Is Apple burning the stage when Samsung took 7 years to popularize folding phones?
In February 2019, Samsung launched the first Galaxy Fold, priced at $1,980, in the same batch as the Galaxy S10. The launch event was grand, but soon Samsung had to postpone the release until September because a series of screens were broken in the hands of testing journalists. Seven years and eight generations later, the Galaxy Z Fold8 is selling so well that Samsung had to withdraw screen components originally intended for the Galaxy S27 series in 2027 in order to produce more devices for this year. At the same time, Apple is preparing to launch its first folding iPhone, with a price rumored to be even higher than Samsung's original Fold.
The long and bloody road that Samsung went through
Looking back at Samsung's journey, we can see the necessary patience they committed, despite criticism, to make a "normal" and stable folding phone. From the first Fold with a fragile screen, Samsung went through Z Fold2, Z Fold3, Z Fold4, Z Fold5, Z Fold6, Z Fold7, and then the current Z Fold8, each generation slightly tweaking the hinge strength, thinness, and the mark in the middle of the screen. Coming to the Z Fold8, according to the market reports I read, the product sold so well that the company had to "borrow" the screen control components that were pre-ordered for the Galaxy S27 line to offset production, a situation that rarely happens with a product line that was once considered a niche market. Market research firm Omdia even predicts that the number of foldable phones sold globally will double by 2028, to about 36 million devices.
It is worth mentioning that to achieve this position, Samsung had to pay with its own reputation when it first launched, with many complaints about quality. Perhaps, without those eight generations of trial and error, it's possible the industry would still view foldable phones as more of a technology demonstration than a real product.
Apple is behind but not starting from zero
iPhone Ultra, the most rumored name for Apple's folding iPhone, is expected to launch on September 9 with a price of $2,000 to $2,500, higher than all three iPhone 17s combined. Technically, rumors of course, what Apple chose to do shows that it looked closely at Samsung's seven years of experimentation to avoid repeating mistakes. The device will use a titanium frame, liquid metal hinges (liquid metal, an alloy in liquid form when processed to increase durability and elasticity), ultra-thin glass and a layer of optical glue to minimize the mark in the middle of the screen, which still exists on the Z Fold8 even though it has been greatly improved with each generation of the device. In other words, Apple isn't trying to reinvent the folding phone, but is trying to do the hardest part, the durability and seamless feel of the screen, better than the competition that was nearly a decade ahead.
Apple went behind and came home late, but we still didn't know which cat was biting which one However, everything has its price, so does going behind. To keep the device thin, Apple is said to completely remove Face ID on the folding phone, replacing it with Touch ID integrated on the power button, a strange trade-off on the most expensive product in the company's history. The rear camera also only has two 48-megapixel lenses, no telephoto lens, and cannot compete with the 200-megapixel camera cluster that Samsung equips its other high-end lines. And so, to "redefine", Apple will have to throw away a lot of things that they have accumulated and gradually improved over nearly 20 years of making bar phones.
Who is studying whose lesson?
What I find most interesting when putting two stories side by side is not about who makes the better folding phone, but rather two philosophies reaching the same destination. Samsung went by trial and error, iterating quickly and accepting public errors for many years, in return for a leading position and a loyal customer base large enough to now sell out. Apple, on the contrary, waited until the underlying technology, from hinge materials to folding glass, was mature enough before jumping in, accepting nearly a decade later in exchange for a product launch that was almost perfect from the beginning - this is a prediction, but we don't know what the actual quality will be like. The open question here, in my opinion, is not "Can Apple make a better folding phone than Samsung", because the two sides are aiming for two different types of experiences when Samsung seems to prioritize the camera and optimize longtime multitasking software, while Apple prioritizes the thinness and seamless feel of the screen. The real question is whether consumers are willing to pay more than $2,000 for a phone that still lacks Face ID and a telephoto camera, just to get Apple's "Ultra" stamp on a product line that Samsung has been selling for eight generations. In just one week, maybe you will have the answer.