Samsung’s new Galaxy Z Fold 6 is a perfectly fine foldable, but from the brand that started the whole category, is that still enough?
Samsung’s new Galaxy Z Fold 6 is a perfectly fine foldable, but from the brand that started the whole category, is that still enough?
But only if that viewing comes while you’re away from home. There is no reason to buy an expensive and fragile folding phone for video playback when you could buy almost any other phone and a secondhand tablet for less. Plus the tablet will have a bigger screen without a crease.
but you have to carry 2x the items, which is the main thing. only one of the choices you can functionally do without a bag at all. You’re more or less making the DSLR argument where you could claim there’s no point on having good cameras on phones because you can carry a DSLR on you and take significantly better photos. Sometimes a choice is made for the ability to not carry something.
How can you type all this up without even reading the very first sentence of my comment?
why bring up an argument for sole home use for an object that is more often used on the go? Especially in context of a tablet, when if you were at home and wanted a large form factor screen, the TV becomes an option.
Is this a joke question? Tablets have always been used at home. Do you have a TV in every single room of your house?
it’s to give an example, some people may not have a tv all over their house, which to go into other rooms, they have other options. if it’s not a phone, it can potentially be other devices like a laptop and not just necessarily a tablet. The problem is using such a very specific usecase (someone who uses a tablet to watch things, ONLY at home, prefers to not use a TV, prefers to not use a desktop computer connected to a monitor and does NOT have a laptop, or chooses to not use the size of said laptop) is a very very super specfic usecase. Especially in a world now with WFM, the number of people with laptops is likely a lot higher too. The folding phone solves the problem as I stated before, those who choose to not want to carry something extra on the go, but get the extra screen real estate. At home use has to compete with several alternatives, and if you are considering using a tablet at home a lot, the novelty of a folding phone was never even in your market.
That’s not a niche use case. Tablets have been the primary media consumption device at home away from the TV for many years. That is literally what they have been marketed as for over a decade now. Very few people sit in bed and watch TV shows on their laptop, or go to a desktop computer to do the same. You are living in a bubble if you think this is normal behaviour for the majority of people.
It doesn’t solve any problem with at-home media consumption because there is no problem. Most people already own a tablet or, as you just argued, a laptop. Even if they don’t, there is a massive secondhand market for tablets now. Why would you ever need to go out and spend thousands on a fragile folding device to fulfil this role? It sounds like you have massively fallen for the marketing here.
so why bring it up as a usecase for folding phones, the point is getting that screen space on the go.
I don’t even have a folding phone, and only recently got a tablet strictly for reading purposes, but i don’t throw out the people who do consume content away from home. Like I said, the purpose of the device brings the new ability to not bring something else with you. the product addresses a niche, and by using an example that doesnt cover the niche doesn’t invalidate the one major usecase it has in the first place. I’m like on the extremely far end of the folding phones target audience (prefers small phones, uses desktop PC, no personal TV) so thinking that i’ve fallen for marketing is a laughing statement. I just acknowlege there are people who actually use larger screens away from home, and this product is directed towards them. Folding phones stay a niche because the target audience is a niche. It’s not meant to cover the general market unless it also competes in cost.
You didn’t make that point in your original comment, hence my initial reply.