If the product functions both as an iPhone and a tablet I’m sure there are many people that will pay the price. Movie Watchers, Gamers, and even the average user will have a big advantage. And for those that feel it’s not worth the money there’s always the regular iPhone. In other words Something for Everyone.
That is until foldable phones become mainstream and so profitable that companies decide to phase out non-folding phones—like they did with small phones...
Half joking. Folding phones seem to be significantly more expensive to manufacture, so I think companies aren’t going to be able to price them for both mainstream adoption AND relatively large profit, at least for the foreseeable future.
From the article, it would seem that Motorola is interested in making phones that fold into smaller units, not tablets that fold into phones. The flip phone prototype seems to fold down into something much smaller than anything you can puchase today, and for some people that’s a good thing.
I
might be one of those people. Again, I don’t see a need for my phone to fold since I prefer small phones—but this Motorola is potentially the only device so far that would make me
consider using a bigger screen phone. But I can’t even really consider it until we know the measurements, particularly how thin they‘ll be able to make this. But if they make it very thin, that also makes me question battery life.
Of course the main question that this and all folding phones pose is: ”do you really want your phone to double/triple its thickness while in your pocket?“—which I think is what that other user was getting at. For people who want to carry around their tablet but can’t because it doesn’t fit in their pockets, the answer is an easy yes. But for those who don’t, I think the answer depends on the measurements of the phone. Say thickness of a phone is the z axis, of course you want z to be as thin as possible, especially in your pocket. But as a device’s x and y axis become bigger, it starts to become more noticeable in your pocket and impede range of movement, and at that point it’s better to fold it in half and double z—on the condition that double z is
thin enough. It’s pretty much the exact same reasoning for old school flip phones. And just like with those, the other advantage is that it significantly helps protect the phone from damage (and accidental presses, though that isn’t really an issue these days)—because not only does it protect the screen (if folded inward), but the folded compact form factor is theoretically physically stronger, therefore more durable against impacts. So again, all that to say, it depends how thin it is, but if it’s thin enough with somehow still good battery life (and if the folding mechanism is durable enough), this Motorola device would serve people who enjoy the bigger phablet screen but who want a more pocketable device, that is also better protected. But that’s a lot of ifs.
I have to say though, if Motorola follows through with this, whether or not it’s a success, I’d commend them for sticking to their vision rather than following after other companies. Unless of course it turns out to be just absolute crap.
Side thought- I think “phone” and ”tablet” are going to soon become ineffective terms in the context of foldable phones(/tablets). Phablets blurred the boundary of size but everyone could always agree that big phones were still phones at the very least because they made phone calls (because even everyone’s hand/pocket sizes and tolerances were different). Folding tablet/phones take away that distinction. In this context the two terms are used only for size categorization. But almost inevitably manufacturers will fill in the gaps and start producing all sorts of sizes. eg. What is a 6.9” screen (whether folded or unfolded) considered? 7”? 7.1”? Unless we all very arbitrarily agree that one specific number is the cutoff for phone or tablet sizes, the terms will not have much meaning.
So I think soon, and maybe even now, we may have to ditch those terms and talk only in actual units of measurement.
