Just for the record, let's consider some of the many reasons why Apple is never going to make the phone Kuo describes here.
Remember that Apple's modus operandi in creating new product lines is to make something that people didn't realize they wanted by bringing together feature sets in novel ways. They do not release "me too" devices that offer bells and whistles that others have released. They don't add complications and software bloat while bringing little new utility.
First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. The device described above offers nothing beyond the brief novelty of saying "look, it folds!" There are already other manufacturers' devices that do that, and they're not exactly category killers.
The screen size described above is essentially a standard iPhone screen doubled to make it roughly square. This brings an added aspect ratio to support, without serving any particular purpose. The square aspect ratio would be like having an iPad mini with the bottom third of the screen lopped off. You could have more app and folder icons on the screen, but that's about it. A virtual keyboard spread across the bottom would be too small to type on with ten fingers, and would add extra stretch when trying to tap at it with your thumbs. The double-wide device would be harder to hold with one hand while tapping with the other hand's index finger. Viewing a standard 16:9 video would add nothing over a standard iPhone, because it would be essentially the same size viewing area, letterboxed in either orientation. An old 5:4 video would be larger, but that's about it.
The addition of an external screen would add bloat to iOS, which would now have to support multiple screens on the same device. That iOS bloat would have to be carried on all iPhone models, even as it adds nothing to the rest of the line. An outer screen would be more vulnerable to damage, because a folding device would make using a protective case impossible. The same issue would also make the device's hinge vulnerable to damage from dropping. This is particularly suboptimal because the hinge would be the structurally weakest point in the device, so dropping the device would be more likely to result in catastrophic damage.
The "limited space" reasoning for a reversion to Touch ID is of course preposterous. Were there any truth to this backwards step in security, it would be because the addition of an external screen would also necessitate the addition of a second Face ID module, whereas a Touch ID module on the side could serve both screens. Still, taking a backward step in tech on a profoundly more expensive iPhone would be anathema to Apple's normal approach to things.
This brings us to the cost of the device, which is suggested to range roughly between the price of a MacBook Air and the price of a base model MacBook Pro. Where would be the demand for a novelty iPhone that costs as much as a Mac? People balk at the price of the Vision Pro, but at least that continues to be something fundamentally different after the first week of use. After the immediate novelty of a folding iPhone wears off, what would be its purpose?
First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. - That is a pretty bold claim to make.
Actually, it's not bold at all -- it reflects the now six year history of expensive folding phones like the one rumored to be coming from Apple. The lack of need beyond that of a small niche has been proven by the lack of sales success after six years of trying. Hey, if niche iPhones were of interest to Apple, they would have kept the Mini in the lineup, which is a form factor with a very devoted albeit smaller fan base.
Just for the record, let's consider some of the many reasons why Apple is never going to make the phone Kuo describes here.
Remember that Apple's modus operandi in creating new product lines is to make something that people didn't realize they wanted by bringing together feature sets in novel ways. They do not release "me too" devices that offer bells and whistles that others have released. They don't add complications and software bloat while bringing little new utility.
First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. The device described above offers nothing beyond the brief novelty of saying "look, it folds!" There are already other manufacturers' devices that do that, and they're not exactly category killers.
The screen size described above is essentially a standard iPhone screen doubled to make it roughly square. This brings an added aspect ratio to support, without serving any particular purpose. The square aspect ratio would be like having an iPad mini with the bottom third of the screen lopped off. You could have more app and folder icons on the screen, but that's about it. A virtual keyboard spread across the bottom would be too small to type on with ten fingers, and would add extra stretch when trying to tap at it with your thumbs. The double-wide device would be harder to hold with one hand while tapping with the other hand's index finger. Viewing a standard 16:9 video would add nothing over a standard iPhone, because it would be essentially the same size viewing area, letterboxed in either orientation. An old 5:4 video would be larger, but that's about it.
The addition of an external screen would add bloat to iOS, which would now have to support multiple screens on the same device. That iOS bloat would have to be carried on all iPhone models, even as it adds nothing to the rest of the line. An outer screen would be more vulnerable to damage, because a folding device would make using a protective case impossible. The same issue would also make the device's hinge vulnerable to damage from dropping. This is particularly suboptimal because the hinge would be the structurally weakest point in the device, so dropping the device would be more likely to result in catastrophic damage.
The "limited space" reasoning for a reversion to Touch ID is of course preposterous. Were there any truth to this backwards step in security, it would be because the addition of an external screen would also necessitate the addition of a second Face ID module, whereas a Touch ID module on the side could serve both screens. Still, taking a backward step in tech on a profoundly more expensive iPhone would be anathema to Apple's normal approach to things.
This brings us to the cost of the device, which is suggested to range roughly between the price of a MacBook Air and the price of a base model MacBook Pro. Where would be the demand for a novelty iPhone that costs as much as a Mac? People balk at the price of the Vision Pro, but at least that continues to be something fundamentally different after the first week of use. After the immediate novelty of a folding iPhone wears off, what would be its purpose?
First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. - That is a pretty bold claim to make. When it comes to display sizes, Samsung showed the way for the rest of the industry (including Apple) from the beginning with their NOTE series. More is always better when it comes to available viewing area in a handheld device. It is as simple as that. When you make a statement exact opposite to that which defies logic, you need to rethink your statement.
The need is there always. Does the fulfilling of the need involve compromises? Of course, Yes. Are those compromises worth it to pursue the device in question? - That is a difficult question to answer. Andriod OEMs have answered "Yes" to that question and have continued to make progress and minimized those compromises (particularly the Chinese OEMs Oppo/Vivo/Huawei/Xiaomi/Honor). Apple is yet to say "Yes" to that question. But never say never.
“More is always better when it comes to available viewing area in a handheld device.”
That’s a pretty bold statement to make. Maybe they should make an origami phone that unfolds out to a hexagonal 25-inch screen. Because, you know. More is always better.
Do you need evidence for that? Just answer a simple question - Why did Apple increase the largest display area available in the iPhone form factor from 44.1 cm2 in 2013 (iphone 5s screen diagonal - 4 inch) ) to 115.6 cm2 in 2024 (iPhone 16 Pro Max screen diagonal - 6.9 inch) - an increase of 162% in 11 years? If the NEED was NOT there, why did Apple do that?
Clearly there was some demand for an increase from 4 to 6.2 inches in iPhone screen size in a decade's time. Past increases in size do not, however, prove a demand (much less a need) for a folding phone that doubles the size into a square screen, all at double the price. More is not always better. Occasionally a second glass of wine is nice. A whole bottle or maybe two? Not nice. If the weather has been going through a dry spell, a little more rain can be welcome, but in most places an extra four inches of rain in an hour is not so welcome. Buying flowers a little more often for your sweetie is probably, well, sweet. Bringing six dozen roses every day without fail is going to come across as obsessive, creepy and definitely not needed.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, similar folding screen phones made by others are pretty evidently only serving a niche market, not a need. Just as Apple has seen no need to merge Macs and iPads into a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none personal computing version of the El Camino (like the Microsoft Surface), it is highly doubtful that Apple is looking at the folding phones already out there and saying, "man, we need to make one of those!"
So, if Apple has figured out how to make a screen and protective coating without a crease, that would be big.
I’d like to remind people that Apple has its own OLED screen technologies. They are not simply Samsung screens. The low power OLED screens most higher end phones use these days is an Apple technology that Samsung tried to copy for a couple of years before they were successful. Apple’s phones use Apple’s and everyone else’s uses Samsung’s. They are similar, but not exactly the same. Samsung produces many Apple screens, but a lot of the technology in Apple’s screens belong to them.
as far as the phone itself goes, I would consider one. But like a lot of people buying higher end phones, the cameras are a very important reason why I upgrade. So if the cameras are of lessor quality than Apple’s top slab model, I wouldn't be interested. I feel that a lot of people would feel the same way.
as far as how true these rumors are, well, big deal. We all know Apple is working on this. We all know that either they can fix the biggest problems which consist of the crease and the fact that these screens go bad where screens in slab phones don’t, or they won’t come out with a folding phone until they do, or will just give up if they don’t think it’s solvable.
when? A year more or less doesn’t matter. There is no evidence that Apple is losing serious sales over this. If they lose a million sales a year, that sounds like a lot, but they discontinue sales if models only sell 3-5 million units a year, so I don’t believe that loss bothers a company that sells 220 million phones a year. In fact, unless this phone can be additive to Apple’s sales in a way that’s profitable, I doubt they will bother bringing it out even if they think they can do it.
It's far more likely that if any folding Apple screen sees the light of day, it will be a large-screen iPad. That has a better use case and far fewer of the drawbacks of the nonsense Kuo is predicting here. A folding screen would make a large iPad more portable. There's you use case. Most people don't compulsively pull out and check their iPad, so wear and tear on the screen and hinge would be orders of magnitude less. Likewise, there would be no need for an outside screen when an iPad is folded, and the folding screen could maintain the same aspect ratio as other iPads, so such a device would not add bloat to the operating system, or require app developers to accommodate alternative screen dimensions. The list goes on. If there's a folding screen in Apple's production pipeline, it'll be for an iPad.
So, if Apple has figured out how to make a screen and protective coating without a crease, that would be big.
I’d like to remind people that Apple has its own OLED screen technologies. They are not simply Samsung screens. The low power OLED screens most higher end phones use these days is an Apple technology that Samsung tried to copy for a couple of years before they were successful. Apple’s phones use Apple’s and everyone else’s uses Samsung’s. They are similar, but not exactly the same. Samsung produces many Apple screens, but a lot of the technology in Apple’s screens belong to them.
as far as the phone itself goes, I would consider one. But like a lot of people buying higher end phones, the cameras are a very important reason why I upgrade. So if the cameras are of lessor quality than Apple’s top slab model, I wouldn't be interested. I feel that a lot of people would feel the same way.
as far as how true these rumors are, well, big deal. We all know Apple is working on this. We all know that either they can fix the biggest problems which consist of the crease and the fact that these screens go bad where screens in slab phones don’t, or they won’t come out with a folding phone until they do, or will just give up if they don’t think it’s solvable.
when? A year more or less doesn’t matter. There is no evidence that Apple is losing serious sales over this. If they lose a million sales a year, that sounds like a lot, but they discontinue sales if models only sell 3-5 million units a year, so I don’t believe that loss bothers a company that sells 220 million phones a year. In fact, unless this phone can be additive to Apple’s sales in a way that’s profitable, I doubt they will bother bringing it out even if they think they can do it.
It would be shocking for Apple not to have FaceID on a foldable iPhone in late 2026/early 2027. The Oppo Find N5 is a foldable phone available right now. When folded, the Oppo Find N5 is almost the exact same dimensions as a iPhone 16 Pro Max. Meaning it’s quite thin for a foldable phone. And the Oppo Find N5 supports fingerprint recognition AND facial recognition. It would be tough to justify the exclusion of FaceID in 2027 when a very thin foldable phone in 2025 can manage it.
Despite the neat technology, things like touchscreen laptops, convertible laptops, and foldable phones have not set the market on fire, and remain in their particular niches.
Apple has quite clearly been working on their own version, and if/when it ships, unless it brings something extraordinary to the table, it will probably won't be the mainstream choice, especially at the elevated prices that foldable phones command.
The iPhone 17 "Air" also strikes me as answer to a question few are asking, and doesn't make an obvious business case. In general, the sales figures for the larger screen non-Pro models haven't been great compared to the others in the lineup, so the investment to develop a gimped, but extra-thin model must amortized over more than one model with limited appeal.
I suspect Apple is using that development work on the ultra-thin Air as the test bed and foundation for the what will underlie the foldable iPhone, to allow it to maintain a reasonable thickness when folded, and perhaps some degree of elegance, with the possible omission of Face ID as a sacrifice to cost constraints given the other added technologies involved in the folding design, with the hinge, as well as both a primary flexible display and secondary outer display jacking up the BOM to an unrealistic degree, even for a $2000 phone.
This is so laughable I’ve got to wonder if Apple isn’t intentionally “leaking” info to Kuo’s sources just to prank him.
“No Face ID” because of “lack of space” in a larger device should be the tell that this is complete and utter nonsense.
It's not laughable, you just don't know what you're talking about. The lack of space being referred to is not height or width; it's depth. The Face ID sensor is likely too thick to fit into the width of half of a sandwich-phone. Similarly, this is why camera bumps exist.
Just for the record, let's consider some of the many reasons why Apple is never going to make the phone Kuo describes here.
Remember that Apple's modus operandi in creating new product lines is to make something that people didn't realize they wanted by bringing together feature sets in novel ways. They do not release "me too" devices that offer bells and whistles that others have released. They don't add complications and software bloat while bringing little new utility.
First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. The device described above offers nothing beyond the brief novelty of saying "look, it folds!" There are already other manufacturers' devices that do that, and they're not exactly category killers.
The screen size described above is essentially a standard iPhone screen doubled to make it roughly square. This brings an added aspect ratio to support, without serving any particular purpose. The square aspect ratio would be like having an iPad mini with the bottom third of the screen lopped off. You could have more app and folder icons on the screen, but that's about it. A virtual keyboard spread across the bottom would be too small to type on with ten fingers, and would add extra stretch when trying to tap at it with your thumbs. The double-wide device would be harder to hold with one hand while tapping with the other hand's index finger. Viewing a standard 16:9 video would add nothing over a standard iPhone, because it would be essentially the same size viewing area, letterboxed in either orientation. An old 5:4 video would be larger, but that's about it.
The addition of an external screen would add bloat to iOS, which would now have to support multiple screens on the same device. That iOS bloat would have to be carried on all iPhone models, even as it adds nothing to the rest of the line. An outer screen would be more vulnerable to damage, because a folding device would make using a protective case impossible. The same issue would also make the device's hinge vulnerable to damage from dropping. This is particularly suboptimal because the hinge would be the structurally weakest point in the device, so dropping the device would be more likely to result in catastrophic damage.
The "limited space" reasoning for a reversion to Touch ID is of course preposterous. Were there any truth to this backwards step in security, it would be because the addition of an external screen would also necessitate the addition of a second Face ID module, whereas a Touch ID module on the side could serve both screens. Still, taking a backward step in tech on a profoundly more expensive iPhone would be anathema to Apple's normal approach to things.
This brings us to the cost of the device, which is suggested to range roughly between the price of a MacBook Air and the price of a base model MacBook Pro. Where would be the demand for a novelty iPhone that costs as much as a Mac? People balk at the price of the Vision Pro, but at least that continues to be something fundamentally different after the first week of use. After the immediate novelty of a folding iPhone wears off, what would be its purpose?
First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. - That is a pretty bold claim to make.
Actually, it's not bold at all -- it reflects the now six year history of expensive folding phones like the one rumored to be coming from Apple. The lack of need beyond that of a small niche has been proven by the lack of sales success after six years of trying. Hey, if niche iPhones were of interest to Apple, they would have kept the Mini in the lineup, which is a form factor with a very devoted albeit smaller fan base.
There is a difference in foldable form factor and mini phones. One (foldable) is heavy on R&D, but can also lead to high margin & revenue products in future. Other (mini) is not so much heavy on R&D, but does not lead to high revenue/margin products. It is understandable why Apple doesn't want to cater to the niche shrinking group of mini users, but may choose to cater to the niche expanding group of foldable form factor users.
And history of Andriod foldable phones sales does NOT mean much when it comes to potential sales for Apple. Android OEMs have to cater to the smaller pool of flagship phone customers, that too gets divided across multiple OEMs. Apple will have access to a much larger pool of potential customers who can spend money on a foldable phone.
Just for the record, let's consider some of the many reasons why Apple is never going to make the phone Kuo describes here.
Remember that Apple's modus operandi in creating new product lines is to make something that people didn't realize they wanted by bringing together feature sets in novel ways. They do not release "me too" devices that offer bells and whistles that others have released. They don't add complications and software bloat while bringing little new utility.
First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. The device described above offers nothing beyond the brief novelty of saying "look, it folds!" There are already other manufacturers' devices that do that, and they're not exactly category killers.
The screen size described above is essentially a standard iPhone screen doubled to make it roughly square. This brings an added aspect ratio to support, without serving any particular purpose. The square aspect ratio would be like having an iPad mini with the bottom third of the screen lopped off. You could have more app and folder icons on the screen, but that's about it. A virtual keyboard spread across the bottom would be too small to type on with ten fingers, and would add extra stretch when trying to tap at it with your thumbs. The double-wide device would be harder to hold with one hand while tapping with the other hand's index finger. Viewing a standard 16:9 video would add nothing over a standard iPhone, because it would be essentially the same size viewing area, letterboxed in either orientation. An old 5:4 video would be larger, but that's about it.
The addition of an external screen would add bloat to iOS, which would now have to support multiple screens on the same device. That iOS bloat would have to be carried on all iPhone models, even as it adds nothing to the rest of the line. An outer screen would be more vulnerable to damage, because a folding device would make using a protective case impossible. The same issue would also make the device's hinge vulnerable to damage from dropping. This is particularly suboptimal because the hinge would be the structurally weakest point in the device, so dropping the device would be more likely to result in catastrophic damage.
The "limited space" reasoning for a reversion to Touch ID is of course preposterous. Were there any truth to this backwards step in security, it would be because the addition of an external screen would also necessitate the addition of a second Face ID module, whereas a Touch ID module on the side could serve both screens. Still, taking a backward step in tech on a profoundly more expensive iPhone would be anathema to Apple's normal approach to things.
This brings us to the cost of the device, which is suggested to range roughly between the price of a MacBook Air and the price of a base model MacBook Pro. Where would be the demand for a novelty iPhone that costs as much as a Mac? People balk at the price of the Vision Pro, but at least that continues to be something fundamentally different after the first week of use. After the immediate novelty of a folding iPhone wears off, what would be its purpose?
First off, there is no need for a folding iPhone. - That is a pretty bold claim to make. When it comes to display sizes, Samsung showed the way for the rest of the industry (including Apple) from the beginning with their NOTE series. More is always better when it comes to available viewing area in a handheld device. It is as simple as that. When you make a statement exact opposite to that which defies logic, you need to rethink your statement.
The need is there always. Does the fulfilling of the need involve compromises? Of course, Yes. Are those compromises worth it to pursue the device in question? - That is a difficult question to answer. Andriod OEMs have answered "Yes" to that question and have continued to make progress and minimized those compromises (particularly the Chinese OEMs Oppo/Vivo/Huawei/Xiaomi/Honor). Apple is yet to say "Yes" to that question. But never say never.
“More is always better when it comes to available viewing area in a handheld device.”
That’s a pretty bold statement to make. Maybe they should make an origami phone that unfolds out to a hexagonal 25-inch screen. Because, you know. More is always better.
Do you need evidence for that? Just answer a simple question - Why did Apple increase the largest display area available in the iPhone form factor from 44.1 cm2 in 2013 (iphone 5s screen diagonal - 4 inch) ) to 115.6 cm2 in 2024 (iPhone 16 Pro Max screen diagonal - 6.9 inch) - an increase of 162% in 11 years? If the NEED was NOT there, why did Apple do that?
Clearly there was some demand for an increase from 4 to 6.2 inches in iPhone screen size in a decade's time. Past increases in size do not, however, prove a demand (much less a need) for a folding phone that doubles the size into a square screen, all at double the price. More is not always better. Occasionally a second glass of wine is nice. A whole bottle or maybe two? Not nice. If the weather has been going through a dry spell, a little more rain can be welcome, but in most places an extra four inches of rain in an hour is not so welcome. Buying flowers a little more often for your sweetie is probably, well, sweet. Bringing six dozen roses every day without fail is going to come across as obsessive, creepy and definitely not needed.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, similar folding screen phones made by others are pretty evidently only serving a niche market, not a need. Just as Apple has seen no need to merge Macs and iPads into a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none personal computing version of the El Camino (like the Microsoft Surface), it is highly doubtful that Apple is looking at the folding phones already out there and saying, "man, we need to make one of those!"
You are mixing up the "Need" Vs the choices for implementation of a specific "need". "Need" was/is always there. How to go about implementing the "Need"? - Now, that is a different discussion. There are multiple approaches. 1. Keep increasing the screen size - Not practical. And all your wine/rain/rose analogies fall into this category. 2. Look for other form factors to accomplish the need for the largest display area in a handheld - Fold/Flip/Rollable display etc.
And you cannot account for all possible implementations and the compromises needed for each of those solution approaches. Even IF you don't like all of the solutions for the compromises that they bring along with them, there could be plenty of others who are willing to accept those compromises and consider the form factor. You are making a huge assumption that - "I don't like this form factor due to the compromises involved and I am certain that majority of the Apple's customer base would think like me and reject this idea." And you think that Apple executives/engineers would think like you and reject the idea at inception. It doesn't work that way.
And you are NOT aware of the progress made by Android OEMs on reducing the impact of the key compromises that anyone could imagine in the foldable form factor - Crease in the display, long term reliability of the phone due to multiple folds/unfolds, thickness of the phone in folded state, camera quality, battery capacity, weight etc. How the first generation foldables fared in each of those aspects Vs how the latest generation foldables fare in each of those aspects? And you get to see only Samsung who is the real laggard in technological terms in the Android world, without knowing the fact that Chinese OEMs Huawei/Oppo/Vivo/Xioami/OnePlus/Honor have made huge strides in each of those aspects.
Is there is a "need"? Absolutely. Will Apple come out with foldable/flip phones? It will boil down to the assessment of Apple's executives on the potential future market for the form factor. If they see potential to make loads of money, they will include this form factor in their priority. If not, they will reject the idea. We have to wait and see.
creaseless = two screens and a perfect hinge. That's the only way to make such a foldable device without the crease eventually destroying the screen. It's amazing how many people don't seem understand that 'foldable' does not equal 'one screen'.
As someone else said, this phone type (foldable) addresses a market that doesn't exist, or is even smaller than the iPhone mini's size (and Apple allegedly didn't feel that size factor was profitable, or suitable).
Comments
As noted elsewhere in this thread, similar folding screen phones made by others are pretty evidently only serving a niche market, not a need. Just as Apple has seen no need to merge Macs and iPads into a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none personal computing version of the El Camino (like the Microsoft Surface), it is highly doubtful that Apple is looking at the folding phones already out there and saying, "man, we need to make one of those!"
It's far more likely that if any folding Apple screen sees the light of day, it will be a large-screen iPad. That has a better use case and far fewer of the drawbacks of the nonsense Kuo is predicting here. A folding screen would make a large iPad more portable. There's you use case. Most people don't compulsively pull out and check their iPad, so wear and tear on the screen and hinge would be orders of magnitude less. Likewise, there would be no need for an outside screen when an iPad is folded, and the folding screen could maintain the same aspect ratio as other iPads, so such a device would not add bloat to the operating system, or require app developers to accommodate alternative screen dimensions. The list goes on. If there's a folding screen in Apple's production pipeline, it'll be for an iPad.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA1AkXs7?ocid=sapphireappshare
And history of Andriod foldable phones sales does NOT mean much when it comes to potential sales for Apple. Android OEMs have to cater to the smaller pool of flagship phone customers, that too gets divided across multiple OEMs. Apple will have access to a much larger pool of potential customers who can spend money on a foldable phone.
1. Keep increasing the screen size - Not practical. And all your wine/rain/rose analogies fall into this category.
2. Look for other form factors to accomplish the need for the largest display area in a handheld - Fold/Flip/Rollable display etc.
And you cannot account for all possible implementations and the compromises needed for each of those solution approaches. Even IF you don't like all of the solutions for the compromises that they bring along with them, there could be plenty of others who are willing to accept those compromises and consider the form factor. You are making a huge assumption that - "I don't like this form factor due to the compromises involved and I am certain that majority of the Apple's customer base would think like me and reject this idea." And you think that Apple executives/engineers would think like you and reject the idea at inception. It doesn't work that way.
And you are NOT aware of the progress made by Android OEMs on reducing the impact of the key compromises that anyone could imagine in the foldable form factor - Crease in the display, long term reliability of the phone due to multiple folds/unfolds, thickness of the phone in folded state, camera quality, battery capacity, weight etc. How the first generation foldables fared in each of those aspects Vs how the latest generation foldables fare in each of those aspects? And you get to see only Samsung who is the real laggard in technological terms in the Android world, without knowing the fact that Chinese OEMs Huawei/Oppo/Vivo/Xioami/OnePlus/Honor have made huge strides in each of those aspects.
Is there is a "need"? Absolutely. Will Apple come out with foldable/flip phones? It will boil down to the assessment of Apple's executives on the potential future market for the form factor. If they see potential to make loads of money, they will include this form factor in their priority. If not, they will reject the idea. We have to wait and see.
As someone else said, this phone type (foldable) addresses a market that doesn't exist, or is even smaller than the iPhone mini's size (and Apple allegedly didn't feel that size factor was profitable, or suitable).