"Ok, so let’s try instead to build the device from a tablet perspective. I’m going to make one basic assumption: the tablet screen is primarily for watching TV/film. I’m sure people will find other uses, but in terms of mass appeal, surely that must be its purpose?"
Is it just me or are square-ish resolutions pretty common and popular on tablets? Just look at any iPad, the screen ratio is ~1.3 or 1.4 to 1.
I think the common sense answer here (which is ridiculous since we don't even know what Samsung's real intention is), is a phone that's close to 2:1 and a tablet that's close to 1:1. No big deal.
To speculate more: phones have widened to near 2:1 resolution not primarily because of watching modern TV and film, but because that's the easiest way to expand the screen while ensuring the phone is easy to hold. It also works well with vertical scrolling activity.
As I mentioned a 1:1 screen (if you want to watch your content in an assumed 18:9 native content) will at most take up half of the tablet screen. Meaning your content will be shown at exactly the same size as the phone screen, just rotated. Under the assumption that the tablet screen is just for media consumption this gives no benefit.
"Far be it from me to assume that I know what Samsung’s plans are with regards this technology and I’m certainly not rubbishing the innovation, I just wanted to clarify the basic maths that says these foldable phones just can’t be bezel-free and in the form factor we expect from modern phones/tablets."
But you did though. We barely have a prototype to look at (short of the demo on stage) let alone put a technology like that in the hands of Google or Apple engineers.
There was no need for a smart phone, until there was. There was no need for a tablet, until there was. Smart watch, smart speaker, and so on.
Version 1 is always crap and most (all) know that? Give it a couple iterations, a little trial and error and you'll probably get your aspect ratio or tiny bezels.
All the article claims is that you can't have a device with one hinge and an 18:9 aspect ratio both folded and unfolded, because 2*9/18 != 18/9. It never says that no other workable ratios exist. In fact it specifically says the opposite. I'm not sure why so many people are misreading it.
"Give it a couple iterations, a little trial and error and you'll probably get your aspect ratio or tiny bezels."
Did you read the rest of the post? I'm saying that mathetmatically those two things are completely irreconcilable.
I'm not saying the phone will be bad, just that it is impossible for the both the phone and tablet to conform to the form factor of a typical phone/tablet that is out now.
There isn't a "typical" shape / size for a phone / tablet.
You can say an iPhone screen size when duplicated into 2 side by side does not equal an iPad screen size, landscape or portrait and I'd completely agree with you. But to say a new class of device won't have it's screen sizes and needs to conform to screen sizes of the past... that just doesn't make sense. No one conforms to screen sizes; past, present, or future.
I know there isn't a typical size, but the trend has been towards taller phones. The desire to keep to the aspect ratio isn't about conforming to old phones but conforming to the aspect ratio that films/TV shows are in.
I'm saying it's irreconcilable that the phone be like phones we know now (18:9, minimum bezels), and the tablet be like tablets we know now (18:9, minimum bezels). If we have either form conform to what we know now, the other must be very different.
I was wrong on the tablets, I was meaning an ideal tablet for watching TV/films which is mostly 16:9 or 18:9.
Tablets typically are 4:3, which would result in a phone being 3:2 which would be 25% shorter on 18:9 phones, and 15% shorter on 16:9 phones, which is a reasonable departure from the norm, and ultimately means neither the phone nor the tablet are well set up for watching films/TV.
I think articles like this one show a lack of imagination. When I think about folded stuff in my life, I immediately think of a newspaper or a road map. I'd love a display that I can fold an arbitrary number of times to get the size that makes sense for what I'm looking at and where I am.
I'm not saying "aspect ratios don't work, therefore the whole thing's a bust", just that we should expect that one or other of the devices will be quite a bit different from what we normally see.
The Lenovo Yoga Book is quite different in the sense that the multi-screens are never really viewed as a single form. One screen is more of an input device, while the other is what we would usually see as a screen. I'm not saying that the foldable phone can't do this, just that it's very different from a "phone that folds out to have a bigger screen for watching media" device that I've seen people expect these foldable phones to be.
This is stupid. I don't think foldable phones are likely for a long time - foldable screen technology is just way off (sure you can have demos but try folding and unfolding it 10,000 times and see how it holds up). We much get foldable phones with multiple displays but there's no real technical challenge there and still nobody has done it because it's not really what people want.
But aspect ratio is just not even remotely close to being a problem.
Phones weren't made taller to accommodate media consumption. For mass-media consumption 16:9 is still the best size. Certainly there are movies at 2:1 or even wider but they are the exception rather than the rule. They were made taller so that they could have a bigger screen without being too big to hand hold.
You could make a similar argument about the notch, because now the screen isn't even properly rectangular - but that didn't stop it taking off and even being added cosmetically to phones that don't require it.
Let's not forget that smartwatches are popular despite being square.
All sorts of things could be tried. The 16:9 screen that folds to 8:9 could be like the Motorola Razr? Or you could fold it on the other axis to produce something like the Nokia communicator?
Hell, why not have two folds? Popup book mechanics?
Maybe my wording wasn't great, I didn't want to say the folding itself is a problem, the problem is that the aspect ratios of the two are dependent on each other, making unusual solutions like you mentioned necessary. Not that that's a bad thing, but it is something that will require some creativity that we don't need to consider normally.
Honestly, I kinda like the square phone mock-up. It would be a little weird to use as a phone, but perhaps there's a compromise to be made for the pocketability of it all?
I've seen people comment on these articles asking why the aspect ratios were so weird, and why not 18:9 for both? Perhaps, they were just joking, who knows?
Regardless, an 18:18 screen can only show 18:9 content at the same size as an 18:9 screen can.
Is it just me or are square-ish resolutions pretty common and popular on tablets? Just look at any iPad, the screen ratio is ~1.3 or 1.4 to 1.
I think the common sense answer here (which is ridiculous since we don't even know what Samsung's real intention is), is a phone that's close to 2:1 and a tablet that's close to 1:1. No big deal.
To speculate more: phones have widened to near 2:1 resolution not primarily because of watching modern TV and film, but because that's the easiest way to expand the screen while ensuring the phone is easy to hold. It also works well with vertical scrolling activity.