Interesting these little things were not picked up earlier. Obvious one such as the protective layers not reaching the edge of the screens panel...
Samsung reckons it has ironed out the death-inducing creases on its Galaxy Fold but is continuing to put the smartmobe through stress tests before a rescheduled September launch. The foldable screen of the $1,980 device fell short on quality control in early reviews back in April when reports emerged that the screen …
I think it's because they used too much automated testing.
In a clean environment where they were folded in a predictable way day in day out Vs Stuffed in a pocket with the lint and keys that it entails, then the human nature when it did start to de-laminate...
The QC department needs to spend time with actual users and model their testing around them rather than some sort of perfectly spherical, frictionless user in a vacuum they obviously did use for testing.
I'd admit that QC does get hampered by an artificial date that then draws "bad behaviours"
I've seen too many project plans that have a tiny UAT phase - not even possible to test everything in that time frame and when called out, we have a non-movable go live date as we can't hit benefits otherwise (so realistically a bad business case for the project and a plan created without consulting the team delivering it..)
Well for Samsung, try installing useful apps on the handsets that you can opt to remove instead of ramming a ton of useless and non-removable crapware on and hoping it sticks.
That and making the battery last an extra day before charging. I don't think most users would necessarily either notice or baulk if the handset were 1mm to 2mm thicker to accommodate that.
Oh but they're useful indeed. Take the facebook app, for example. It's a very useful way to have the little bit of privacy not yet eroded by the government spying on you go up in flames and turned into money for Zuckerbeast.
I mean, who doesn't want that? Come on guys!
I was looking at a Samsing device a few years ago. It had all sorts of crapware installed. Most of it was removable which was good.
What wasn't removable were
ergo... No sale.
I'm sure the basic hardware is perfectly fine but I just don't want FaceBook etc.
I got a pixel instead. not bad but broke badly when I dropped it.
And force ran
So it force stops something you do use so some of the compulsarywere can be ran.
So glad I did not pay for it, but so annoyed that its replacement will be infected as well.
Anyone want a new unused A6 still in box?
Boss said we paid a lot for it, yet before they bought them I let it be known I can't stand the Samsung compulsaryware.
If the next one is also junk I will take all 3 to a shop and swap for something with base Android, any recommendations for a mid range one?
...in search of a problem.
Does anyone genuinely want a folding phone? Every moving piece is another opportunity for failure, and when that moving piece is the entire purpose of the device, its screen, then it seems doomed right from the start. And also from the second start. It really smacks of desperation.
...in search of a problem.
Does anyone genuinely want a folding phone? "
Totally agree with your sentiment, however I am sure that very few people do actually /need/ a folding phone, but many millions will genuinely /want/ one, because they will have been told they do. That seems the general MO of any marketing these days.
When the marketing is really good, these drones genuinely believe they need it too.
You wouldn't think it was cool if your phone could double it's display area when you wanted to watch something?
I get that no-one is shouting for this. No-one was shouting for smart phones till Apple made the iPhone. Back then you could easily have looked at the iphone, compared it to your Nokia, and quite rightly said "another solution in search of a problem".
That's the thing with inventions, until they're invented people have no idea if they're useful or not.
(And as for "does anyone genuinely want a folding phone", I'd love for clamshells to come back. The motorola Razor I used for a while was awesome!!)
Sabroni, you're barking up the wrong tree with me. I have absolutely nothing against invention and progress but I despise marketing.
Foldable/bendable/rollable screen tech is genuinely groundbreaking and I salute them, it's far more advanced than most of the bullshit app, IoT etc development that is heralded as "innovative".
I can see a multitude of genuinely useful applications for the technology and I get that without marketing to drones who lap it up, the money will not be there to actually make it work well enough. So I am torn.
Personally I would not ever need one, I do still miss having a phone with a decent size screen and real qwerty buttons to type quickly, but I know I am unusual there.
I meant a keyboard backlight, the Cosmo has one but the Gemini does not. The screen is very bright, I normally have mine at ~30% brightness.
Root it, no problem, it's designed by people who like rooting devices.
It'll also run Sailfish or Linux and has a multi-boot option built in - The Gemini supports 3 OS at once, I have Android both rooted and unrooted and Linux running here (TBH the Linux is really more of a technology demonstration than really useable but hopefully when the Cosmo hits they'll have a better Linux disto ready.)
Yeah, but I want a physical keyboard on a phone that does just phonecalls and texts - and nothing else. I do not need or want an expensive phone with specs superior to my desktop gaming PC, ta very. And I especially do not want all the crapware that comes with modern phones - I don't use "social media", and I can live without the internet on my phone (I admit that on-screen maps can be helpful, but even that I seldom use). What bugs me most about modern phones is that they are so "twitchy" - its far too easy to accidentally invoke something and find yourself with a phone doing bizarre things unexpectedly. Too many points of failure, in short, - for my particular use cases. Sometimes simpler is better. I dont begrudge those who want an all-singing computer in their pocket their toys, but I wis I could buy something that fits MY needs!
Give me a phone that does only what I want of a phone and its battery life might well be reckoned in weeks rather than hours! It;d probably be a durned sight cheaper, too..
Sigh. Right, I'm off back to the Home for Cantankerous Old Biddies..
Prior to the iPhone they were pretty dire things though, running Windows mobile or Palm OS - which were fine, but functionality was more akin to my old pocket organiser than what we have today.
I was using the web and apps on my nokia phone, but did want a bigger screen etc. One of my friends had an early HTC (running windows mobile) pre-iPhone and I wanted one of those back then!
The real thing that made the iPhone sell originally was having enough onboard storage to replace your iPod, and the big pretty screen, plus the unique contracts.
Ironically, I got an iPod Touch, but the experience made me vow not to buy apple again. When I got a smartphone, it was an Android device.
That old Apple lie.
Smart phones were not on Contract. Data was charged per second (older pre-EDGE GSM) or per megabyte (Edge & 3G). I had one in 2000 and another in 2002, my third just before the iPhone arrived (with no choice of carrier).
People couldn't afford them. Also they were orientated to data input and annotation, hence high resolution resistive. The capacitive interface was old but very low resolution, suited only to finger browsing consumption and finger touch button input.
iPhone didn't have 3G, copy/paste etc. It had cheap and simple.
If it started as a square. It ends as a square, and nothing anyone watches fits in a square. Having a 16:9 video with huge black bars that take away 7/8th of the size of you gained by unfolding it is worthless.
Folding phones won't become useful until they're trifold, so you can start and end with a 16:9 (ish) form factor.
and nothing anyone watches fits in a square.
Not everything revolves around media playback of 16:9 video.
And 16:9 displays have this issue with 2.35:1 (i.e. the target for theatrical release movies) playback anyway, therefore no-one should get 16:9 ratio screens?
"If it started as a square. It ends as a square, and nothing anyone watches fits in a square."
Wait, you don't think it's possible to fold a rectangle? And you think folding a square results in another square? I've seen some pretty weird claims about phones in my time, but that's a pretty impressive failure at primary school geometry right there.
Just as a very simple example, have you never seen a piece of paper? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216
"and nothing anyone watches fits in a square."
99.9% of what I "watch" on my smartphone will work in pretty much any existing screen shape/ratio.
In fact, I would happily accept a far, far cheaper foldable phone that just puts a screen on the two halves of the clamshell and didn't worry about the screen itself being foldable. A "border" up the middle would not be an issue for me in the same that two screens on my PC is acceptable instead of one enormousness screen.
The mass market enjoys a choice of phones. It would be pretty crap if we were constrained to one standard phone.
If somebody only watches 16:9 video then there are a number of choices already. If somebody wants a very portable larger screen which can do 16:9 video and a lot of other things too, then there is but one choice right now.
This is a £2K phone so the mass market argument is irrelevant. If they come down in price then phones that are flexible enough to do both are no bad thing.
Aside from a computer monitor, the one other place I could see a curved TV being useful is in a 'man-cave'-type situation, where someone (not me) could afford to have a 'perfect' viewing and listening position for those audiophiles who direct speakers to a single, 1-person listening spot, and screw everybody else cause it's only set up for one person.
In those situations you'd probably find a side-table with tissues and moisturiser on it and used tissues on the floor...
"As for normal TV with normal viewing distance, I agree I see no point."
Maybe not but if they could have generated a virtual image within the bowl of the curved panel, sort of a fake 3D, it might have been interesting especially with high-res, large area TV's.
I'm thinking of a set of interfering laser LED's or some such technology producing an effect much like visiting a theatre but at home.
Samsung's modus operandi is to sling a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks. They will follow the hype, or do something because their engineers said "hey with this new technology so-and-so is now possible" and see how the market receives it.
They didn't care if curved TVs worked or not, when they were able to manufacture curved panels they thought it was worth a try because they'd have some differentiation. They feel the same about folding phones, now that they can produce panels that can fold they think it is worth a try. If it doesn't sell, maybe they'll try again in a few years either because they've improved the technology and can do it right, or because someone else has started to have some success doing it.
I cannot think of a reasonable use case for the average user where a folding phone is at all useful. Generally if one is carrying only a phone (in pocket or purse) what one has today is quite functional. If one is carrying more, one probably has it in a bag. Again the current designs still are quite functional.
I can think of a use case: people like watching video but don't want a tablet in a bag. For me it'd be worthless, as I don't want a bigger screen or a bigger device. For you, it sounds like it won't be useful either. But I don't have a problem if someone else decides they want the product and choose to buy it. Why not?
"I cannot think of a reasonable use case for the average user where a folding phone is at all useful. "
The original designers and developers are getting older and so are starting to realise that a larger screen, and maybe larger text might actually be a useful thing to have? Even millennials will grow up eventually.
Eventually I am sure you will find a case for its use, especially once it becomes commonplace.
Even as a (once) committed fanboi I refused to touch the iPhone until iPhone 5 was introduced. I would therefore be quite content to wait until the Galaxy 21s in transparent aluminium (or ‘aloominoom’, depending upon your side of the Atlantic) comes out, with wafer thin folding screens that unfold to a 40” TV ... perfect for watching Game of Thrones prequel season 42.
> Does anyone genuinely want a folding phone?
No. But I do want a clip-on angled mirror so when I'm walking along a quiet path while looking at my phone I have a good enough peripheral view to avoid people, trees, lampposts etc.
Somebody invented it, put up a website only for the iPhone then said 'haha it's a joke' and left it alone. I want one! And for a generic Android!
There are apps that turn on the rear-camera and display it in a little window on your screen to use for this purpose, what's in front of you as you are walking along glued to your phone.
Alternatively, get off the fucking phone, put it away, and enjoy the walk and direct your attention to your surroundings.
"Alternatively, get off the fucking phone, put it away, and enjoy the walk and direct your attention to your surroundings."
As an immediate example, while watching the news the other day, Trump was doing one of his "campaign rally"-like things. All the favoured people in the boxed off area directly behind him, in the camera line, were videoing him through their phones. Most were watching through the phone. Videoing the back of Trumps head. FFS, these are the "favoured ones" in the special area right behind him. And they may as well have been at home watching on the telly! And yes, I see it all the time at all sorts of events. People watching the entire "live" experience through their phone screen just so they can prove they were their and have their oen record of the even instead of actually, you know, enjoying the experience of being there in person.
I wasn't even aware of this phone's existence until this article, and I can say for sure that I would like one - though the price is a bit eye watering. Currently I have the S9 Note; I do a lot of web browsing on my phone and having a larger screen is incredibly appealing to me (though again i'm not certain its worth that price point, given that I don't exactly have throwing around money at the moment). Some people might suggest a tablet instead - but i'm not a fan. In my mind they're just a technological stop-gap; a way of having a large phone screen but without the utility or practicality (spatially speaking) of an actual phone.
As you say though, I'm still skeptical of the screen durability and would like stress test numbers (i.e. how many thousands of folds the phone can supposedly stand up to). What if they improve it significantly but the phones still end up dying within a year? I think even those who perpetually chase the latest and "greatest" phone upgrade would be miffed by that.
I honestly never understood why some people (outside of collectors of rare things) consider owning something worth bragging about. All they did was buy a thing -- that's not exactly a huge accomplishment.
Now, if they were involved in the design or manufacturing, that would be something to brag about.
"Does anyone genuinely want a folding phone?"
What I want is a vambrace -maybe without the elbow joint - that either has interfering lasers creating a virtual screen [with some sort of field to detect the user's fingers as the 'mouse' - or a flexible, thin, touch-sensitive roll-out screen the length of an arm and about as tall. Pack it with fast-recharge cells so its power lasts about a month and super-tech and you'd have a truly *magnificent* portable, wearable unit that could actually be *useful*.
It could even display the time.
And act as a "Dick Tracy" phone.
Certainly, the review devices identified some shortfalls that you would hope have been picked up earlier in the development process. I'm certain that the components have all been tested to destruction. But people do odd things. Which is why you do user testing, including giving devices to reviewers, of course. Let's hope they've learned their lesson (bigger problem than Apple's fucked up antenna, but caught earlier) because this does look likely a really interesting development.
Add an easily removable protective film OVER the protection layer with something like "OK, you can remove this, but please don't remove the next one under it".
If this does not work, consider adding more easily removable protective film layers, and so on.
Having a built in plastic film is probably going to be the biggest failure of this phone in the long run. It will get scratched up from dust that gets caught in between the panels when folded as it gets jostled in your pocket/bag. Eventually some of that dust will get in under the display. I don't know how/why, I just know that every phone I ever had with a plastic display eventually got dust underneath, but I've never seen/heard of that happening with glass.
There's also no way to prevent a seam forming where it folds, which will become more and more visible over time. In their automated testing it is probably a thin straight line because machines will fold and unfold in a perfect orientation with no torque and no push too hard etc. In the real world it will widen over time because people can't help twisting a bit as they fold/unfold it. I wouldn't be surprised to see some delamination/bubbles appear too.
Maybe it won't be pronounced a failure in a few days like version 1.0 does, but just wait for the "after three months with it" reviews. They are probably not going to be kind. This technology simply isn't ready for prime time so long as it needs a plastic layer on top.
For that price I can get a top-of-the-line laptop that has much more computing oomph and a much bigger screen.
Two grand for a phone with delusions of grandeur. I just wish for a phone that can allow me to actually talk to someone and send text messages easily, maybe with attachments, and receive the same. With a battery life that exceeds the attention span of my cat.
I thought it WAS a top of the range laptop with separate keyboard and folds into your pocket?
Still it would have to be good to beat the 6.8" eink ereader, the 15.5" lenovo laptop and the 6" phone. It's x6 what I'd pay for a tablet that size, though possibly only x2 to x3 more expensive for a really good tablet. It's certainly a big premium for a laptop. However I'm the sort of person that thinks iPads and top of the range tablets are x3 overpriced. My laptop was cheaper than most 10" tablets.
Should the device prove again to have fundamental flaws, Samsung likely won't get another bite of the cherry any time soon
They won't get another bite of the Cherry after the Note 7 fiasco. Especially for not relaunching it with issues fixed. It was the last Note I actually wanted and if only it still had removable battery like Note 4 the issue would've been easy to resolve.
Alas, thank you for fumbling it all up Samsung and hence encouraging me to go back to Nokia (well HMD..). Very happy with my Nokia 8 which was cheap, still is regularly updated and ticks all boxes except sadly has non-removable battery.
"extended beyond the bezel" to make it "apparent that it is an integral part of the display structure and not meant to be removed"
Sorry, but wasn't part of the original problem that it was peeling itself off? Putting a sign that says "don't touch" on something that self-destructs is rather pointless.
I wonder if their "rigorous testing" involves actually handing some phones out to real people to use in the real world this time? But then, I also wonder how any smartphone can justify that sort of price tag no matter how bendy the screen is (I think anything north of about $500 is in the ridiculous price range for smartphones), so I'm clearly not the sort of person they are intending this phone for anyway.
We now know that:
A) All of the foldable 'phones' are subject to screen warping. This was evident on Day 1 of the demo models being revealed inside their no-touching demo cases. We only had to bother looking at the screens after they'd been folded.
B) The marketing for the foldable 'phones' has been some of the most horrendous exaggeration ever seen in the tech industry. P.T. Barnum could not have done better, or worse.
C) The pricing may well express an approximation of the actual cost to design and manufacture the devices. But the pricing in no way represents the utility or longevity of these flimsy experiments perpetrated upon the public.
D) The only thing going for these devices at this stage is the GEE WHIZ! Factor. I see no reason why the initial RUSH of consumerist euphoria will not be swiftly followed by "I Hate This Fragging P.O.S!"
E) The foldables are guaranteed to have visibly scratched and potted screens within the first month of normal use, they are that soft.
F) The costs of return for repair and replacement of these things are going to eat their manufacturers alive, that is unless their exorbitant price already has the cost of repair and replacement included. Could be!
IOW: Pay no attention to the hollering hype. Check back in a year for possible progress.
If you disagree with my ongoing assessments of this tech, all I can say is to sit back and watch it all unfold. I'm not interested in being right. I'm interested in bad/insufficient tech staying out of the marketplace.
I think there's a market awaiting whoever gets folding phones RIGHT, but these crappy early attempts that they know won't work will just set that market back a couple years because "folding phones = crap" will be the impression it creates in the market. That'll make for a bigger hill to climb for whoever finally gets it right (whenever that is, but not anytime soon)
Yeah. When these Cost as much as the $20 sim free phone in the supermarket? It will be amazing. Digital notebooks, pen and paper, that can play video, fold and fit in a shirt pocket.
It took phones, what, 20-30 years to reach the price point where if you really want, it's can be almost disposable (though recycling is better!)? If the folding phone gets to that stage, getting creases/tears in the screen is less of a worry. As with a paper notepad, you just buy another one.
But it will be a long slow road to that. We can wait.
- Certainly in Asia (Korea / China / Japan etc) people have a phone and quite often no other device
- Young people who want share content irl
- people who want to be able to read that **** website who do not has 20/20 vision
They are not really selling to westerners age 20-45 who have a panoply of kit (probably a lot of el reg's audience)
no, I wont be getting one either - in my case because it needs 2 hands to use.
and i want to see someone else use it for a while.
At the old Nokia, engineers could take prototypes out in public to use as our personal phones as soon as they were announced. That smoothed off a lot of rough edges in the final product.
Maybe Samsung's engineers were also testing the phones, but they had internalised some preconceptions about how to treat them (ie, "be gentle - I know how flakey this hinge is", "don't peel off the protective thing, which we know all about because we developed it").
"Maybe Samsung's engineers were also testing the phones, but they had internalised some preconceptions about how to treat them"
That why when it comes time for testing your product in real-world use, you don't have the engineers do it. You have someone who is approximately representative of your target market. In this case, I'd say that should be secretaries, cleaning staff, etc. Anybody who wasn't involved in the design or implementation.
And when you do so, you don't give them a list of cautions -- if you feel the need to provide usage instructions or warnings to prevent damage, then your product isn't ready for this level of testing yet.
Larger screens seem like a good idea. You have a certain amount of information on a screen, you naively think that a larger screen would hold more information. In the real world, huge amounts of money and man-hours are spent on increasing whitespace, forcing font sizes, preventing zooming, splitting content across pages and forcing ads inside, instead of, and in front of content.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019