that fit in your pocket. Foldable phones add the convenience of a tablet screen in your pocket.

Yeah, what the first iPhone did is actually an argument for a foldable.

When I got the first iPhone it was very slow at rendering webpages even on wifi (of course even worse on EDGE), it was not a good way to browse the internet by any stretch compared to computers. But as you say it was a very convenient way to do so when out and about since you didn’t need to bring a bulky secondary device.

 

[whatnot]

A foldable iPhone will flop.

not if they call it iFlop.

more to the point, what will be the point of having different lines of trinkets, because once they have an iFlop, there will be an iFlop Mini, Air and ProMax, and with touchscreen MBP rumoured, it will all become just a range of foldable tablets in different sizes.

 

[ayephoner]

And in that post I stated the 3 things it converged. So let me make this even more clear, as this is what I said:

"The iPhone never was just a phone. Steve Jobs unveiled it as three devices in one: a phone, an iPod, and an internet communications device.

I know the leap that is being made that folding it into a tablet is another logical convergence step. But it isn’t, because it makes the smartphone and tablet worse than their dedicated counterparts. The iPhone made everything it converged better."

What I was referring to was the three devices in one. That is what I meant. I never mentioned a camera.

But it's more than those three devices. And by including the last sentence, you included everything that it converged. And there are better phones, better music players, and better internet communications devices.

So no matter how you slice it, you're still wrong.

 

[Cuesca]

not if they call it iFlop.

more to the point, what will be the point of having different lines of trinkets, because once they have an iFlop, there will be an iFlop Mini, Air and ProMax, and with touchscreen MBP rumoured, it will all become just a range of foldable tablets in different sizes.

iFlop Pro Max for just $1500 downpayment and $299 a month.

 

[Royksöpp]

It will most certainly flop if it follows the strategy of the Vision Pro. A phone is a device that must be set at attainable price for both carriers and consumers. I could see it being a hit with carrier financing, although I personally wouldn't finance a first gen device for 2+ years. I feel for the guinea pigs, but this could be a success in the long-term if they nail it on the first try.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

When the iPhone released, websites did not have responsive designs suited for the mobile screen. It wasn’t better, it was a more convenient way to access from a device that fit in your pocket. Foldable phones add the convenience of a tablet screen in your pocket.

It was better. The internet experience vs. every other phone was better. It had a full web browser instead of a stripped down version like on other smartphones. The phone could go into landscape and the content was responsive native to iOS and Safari's webkit along with multi-touch gestures like pinch and zoom.

But you still haven't answered the question. It was a phone, an iPod, and an internet communications device. An internet communications device encompasses many things, like web browsing, Email, MMS, Web Apps for consumer and business that require internet connections and then the follow on App Store with native Apps, etc.

 

[Newbie67]

Folding vertically or horizontally? That’s the question imho - two different use cases and users. A vertically folding case is for someone who wants a smaller form factor in the hand folded and in the pocket. Second is one who needs access to larger screen real estate. I anticipate both offerings simultaneously

 

[ayephoner]

Folding vertically or horizontally? That’s the question imho - two different use cases and users. A vertically folding case is for someone who wants a smaller form factor in the hand folded and in the pocket. Second is one who needs access to larger screen real estate. I anticipate both offerings simultaneously

It's sort of in between. The specs have been leaked for a while, with lots of people putting together mock ups of what it might look like.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/rumoured-iphone-fold-size-concept-drawing-and-renders.2456447/

 

[ShadowGuardian87]

My question is how many of you are prepared to start paying 2k for a phone when Apple does release their foldable? I know there are carrier deals and upgrade programs but that' still a lot of hassle and/or money. I upgrade every two-three years and buy my phones outright after trading in my previous phone. I typically have ended up paying like $500-600 for a pro max iPhone with 256GB of storage after the trade in.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

The original iPhone was absolutely more compromised than the three devices It was supposed to replace.
iPod: well the iPhone came in two storage sizes, 4 and 8. The iPod classic went all the way up to 160 GB. So, not a better iPod. Even the iPod touch had a 32 GB option almost 2 years before the iPhone did.
Phone: the original iPhone didn’t have 3G networking, didn’t have multimedia messaging, no group SMS, didn’t have other capabilities of modern phones at the time like video recording. It was absolutely a compromise.
Internet communication device: not even the latest Wi-Fi standard of the time, no 3G, barely any websites optimized for mobile, no Adobe flash, barely any capability for downloading and saving anything, no copy and paste, nothing.

Arguably the only downsides to a foldable at this point are the plastic screen and price.
Even the aspect ratio issue appears to not be a problem with apples upcoming foldable, 4:3 is the iPad aspect ratio, and despite everything that OP keeps pushing it appears from all information that’s out there that Apple will *not* go with a square aspect ratio when unfolded.

 

[MacCheetah3]

[...] but if you are questioning that, then you are questioning why the iPad mini exists which is an entirely different conversation.

But why do you want to use a tablet? That is the point. What is the use case.

At least we’ve seemingly dug down to the roots argument. Although, I’m going to choose not to address this and stick to the title argument.

The idea of a convertible device is intriguing. However, as you’ve somewhat stated, attempted do-everything devices have compromises for the benefit of convenience. In my experience, they do okay in their primary function(s) but are at best par in the secondary goal. For relevant devices, I’ve had a 2-in-1/convertible — wasn’t one of my buying consideration features — laptop and a Google Pixel Fold, which I recently-ish purchased secondhand to actually try the folding phone concept. The laptop was a decent laptop but a clunky tablet. The Fold… Well… it’s okay but these are not tablet substitutes.

The reality is the modern, mainstream folding smartphone is an alternate phablet design. It’s not better nor worse overall than the slab/slate/candy bar style. It’s just a different approach. By the way, for the sake of this explanation, as I’m not aware of any standard/consensus, I’ll define a “phablet” as a smartphone-type device with a diagonally measured display of greater than six inches.

Digging a little deeper, some examples...

The Pixel Fold is a stumpier, thicker (i.e., nearly two times) iPhone X, having a 5.8-inch (diagonal) outer/cover display IMO, this is an okay starting (i.e., folded) form. Unfolded, it features a 7.6-inch display. This isn’t even iPad mini size. It does demonstrate what I mentioned earlier, foldables* are just a different approach to the phablet. That is, the Pixel Fold has one display that is smaller than, for example, an iPhone Pro, and one that’s larger, though not as large as even a small tablet.

The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7 has an inner display of eight inches, and nearly the same viewable area as an iPad mini (204.2 square cm vs. 203.9 square cm). However, its folded size is about the same as iPhone XS Max (6.5-inch class). To me, that’s starting off (i.e., smallest form) is too big. Yes, I have a 15 Pro Max and get by fine, but we’re arguing a foldable excels, right? So far, it’s, basically, just moving the goal posts, rather than a single display size between smartphone and tablet, it’s two displays, one smaller and one larger than large phablets.

The Pixel 9 Pro Fold does an even better stretch, starting out at a 6.3-inch display and going to eight inches, even a bit more viewing area than an iPad mini. But it still has a potential limitation, the inner, larger display is practically 1:1 rather than (closer to) a 3:2 or 4:3 ratio. The square aspect ratio is sufficient to good in some scenarios, for example, viewing (most) images/photos, text (including Web content), or maps. In the contrary, social media feeds are digital scrolls (i.e., optimal vertically). The same goes for instant messages (logs). The unfolded display becomes no wider than the unfolded, therefore, in general, there is no benefit to video content.

Somewhat subjective, the Huawei Mate XT Ultimate is, in general design, an actual evolution of the phablet concept. It features a 10.2-inch diagonal display that folds to 6.4-inch — still a little large IMO — or 7.9-inch diagonal viewing areas.

So, something of an iPhone Pro to iPad or iPad Pro with an iPad mini(-ish) option. In fact, most tablets are 3-4x larger in display area than a smartphone. Thus, it makes sense.

The biggest caveat (right now) is cost. With regional MSRP conversions, anywhere from ~$2,800 to $4,300 USD equivalently.

For comparison:

iPhone 17 (256GB) + iPad mini (256GB) = ~$1,400 USD
iPhone 17 Pro (256GB) + iPad Pro (11-inch, 256GB) = ~$2,100 USD
iPhone 17 Pro (512GB) + iPad Pro (11-inch, 1TB) = ~$2,900 USD

With the price aspect in mind, I paid <$500 for the Pixel Fold — via Back Market. That’s ~25% of its MSRP. Indeed, I don’t expect this as a launch price, but I also don’t think double (or more) the cost of a slab/bar-style is acceptable value. Nor, do I think, it’s enough for the convertible device to be the price of both individual devices.

Will Apple’s first "iPhone Fold” model be brochure-style? I doubt, though it would be an extremely marketable first step.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

The original iPhone was absolutely more compromised than the three devices It was supposed to replace.
iPod: well the iPhone came in two storage sizes, 4 and 8. The iPod classic went all the way up to 160 GB. So, not a better iPod. Even the iPod touch had a 32 GB option almost 2 years before the iPhone did.
Phone: the original iPhone didn’t have 3G networking, didn’t have multimedia messaging, no group SMS, didn’t have other capabilities of modern phones at the time like video recording. It was absolutely a compromise.
Internet communication device: not even the latest Wi-Fi standard of the time, no 3G, barely any websites optimized for mobile, no Adobe flash, barely any capability for downloading and saving anything, no copy and paste, nothing.

Arguably the only downsides to a foldable at this point are the plastic screen and price.
Even the aspect ratio issue appears to not be a problem with apples upcoming foldable, 4:3 is the iPad aspect ratio, and despite everything that OP keeps pushing it appears from all information that’s out there that Apple will *not* go with a square aspect ratio when unfolded.

• iPod Classic: more storage space in relation to the first generation iPhone does not mean that defines a better product. The first iPhone brought an entirely new iPod experience, with a larger and at the time high resolution screen, multi-touch to interact with album art and also a responsive interface for portrait or landscape mode, a new music app, etc. As far as I know, the iPod Classic also never even had a speaker. Also, with the first generation iPhone, you no longer needed to be on a Mac with iTunes to buy music and then sync that to your device: you could buy music directly from the iPhone over Wifi and it would sync back to iTunes. Also, music would fade out when a call came in, and fade back in after the call was over... etc.
• MMS/internet communications device: Just because the iPhone began with limitations in text messaging doesn't mean it wasn't a better internet communications device. MMS on the iPhone came in 2009. The first iPhone had the capability. The first iPhone had rich HTML Email and e.g., pictures could be sent by Email. Pictures were also inline in the Email message; phone numbers were also parsed in Email and could be called directly. And the first iPhone had the first fully usable HTML browser on a phone where others were using WAP, etc. Nothing came close to the browsing experience and double tap and pinching and zooming were in full effect to navigate webpages. Also, most other phones at the time had no wifi. The first iPhone would automatically switch from its data connection to a wifi connection when able to. Regardless of whether it was using the latest standard or not, it had fully functioning wifi unlike many other phones. No flash was good because it would drain batteries. Most phones had limited capability to download and save things.
• Fast forward to today: here we are, and phones have as much as 1 TB or more of space, 6.9" screens, etc. Foldable smartphones have to compete with this.
• Downsides to a foldable: plastic screen that degrades optics and is subject to more scratches; demonstrated screen fatigue over time at the fold point; thicker and heavier than what is currently possible with a non-foldable smartphone... and with a seam when folded; a squared off aspect ratio which is suboptimal for many reasons (e.g., watching videos and wasted space); seams on the back when unfolded; less compute power capability than dedicated tablets because of thermal limitations; battery size limitations vs. tablets given the complexity of the design; not being able to incorporate an all in one case with built-in keyboard because it won't fit the phone when folded; limitations on the unfolded screen size because a more standard, folded smartphone screen size and aspect ratio is required and serves as the starting point for such a device: a trifold will just exacerbate certain compromises; complex hinges required that can malfunction or require servicing; water resistance tradeoffs (foldables lag behind non-foldables in waterproofing); software challenges because it's trying to be two different categories of device (e.g., it can't just run iPadOS)...

And everything also leads to use cases... which has been discussed at length about the utility of a smartphone vs. a tablet.