Don’t buy a foldable phone now—why I’m waiting for 2027


When foldable phones were first introduced, they felt both groundbreaking and nostalgic. However, the category has started to feel stale, with few truly groundbreaking upgrades in recent years. That is why I am waiting until 2027 to buy a foldable phone, as the competition appears likely to become much more intense by then.

Foldable phones have lost their excitement

Over the years, the excitement has died down

The technology behind foldable displays was teased years before a device became available for purchase, dating back to 2011, when Samsung showed off a flexible AMOLED display prototype at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES). However, it was not until October 2018 that the first foldable phone—the Royole FlexPai—became available to buy.

Then, in September 2019, nearly a year later, Samsung became the first major brand to release a foldable phone with the Galaxy Z Fold. However, its launch was not without challenges.

The phone was originally scheduled to launch earlier that year, but was delayed after review units experienced significant screen failures and durability issues.

Like any first-generation devices, the original foldable phones had a number of issues. These included durability concerns with the hardware and software optimization issues that did not fully conform to a foldable design.

  • Samsung Galaxy Flip 7

    Brand

    Samsung

    SoC

    Samsung Exynos 2500

    RAM

    12GB

    Storage

    256 or 512GB

    Battery

    4,300mAh Dual Battery

    Ports

    USB-C

    A wider shape and a new edge-to-edge FlexWindow make this the most usable Flip yet. It’s compact, customizable, and packed with smart AI tools right on the cover screen.


  • razr 2025

    SoC

    MediaTek Dimensity 7400X

    RAM

    8GB

    Storage

    256GB

    Battery

    4,500mAh

    Ports

    USB-C

    Operating System

    Android 15

    The Moto Razr 2025 refines the popular foldable clamshell design with key upgrades for enhanced durability and performance. It features a robust titanium-reinforced hinge and an improved IP48 rating for dust and water resistance, making it more resilient for daily use.


However, those issues have—to some degree—been resolved over time, and Samsung has also since released another foldable model: the Galaxy Z Flip series. Furthermore, other manufacturers have entered the market with their own foldable devices, such as the Motorola Razr.

Although foldable phones continue to be updated, it seems that—just like standard smartphones—the updates are minimal and receive similar attention each year. They typically include faster internal components and only minor design changes without anything as revolutionary as the first generation.

This is further evident in the fact that baseline issues persist, including fragile displays that can fail unexpectedly, hardware that lags behind non-folding smartphones, and software optimization that is not yet fully adapted to the inner display’s form factor.

Before, foldable phones brought the wow factor of something radically different from a standard smartphone, but over the years, that appeal has faded. The form factor has shifted from groundbreaking to simply a thicker phone with a larger display and a much higher price tag.

More competition could shake things up

A foldable iPhone may be the kick the market needs

While foldable phones have been around for several years, one major player has been missing from the category: Apple. However, that is expected to change this year.

Right now, consumers mainly choose among manufacturers, but at their core, most foldable phones offer a similar experience. This includes them running Android and featuring comparable hardware designs, with slight differences.

A foldable iPhone could be the boost the foldable phone market needs by opening the category to an entirely new group of consumers: dedicated Apple users. It would also increase competition.

As previously mentioned, most foldable phones today run Android and use similar form factors, folding either vertically or horizontally. While each manufacturer adds its own features, the overall experience remains largely the same.

With Apple entering the market, it could push Google to further optimize Android for foldable devices and encourage manufacturers to improve their hardware.

While the foldable iPhone—rumored to be called the “iPhone Ultra”—would still run iOS, reports suggest it will include software designed specifically for the larger inner display. This would be similar to how Apple introduced iPad-specific features in iOS 11 in 2017, keeping the same operating system name across the lineup while adding features designed exclusively for the iPhone Ultra.

There are already signs from WWDC 2026 that point toward a foldable iPhone, including Apple’s push for developers to support wider aspect ratios and the addition of landscape support for many of Apple’s built-in apps in iOS 27.

Additionally, Apple is reportedly developing a new display material that makes the crease nearly invisible when the device is unfolded, addressing one of the biggest complaints about current foldable phones.

While these are still rumors, more competition would benefit the foldable phone market in multiple ways. It would push Google to improve its software and encourage other manufacturers to improve their hardware to compete with whatever Apple ultimately releases.

However, I’ll be holding off for now

I’ll be waiting till 2027

Person holding the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 slightly bent open looking at the rear cameras Credit: Justin Duino / How-To Geek

Even though a foldable iPhone may be released this year, and Android already offers multiple foldable phones to choose from, I will be waiting until 2027, and I am firm in that decision.

First, I would not buy the first generation of a foldable iPhone because it will likely not be fully refined. Although first-generation devices are released to the public, they often serve as a test run, with the second generation typically addressing many of the original shortcomings.

Take the Apple Watch, for example. The first generation had several shortcomings, while the second generation addressed many of them.

The same happened with Samsung’s first foldable phone. The Galaxy Z Fold2 improved on the original Galaxy Fold by fixing several issues, like increasing the outer display from 4.6 inches to 6.2 inches.

Furthermore, it will take some time for Android manufacturers to respond to Apple’s foldable phone. Those responses are unlikely to appear in this year’s Galaxy Z Fold, but they are much more likely to arrive with 2027 models.

With those two factors in mind, I am comfortable waiting until next year for a foldable phone. By then, a second-generation foldable iPhone may have addressed many of the criticisms of the first generation, and Android manufacturers will likely have had time to respond with improved foldable phones of their own.


I’ll probably get one, but now is not the time

As it is now, I will not be buying a foldable phone. I have grown bored with them, and they no longer excite me the way they did when they first came out.

When I see one in a store, I still walk over and try it for a minute, but the novelty quickly wears off, and I go back to my usual single-screen phone.

That said, I am excited about the future of foldable phones. I think increased competition will be exactly what the category needs. It will push manufacturers to make more meaningful software and hardware improvements instead of continuing to play it safe with the incremental updates they have been making.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


TL;DR

Meta stripped NameTag facial recognition code from its AI app one day after WIRED exposed it on 50 million phones. Meta says no decision has been made.

Meta removed nearly all traces of an unreleased facial recognition system from its smart glasses companion app on Friday, one day after WIRED reported that the software had been quietly embedded in an app installed on more than 50 million phones. The feature, which Meta internally called NameTag, was designed to convert faces captured by the company’s Ray-Ban smart glasses into unique biometric signatures and compare them against a database stored on the user’s device. WIRED also found that faces the system failed to recognise were cropped, indexed, and stored locally for future processing.

Andy Stone, Meta’s vice president of communications, told WIRED on Monday that the feature is “purely exploratory,” adding that no final decision has been made on what to do with it. That characterisation sits uneasily with the evidence WIRED documented. The version of Meta AI published the day of WIRED’s Thursday report contained several code libraries explicitly named for face recognition, a process for running the NameTag recognition pipeline, and a “Person recognised” alert the app would have shown if someone were identified.

Friday’s release stripped all of it out, along with a folder where the app would have stored the cropped images and biometric signatures of unrecognised faces. Meta did not answer WIRED’s questions about why the code was removed or whether the changes were planned before the story was published. A few fragments remain in the latest version, including an internal debug menu label and a dormant link meant to open a recognised person’s profile, pointing to parts of the system that are no longer there.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The gap between Meta’s public statements and the code WIRED found is the central tension. Before the Thursday report, Stone dismissed the findings by writing that the company could not answer questions about how the system would work because “the feature does not exist.” Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, called the reporting “incredibly misleading” and “absolutely dishonest.” Yet the code was functional enough to include three AI models, one to detect faces, another to crop them, and a third to encode them as biometric data, all embedded in the companion app for a product already at the centre of a mounting privacy crisis.

Meta declined to answer ten questions WIRED posed before publishing, including whether it had already created the database of face profiles NameTag uses, how long the app retains photographs and biometric data of unrecognised people, and whether that data would ever be sent back to Meta’s servers. The company also did not respond to questions about whether it was building NameTag for blind or low-vision users, or to criticism from privacy advocates who warned the system could let stalkers and abusers identify strangers in public.

NameTag first surfaced in February, when The New York Times, citing internal Meta documents, reported that the company was developing face recognition for its smart glasses and considering a launch as early as this year. One internal memo reportedly described releasing the feature during a “dynamic political environment” when privacy and civil liberties advocates would be distracted by other concerns. WIRED subsequently found that much of NameTag’s machinery had been built into the Meta AI app as early as January, months before any public acknowledgement, adding another layer to the company’s pattern of shipping first and disclosing later when it comes to its smart glasses.

Kade Crockford, director of the technology for liberty programme at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the removal does not undo the original decision to ship the code and pointed to it as evidence that consumer privacy needs stronger legal protection than Congress has been willing to provide. The Massachusetts House of Representatives last week unanimously passed a consumer privacy bill that, if enacted as written, would impose strong enforcement provisions including a private right of action allowing aggrieved users to sue. “State lawmakers need to do their job and step up to protect consumer privacy,” Crockford said.

Meta’s sneaky tactics in slipping the face-recognition code into its smart glasses show exactly why data privacy bills need the teeth of strong enforcement,” Crockford added. “Companies like Meta prioritise their bottom line, so lawmakers need to speak in the only language its C-suite understands.” Whether a code removal prompted by investigative reporting constitutes a victory or merely a tactical retreat depends on what Meta does next, and on whether the regulatory pressure building on both sides of the Atlantic produces enforceable consequences before the feature quietly returns under a different name.



Source link