Foldable phones can’t catch a break, mainly because they keep breaking Recapping the Galaxy Fold and the Motorola Razr at this point seems like overkill, but it is worth noting that at least one Razr developed an absolutely bizarre screen separation issue. Put that next to the well-trod issues with the Fold’s screen and drama round the Z Flip’s screen over the weekend and we’re three-for-three on folding phones with durability issues. For the Z Flip, it’s at least one cracked screen from the cold and what you might call failures in durability stress testing. JerryRigEverything produced a video showing just how easily the plastic coating on the glass screen picks up marks and scratches and also how the “ultra thin glass” is so thin it hardly acts like glass at all when punctured with a fine point. I will tell you that our reporting on Samsung’s response led to a full day of confusing ire in my Twitter replies about whether or not Samsung was telling the truth about the Z Flip being made of glass. For the record: it’s glass covered in a plastic coating, which has some advantages over the purely plastic screens on other folding phones but not nearly as many as you might assume. JerryRigEverything’s video is proof of that. Meanwhile, iFixit will have posted a full teardown by the time you read this story and has also put up a video of its own. The Z Flip utterly failed to stand up to what I think was some pretty harsh abuse: being shaken in a bag of very fine and gritty powder. It was not at all reflective of how I think anybody would treat these phones, but nevertheless not entirely unfair. The Z Flip has some extra protections against dust ingress and it does have that glass substrate. Compared to both the Galaxy Fold and the Motorola Razr, the Z Flip is a marked upgrade in build quality. Fundamentally, though, these phones are more fragile than any smartphone we’ve seen in quite some time — maybe ever. Samsung’s improvements deserve credit, but it’s baffling to me that the company didn’t get out ahead of what seem like entirely predictable issues with the Z Flip. Of course people were going to beat it to hell and of course that would lead to justifiable worries about durability. Samsung’s decision to only provide 24-hour loaners to reviewers like myself only adds to the sense of mistrust (I am reviewing a phone I was finally able to purchase after trying all weekend, not the loaner). Samsung’s response to the screen durability problem is to note there’s a $119 one-time screen replacement and that buyers can go to a U Break I Fix store to have some sort of screen protector installed for free — apparently it requires a professional. But it shouldn’t have been a response, it should have been communicated from the jump. The other response is a press release touting the qualities of this new glass and suggesting it’s in high demand. There’s even a tagline, “tough, yet tender.” Because what you want out of glass is to think of it like the title of a romance novel. All three phones had three major launch problems: price, durability, and initial availability. Put all that together and I am confused why Samsung and Motorola treated these phones so much like regular consumer devices instead of the experiments they clearly are. A much better strategy would have been to just label them as “limited editions.” Treat them like something in between a sneaker drop and Google Glass. A little hype but also a lot of expectation setting about how they’re not ready for the real world yet — plus you could make a big deal out of how few were being produced. Because all three of these phones share a fourth commonality: the vast, vast majority of people shouldn’t buy one. |