Apple’s Foldable iPhone vs Samsung Galaxy Fold: Can the Latecomer Steal the Future of Smartphones?

The future cracked in the hands of reviewers.

In April 2019, Samsung sent advance units of its $1,980 Galaxy Fold to technology journalists. Within days, screens flickered, bulged and went dark. Some reviewers peeled away a protective layer that looked like removable film but was part of the display. Debris reportedly slipped beneath another screen and produced a small, fatal bump. One device failed along its hinge.

Samsung postponed the launch, collected the review units and began investigating the wreckage. “It was embarrassing. I pushed it through before it was ready,” DJ Koh, then chief executive of Samsung Electronics, later told journalists.

Those words now read like the admission fee for an entirely new industry.

Samsung had attempted to turn the smartphone into a book before the screen, hinge and users were ready. The company paid in recalls, ridicule and reputational bruises. It reinforced the display, extended the protective layer, tightened the hinge and eventually released the Galaxy Fold in September 2019.

Seven years and several generations later, foldable phones are thinner, tougher and far more convincing. Their cameras have improved. Their hinges shut more neatly. Their software understands that a screen can change shape midway through an email, movie or meeting. The crease has softened, even if it has not disappeared.

Samsung performed much of this expensive education in public. “One cannot take away the credit from Samsung for creating this novel form factor and bringing a fresh perspective to an industry where every launch has become predictable,” says Faisal Kawoosa, chief analyst at technology research and consulting firm Techarc.

His point reaches beyond the hinge. Conventional smartphone launches increasingly arrive as a procession of larger numbers: more megapixels, faster processors, brighter screens and higher benchmark scores. Foldables disrupted the shape of the object itself.

Samsung created that disruption. Apple watched.

Now, the most powerful latecomer in consumer technology may be preparing to enter the field Samsung built.

Apple has scheduled a special event at its California headquarters for September 9. The company has confirmed neither a foldable phone nor its name, specifications or price, but analysts and industry reports expect the first folding iPhone, widely called the iPhone Ultra, to appear alongside the iPhone 18 Pro line-up. The device could unfold into a display approaching the size of an iPad mini.

If it arrives, Apple will enter one of the few corners of the smartphone business still expanding. It will also confront a deliciously unfair question.

Does the company that creates a category get to own it? Or does ownership pass to the company that finally makes millions of people want it?

Samsung Paid the Tuition Fee

The original Galaxy Fold was closer to a public experiment than a polished mass-market product. Samsung nevertheless accomplished something important: it placed a folding phone in consumers’ hands and forced the industry to solve problems that laboratory demonstrations could hide.

A foldable screen must survive thousands of bends without cracking, detaching or developing dead pixels. The hinge must permit movement while keeping out particles. The body must remain slim enough to sit in a pocket, yet contain two displays, a large battery and flagship cameras. Applications must behave sensibly across screens with different proportions. Buyers must trust that a device costing as much as a laptop will not age like an overused paperback.

Each Galaxy Fold generation attacked another part of that list.

Samsung strengthened the internal structure, introduced water resistance, reduced weight, improved the cover display and redesigned its hinges. It developed Flex Mode, which divides applications when the phone is partially folded, and refined multitasking for the larger internal screen. Its latest devices use Galaxy AI to turn the expanded display into a workspace for translation, summarisation, editing and app-to-app tasks.

The company’s current Indian range shows how far the category has spread. The Galaxy Z Flip8 reportedly begins at ₹1,24,999, the Galaxy Z Fold8 at ₹1,79,999 and the Fold8 Ultra at ₹1,99,999. The top Fold8 Ultra variant reaches ₹2,59,999.

That is luxury-car-option money folded into a pocket.

Samsung has responded by stretching payment periods. The company recently introduced financing of up to 30 months in India, effectively converting a ₹2 lakh purchase into a monthly subscription to technological status. A Fold8 Ultra can reportedly be bought through Samsung Finance+ for ₹6,667 a month without a down payment.

The instalment is more than a sales device. It reveals how the premium smartphone business increasingly works. Companies are no longer asking consumers whether a phone is worth ₹2 lakh in one terrifying moment. They are asking whether it is worth a few thousand rupees every month.

Apple understands that arithmetic extraordinarily well.

Apple’s Favourite Position: Late

Apple did not invent the portable music player. It entered a crowded field and made the iPod the object through which the category was remembered.

It did not create the smartphone, tablet, smartwatch or wireless earbud. BlackBerry, Nokia and Palm built smartphones before the iPhone. Microsoft and other manufacturers experimented with tablets. Fitbit and Pebble occupied wrists before the Apple Watch. Bluetooth earphones existed before AirPods turned white stems into a cultural uniform.

Apple’s skill has rarely depended on arriving first. It waits until components mature, user behaviour becomes legible and competitors expose the category’s weaknesses. It then compresses technology, software, distribution and design into a proposition that feels obvious in retrospect.

Kawoosa points to Dynamic Island as a more recent example of Apple’s ability to convert an initially mocked design decision into a feature that competitors begin emulating.

“Even the innovations that appeared to be a gimmick became mainstream,” he says. “Everyone mocked Dynamic Island, but then brands followed.”

Foldables, however, stretch Apple’s latecomer playbook to an uncomfortable length.

“Undoubtedly, going by Apple’s stature, it is late on this,” Kawoosa says. “One would have expected something like this to come from Apple, or for it to join within two or three years after Samsung showcased a foldable phone to the world. But it took Apple a lot more convincing than expected.”

The delay recalls another moment when Apple resisted a form factor that Samsung had already pushed into the mainstream.

Large-screen smartphones were once mocked as “phablets”, awkward hybrids sitting between phone and tablet. Samsung embraced them early through the Galaxy Note range. Apple held back until 2014, when it introduced the 4.7-inch iPhone 6 and 5.5-inch iPhone 6 Plus.

“It reminds me of large-screen phones, which Apple reluctantly did with the iPhone 6,” Kawoosa says. “By then, Samsung and others had already taken a lead in establishing phablets as something consumers preferred.”

Apple’s surrender to the large screen did not damage the iPhone. It triggered one of the most successful upgrade cycles in the product’s history.

That precedent should worry Samsung.

The first Apple Watch reached consumers in 2015, years after smartwatches had appeared. By 2019, Apple shipped an estimated 30.7 million watches, more than the 21.1 million units shipped by the entire Swiss watch industry, according to Strategy Analytics figures reported at the time. AirPods later seized the lead in wireless earphones. Counterpoint Research estimated that Apple commanded 20 per cent of that market by volume and 35 per cent by revenue in the first quarter of 2026.

This is the historical threat Samsung faces. Apple often allows rivals to explain why a category should exist and then sells the most coherent answer.

Late entry is not magic, however.

The $3,499 Vision Pro demonstrated the limits of Apple’s power to manufacture demand. Its extraordinary engineering could not overcome its weight, price, limited content and uncertain everyday purpose. Apple subsequently paused work on a next-generation overhaul to concentrate on AI glasses, Bloomberg reportedly said.

The foldable iPhone therefore carries two competing memories. It could become another Apple Watch, a late arrival that reorganises an industry. It could also become a pocket-sized Vision Pro, admired as engineering and avoided as a purchase.

The difference will lie in what consumers believe they are buying.

A Phone, an iPad or a $2,500 Question?

The expected device has passport-like proportions. It would operate as a conventional smartphone when closed and reveal a tablet-sized inner display when opened. Industry estimates have placed the internal screen at approximately 7.8 inches and the outer display at about 5.5 inches.

That description creates the first problem. A screen that folds is impressive. A reason to unfold it every day is more valuable.

Samsung has spent years searching for that reason. It has promoted simultaneous applications, desktop-style productivity, video calls, gaming, note-taking and photography. Yet foldables remain a tiny portion of the overall smartphone business. Many consumers continue to see them as thicker, more fragile phones requiring an additional physical action to reach their principal screen.

A CNET survey published in 2025 found that 64 per cent of respondents did not want a foldable smartphone. Price was the most frequently cited barrier, followed by durability and uncertainty about what practical advantage a foldable offered over a conventional phone.

Apple’s task is therefore larger than removing the crease. It must remove the question mark.

The company has one potent answer: the ecosystem. A foldable iPhone could sit between the iPhone and iPad rather than simply competing with another handset. Documents could move between its screen and a Mac. AirPods could follow calls across devices. Apple Watch notifications, iCloud photographs, FaceTime, Apple Pay and the App Store would arrive with an audience already trained to use them together.

Apple does not need to persuade every smartphone buyer. It can begin with affluent iPhone owners who already carry an iPad or wish they did. If the unfolded device handles reading, video, editing and work convincingly, the company can frame $2,500 as the price of two Apple products compressed into one.

Kawoosa believes the size and loyalty of the installed iPhone base will protect Apple from the consequences of its delay.

“Business-wise, I don’t see Apple losing much,” he says. “We have to remember that there is a huge base of 1.6 to 1.8 billion active iPhone users. These users do not easily switch to another ecosystem, even for a novel form factor such as a foldable phone.”

That may explain why Apple could afford to wait. Samsung’s foldable had to persuade Android users to embrace a new shape. Apple’s version can sell a new shape to consumers who have spent years accumulating applications, photographs, subscriptions, accessories and habits within its ecosystem.

Those users may have admired Samsung’s folds without ever seriously considering a move.

“They would welcome a foldable phone within the Apple ecosystem, something Apple completely and strongly understands,” says Kawoosa.

Yet compression creates casualties. A foldable that replaces some iPad mini usage could cannibalise another Apple line. Developers would need to adapt applications to changing display sizes. Battery life, cameras, thickness and biometric authentication may all require compromises. Reports have suggested that Apple could use Touch ID in the power button instead of Face ID and may offer fewer cameras than its most advanced Pro phones.

For a device positioned above the iPhone Pro Max, every missing feature will invite a brutal question: Why does Apple’s most expensive phone contain less of anything?

The Crease Hides a Korean Irony

Apple’s most visible advantage may come from Samsung itself.

Industry reports indicate that Samsung Display will supply the folding OLED panel for Apple’s device. The Korean manufacturer reportedly received approval to begin producing modules after achieving yields above Apple’s required threshold. It is expected to remain Apple’s exclusive foldable-display supplier under a three-year agreement.

The screen is expected to use a metal support plate that distributes bending stress and reduces the central crease. Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has said the plate will use laser-drilled microstructures rather than a less expensive etching process. Apple has reportedly demanded a nearly invisible crease regardless of the additional cost.

The result is a marvellous corporate contradiction. Samsung’s component arm may supply the technology Apple uses to attack Samsung’s smartphone arm.

That relationship is familiar. Samsung has long supplied displays and components for iPhones while competing fiercely with Apple in finished devices. But the foldable contest makes the dependence more pointed. Apple’s ability to arrive with a polished first-generation phone rests partly upon expertise Samsung accumulated through years of manufacturing folding screens.

Apple may enter late. It does not arrive alone.

Samsung can no longer rely on hardware maturity as its only defence. If Apple matches the hinge and display while deploying its control over iOS, services and developers, Samsung’s seven-year advantage could shrink quickly.

Its counterattack will have to centre on experience: proven durability, multitasking software, cameras, Galaxy AI and a range that reaches different form factors and prices. Samsung sells book-style Folds, compact Flips and increasingly experimental devices. Apple is expected to begin with one rarefied model.

Seven years of iteration have given Samsung more than a head start. They have given it a map.

Whether that map matters depends on how dramatically Apple redraws the destination.

The Foldable World Is Bigger Than Two Companies

An Apple-versus-Samsung headline is irresistible, but it can obscure the company that has already broken Samsung’s grip in the world’s largest foldable battleground.

Huawei reportedly captured 48 per cent of global foldable shipments during the first half of 2025, compared with Samsung’s 20 per cent, according to Canalys figures. Its strength is concentrated in China, where US sanctions weakened Apple and Samsung’s positions while Huawei rebuilt its premium smartphone business.

The Chinese company has also pushed the form factor faster. It launched the Mate XT, a phone with two hinges and three screen sections, and has experimented with wider designs that blur the boundary between phone and tablet. Honor, Oppo, Vivo, Motorola, Xiaomi and Google have added their own interpretations.

The geography matters. In China, Apple will not enter an immature category waiting for validation. It will face consumers who have already encountered multiple generations of foldables and a national technology champion with deep loyalty.

In parts of Europe and the United States, Apple’s brand and retail network may prove more decisive. In India, both price and financing will shape the ceiling.

At $2,299 to $2,499, the estimated US price would translate to roughly ₹2 lakh before considering local taxes and market-specific pricing. That would place the foldable iPhone beside Samsung’s Fold8 Ultra and well above most premium handsets sold in India.

Its first Indian buyers would be wealthy early adopters, creators, executives and loyal Apple customers purchasing the newest badge in the ecosystem. The device would function as a halo product, pulling attention towards less expensive iPhones even if its own sales remained limited.

Luxury products do not always require mass volumes to change brand perception or industry behaviour.

The Only Part of the Smartphone Market Still Growing

Apple is entering foldables at a peculiar moment. The global smartphone market is shrinking sharply while becoming more valuable.

IDC expects worldwide smartphone shipments to fall 16.7 per cent in 2026 to slightly above one billion units, the steepest annual contraction it has recorded. A shortage of memory chips has pushed component costs higher as artificial-intelligence data centres compete with consumer electronics for capacity. IDC expects the average smartphone selling price to jump 27.6 per cent to $581.

The industry is selling fewer phones for more money.

Android manufacturers concentrated at the lower end face the worst damage. IDC estimates that Android shipments could fall 24.3 per cent as brands retreat from models whose thin margins cannot absorb higher NAND and DRAM costs. The market below $100 faces what IDC describes as an existential crisis.

Foldables are the exception. IDC forecasts shipments to grow 12.6 per cent in 2026 to 22.9 million units and rise another 18 per cent in 2027. Without Apple’s arrival, it says, foldable shipments would have declined at a double-digit rate.

Apple is therefore entering a category whose anticipated growth already depends upon Apple entering it.

IDC expects the company to ship more than 17 million foldable iPhones by 2027 and secure roughly 40 per cent of the market. At an average selling price exceeding $2,550, those devices could generate more than $45.7 billion and account for over half the value of the foldable category.

Counterpoint Research uses a different methodology and produces a slightly different picture. It expects Samsung to retain the shipment lead in 2026 with 32 per cent, down from 40 per cent a year earlier, while Apple captures 25 per cent during its debut year. Huawei is projected to hold 24 per cent.

The precise percentages will move. The direction is harder to miss. Apple could acquire in months a market position that rivals spent years building.

Kawoosa expects the first burst of demand to be even more visible at the store level.

“Once Apple Fold is live, it will sell like hot cakes, exactly as most Apple devices have,” he says. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see out-of-stock boards in many Apple stores within two weeks of launch.”

A sell-out would not automatically establish sustained demand. Initial supply could be constrained, and Apple’s most loyal customers often rush towards new categories. The real test would begin after the early adopters, reviewers and status buyers have opened their wallets.

Apple must convince the next customer that the fold solves a problem rather than merely creates a spectacle.

Who Gets to Write the History?

Price will matter, though perhaps differently from the way a conventional price war works.

Samsung can undercut Apple, widen its range, bundle accessories and use long-term financing. Apple can rely on trade-ins, carrier subsidies, instalments and the economic gravity of its ecosystem. At the highest end of the market, the winning price may not be the lowest one. It may be the price consumers can most easily explain to themselves.

Apple must nevertheless deliver an unusually polished first attempt.

Buyers forgave Samsung’s early failures because the Galaxy Fold was openly experimental. Apple has spent seven years declining to release such an experiment. Delay creates expectation. A visible crease, fragile hinge, awkward application or compromised camera will not be judged as the ordinary flaw of a first-generation product. It will be judged as evidence that Apple waited seven years and still arrived unfinished.

Samsung faces the opposite burden. Its pioneering role will earn respect from technology enthusiasts, but corporate history rarely distributes rewards according to suffering. Palm helped define mobile computing. BlackBerry taught the world to type on phones. Fitbit put step counts on wrists. Their head starts did not guarantee their futures.

Samsung wrote the difficult opening chapters of the foldable story with cracked displays, recalled review units, reinforced hinges and stubborn iteration. It turned a punchline into a product and a product into a market.

Faisal Kawoosa is right to insist that the credit remains Samsung’s.

Apple now wants the customer. On September 9, it may open a phone and close one of the strangest chapters in smartphone history. Samsung spent seven years proving that a screen could fold. Apple must prove that a market will unfold around it.