No, one may claim, microchip manufacturing is a highly concentrated industry, dominated by the Taiwanese Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), supplied by the only company worldwide specialized in developing the machines required to do so. You must also take supply chains between alleged rivals into account. Provided you are aware of cost-optimizing market strategies, it may only seem logical to you for companies to hold contracts within the industry, securing the provision of standardized production parts, in order to save cost and spare the development of existing products. A primary, mass-scale example for technology would be the Volkswagen Group, sharing parts across all aspects of their products, from window switches to entire platforms. A primary example of the tech industry making use of the principle would be Samsung. The company has become a major supplier of screens, be it a LG TV OLED panel or an iPhone 16´s display. In addition, Samsung supplies other parts, such as iPhone´s RAM and flash memory. While such a simplified reconstruction may not reflect the reality of international trading of parts as a whole, it visualizes the ineffectiveness of unique products.

So then, even if hardware is solely tweaked towards company needs, a separation of service is still achieved via software development. Though, is that really the case?

In the tech world, one´s first assumption may be agreement: Meta uses its own software on its headsets, Samsung developed powerful tools like Samsung DEX and the predecessor to Quick Share, Apple developed a uniquely optimized ecosystem, coherent across all their devices and operating systems. Google´s approach, however, breaches any attempt of companies trying independence as a market strategy, or is at least a major opposing factor. Their business strategy relies on collecting data points from as many sources as possible, both in terms of a large base of individuals providing their data and in terms of as many points of contact to such individuals as possible. By not only providing services to people in any public situation in life - be it a shopping list in Google Keep, a Google Doc for work-related purposes, or pictures, stored in Google Photos - but also "infiltrating" in places previously seen as private - such as Google Nest doorbells, Google pixel watches or Google home routines - Google is able to profile their users in a way useful towards advertisers, therefore useful towards any company in the private consumer market. This makes it very difficult for competitors to provide optimal services without Google, as it is so deeply integrated in peoples lives and these companies have no ability to provide competitive services.

Apple is a primary example of the scenario: The company has repeatedly failed to provide users with cutting-edge technology in the space, not even having attempted to achieve in-house artificial intelligence to an adequate level comparable to rivals. In fact, after the company had re-announced "Apple Intelligence" several times, they had solely achieved minor integration of third-party AI into some mobile devices´ operating system, with no intend to improve massively in automation or data collection. However, this was partially the result of Apples marketing DNA, which heavily leans on the privacy factor. A ChatGPT integration was against Apple´s usual style of operation and highly controversial, the switch to Google´s AI Gemini just a few months later however, was deemed as genuinely concerning. Google had once again solidified its position in the market, by focusing on an emerging market now irreplaceable for any mobile device manufacturer.

Google´s market strategy may seem questionable to enthusiasts aware of the "Google graveyard", a website listing hundreds of failed or suspended projects, however their portfolio has clearly reached its goal. Google phones´ camera systems are improvable, the Pixel UI is frequently seen as unpolished and the Tensor chip responsible for smoothly running software in some aspects is incomparably far behind, and yet the device can be the single most capable way of helping people in their daily lives.

Google´s phone division themselves had heavily relied on Exynos, the in-house producer of Samsung chips, before moving on to TSMC-manufactured chips. They still use Samsung screens, RAM, Exynos modems and further parts supplied by the competition.

In addition, the SEO of Google´s search engine has been quietly re-tuned towards AI recognition and AI-powered optimization regarding advertisers personalized visibility. Since Google has the most personal data of any private company, they are keen on boosting the major revenue-generating sector - showing relevant ads to private consumers. The internet is the most efficient tool of targeted advertisement distribution, not solely relying on guessing consumers general age groups, like television channels. Google is, for a vast majority of people, the tool used to access it.

However, most notably and often overseen: Google and Android are the same company. Google has been making the software for millions of devices, years before even launching their own Pixel lineup. Google doesn´t just run it´s AI on their second largest competitor´s devices, it runs Samsung´s entire operating system. The Samsung OneUI identity offering free-floating windows and settings adjustability to a professional extend is simply a layer, running "on top" of Android. The same general strategy has been adopted by budget phone brands, such as Oppo or Nothing, allowing for a unique, but low-cost experience.

The budget sector, mostly dominated by Chinese manufacturers, have no economically viable option to provide with good hardware in their low-cost phones. They heavily rely on mass-orderings of outdated hardware and on not expanding their offerings into a coherent ecosystem. Since they require a large market cap, in order to balance out the small margin per capita, these models tend to work best in populous countries with a low average income - such as China. If a budget brand does attempt to sell a flagship model, they are required to shift their target audience. Since they do not typically hold contracts and haven´t established relationships to the western market, some major audiences with a high disposable income are mostly obsolete. They may also need a reconsidered sales strategy, in order to reach the target demographic.

Status symbols are another key factor, driving consumers towards established brands. Contradicting such bias is vital, causing them to focus on high-risk innovation, established brands´ risk management simply could not approve. Honor, a sub-brand of Huawei, is the primary example: Having revealed their Tri-fold hardware a few years back and now offering a so called "Robot phone", shipped with a gimbal integrated into the phone´s hardware, the brand presents an unique approach to the flagship market.

Except it doesn´t, since the brand is banned from selling products in most western nations. The only Chinese brand, able to sell premium products to a western market, was OnePlus. The brand had managed to break the carrier-based system in the US (further insight and detail in a previously published article on my page) and draw enthusiastic consumers away from minor, incremental improvements their iPhone carrier deal would offer, towards innovation, such as silicon-carbon batteries, doubling or even tripling battery capacity compared to an iPhone. But it wouldn´t take long, until their mission of attempting to acquire a share of the market crumbled, leading to what the industry would essentially entitle as the death of the company.

Carl Pei, the co-founder of the company, had wanted to create an affordable enthusiasts phone. And he had succeeded, until eventually he shifted his focus towards creating another brand: Nothing.

Nothing is what can only be described as a mess. The budget brand leads a sub-brand offering even more affordable devices, called CMF. Essentially, the Nothing "a"-series is one step above CMF and secondary to the "budget-flagship" lineup. Except Nothing recently released the Phone 4b, which created a "b"-lineup between CMF and the "a"-series, with the surging ram prices supposedly being responsible for a price point ineligible for the CMF-branding. The Nothing Phone 2a sits below the Nothing Phone 2a plus, which sits below the Nothing Phone 2, with no "pro"-branded phone of the generation. The Nothing Phone 3a sits above the Nothing Phone 3a lite and below the Nothing Phone 3 and Nothing Phone 3a Pro, with no "Plus" or "Lite"-model of the generation. The Nothing Phone 4b sits below the Nothing Phone 4a, with no "Pro", "Lite" or "Plus"-branded model coming to the generation. CMF offers a flagship lineup as well, placing the CMF Phone 2 Pro above the CMF Phone 2. The brand identity is the so-called "Glyph Matrix", describing LED lights integrated into the back panel of the device, intended to show food delivery progress, timer status, notifications and further low-level information, allowing for a simple glance at a face-down device during moments in which using the screen may feel inappropriate. The gimmick carries through the lineup of Nothing Phones in some shape or form, it will be enough to grow a sustainable market share remains to be seen.

So, is it all a big monopoly hoax? No. Brands still develop in-house, most notably the new iPhone Duo hinge, Samsung´s sectioned hinges or Google´s Pixel Glow light ring.

There are so many names confronting you, when first choosing a TV: LED, OLED, QD-OLED, QNED, Mini LED, Micro LED, Mini RGB,.... the list goes on. But what do all of these subcategories even mean, and which one should you buy?

True LED TV´s (OLED)

LED (light emitting diode) use an individual LED light source for each sub-pixel, meaning they can provide richer, more saturated colors from any viewing angle, can achieve a higher refresh rate, making them the superior choice for gaming over LCD´s. The main advantage of not requiring one screen-sized backlight is the ability to show true blacks, as individual pixels can turn off entirely, whereas the entire screen gets a grey-ish background on LCD´s, if just one pixel is on.

Most "LED TV´s" are actually LCD TV´s with enhanced backlight technology. More on that below.

LCD TV´s

For a visual representation of the content below, click here.

LCD TV´s rely on a backlight. These backlights can be executed in many different ways, however if a TV is sold as an "LCD TV", then the original, basic execution is most likely: Individual pixels rely on a backlight, with the whole array being either on or off. The screen is usually:

1. Edge-lit: A backlight all around the edges or only on the top and bottom/left and right

2. Direct-lit: Backlights stretch across the entire size of the screen, usually with a low pixel density.

Taking it a step higher, LCD screens can also be:

1. Full-array LED backlight: The backlight is split into different zones, which can individually be controlled to dim or brighten. This is called local dimming, and allows LCD screens to show true blacks. The more dimming zones there are, the higher the quality.

QLED

QLED is a LCD-based, modern technology. QLED stands for Quantum Dot Light Emitting Diode. It uses tiny semiconductor nanocrystals - called quantum dots - to produce much brighter and more accurate colors than standard LCD screens. When the backlight shines through the quantum dot layer, they convert the light into precise reds, greens, and blues based on the exact size of the particles. In addition, QLED screens allow for a very high brightness and are less susceptible to burn-ins. QLED TV´s can´t show true blacks, they can have a full-array backlight however, letting them get pretty close.

NOTE: QLED is a marketing term, not a technology. other terms, describing similar technology include:

• Samsung: QLED, Neo QLED

• LG: QNED

• Sony: Triluminos/Triluminos Pro

• Hisense: ULED

• TCL: QLED, QD-Mini LED

Quantum dot-based subcategories:

IPS panels

With IPS panels, the crystals in front of the backlight move horizontally.

IPS, or in-plane shift, is a type of LED TV that used to be very common but has dropped in popularity in recent years. This technology was known for its wide viewing angles, making it the best choice for a wide seating arrangement or if you like to move around the room while the TV is on. This improvement in viewing angle comes with a cost, however, as IPS panels typically have much worse contrast than VA panels. This makes them a worse choice for dark room viewing.

VA panels

With VA panels, the crystals in front of the backlight move vertically.

VA panels make up the bulk of the LED TV industry. They've been around for a long time, and they're well known and liked for their deep blacks and generally good picture quality. They have a big downside, though, as they have a narrow viewing angle. This means that the image fades and changes color as you move to the sides, so they're not a good choice if you have a wide seating arrangement or a very wide room. Some manufacturers have tried adding extra layers on top of the VA panel to disperse light to the sides. These layers help a bit, but they typically have a significant impact on contrast. VA panels also typically have worse motion handling than other panel types.

Other LCD technologies:

Mini LED

Mini LED TV´s are - just like QLED - an advancement of LCD technology. This time, instead of relying on additional layers, the backlight simply uses thousands of tiny LED´s, a fraction of the size of typical backlights, allowing for a more precise color allocation and dimming zones, reducing halo effects around bright subject borders, nearly perfect blacks and bright HDR highlights. They are brighter than any technologies explained above, making them perfect for well-lit living rooms. Mini LED TV´s are the best choice for most consumers, as they are typically offered in a reasonable price bracket.

NOTE: Mini LED is a marketing term, typically used to highlight the advanced, full-array small dimming zones. Specs have to be checked, before blindly buying a TV, as the undefined term does not take backlight execution (as in whether it´s edge-lit, or direct-lit) and ability to actually process dimming zones properly into account.

OLED TV´s

OLED TV´s are the best type of widely accessible TV´s for consumers wanting the clearest, sharpest, high-contrast screens with the most accurate colors.

Since they don´t need a backlight panel and instead use their own backlight for each sub-pixel, as explained above, they offer a variety of perks over LCD-based technology. Sharper motion, less blur, a wide variety of viewing angles, you name it. The only real downside is, that they are typically not as bright as their lower-end competition.

OLED subcategories:

WOLED

WOLED is the oldest type of OLED panel currently on the market. It stands for white organic light-emitting diode, and it refers to the light used to create an image. WOLED TVs use a stack of OLED material to create white light as the panel base. This light then passes through three color filters to create the red, green, and blue subpixels. A fourth subpixel lets the white light straight through with no filter; this is used to increase the overall brightness of each pixel. WOLED panels are very common and have been used by brands like LG and Sony for many years.

WOLED displays have one drawback, compared to other OLED´s: They can´t display a very wide range of colors. However, they´re not nearly as sensitive to different light setups as QD-OLED´s.

QD-OLED

QD-OLEDs use the same basic principle as WOLED´s, but instead of white light, they start with blue light. This blue light then passes through a special layer that contains quantum dots. This material converts light from blue to red and green very efficiently, resulting in much more precise, brighter colors than traditional WOLED´s. QD-OLEDs tend to have brighter, more vivid colors [ and better HDR] than any other display technology out there, including LED's. They also have the same main strengths as WOLEDs, including perfect blacks when viewed in a dark room and a nearly instantaneous response time.

However, QD-OLED screens don´t have a polarizing layer, causing them to have a purple tint, as well as washed out and brightened blacks in rooms lit by ambient light.

In general, QD-OLED´s are superior to WOLED technology. However, all OLED´s are expensive, though every subcategory offers devices at different price points. Meaning that - no matter the theoretical possibilities of a technology - high-end WOLED´s likely have better processing etc. than low-end QD-LED´s, making them the better choice in some cases.

Niche high-end display technology

Micro LED

Micro LED aims to combine the strengths of OLED and Mini LED. Whereas Mini LED panels have many hundreds (or even thousands) of LEDs, in Micro LED panels, there's an individual LED for every single subpixel. Since these TVs can control the light output of each individual subpixel, they have the same amazing contrast as OLEDs, but without most of the downsides, like the chance of burn-in. They're very bright, can display a wide range of colors and are very, very expensive. Though Samsung does sell the TV´s they´re out of reach for most average consumers - and simply not necessary.

Niche high-end display technology

RGB Mini LED

RGB Mini LED an upcoming tech that aims to bridge the gap between Mini LED and Micro LED, improving colors and local dimming performance over existing RGB Mini LED tech at a more affordable price point. Instead of using blue LEDs as a backlight, RGB Mini LED uses separate red, green, and blue LEDs in each dimming zone. This eliminates the need for quantum dot color converters or inefficient color filters.

These types of TV´s will be available in a price bracket considerable for a large group of consumers, possibly laying the groundwork for future mid-tier technologies.

The reasons

Reasons for the sudden surge in casual phone photography are the shift towards social media, a type of media heavily reliant on digital images and the fact that there's no reason to hold back. Phones already have enough storage, some even starting at 256 Gigs, and cloud storage can be purchased via small monthly subscriptions.

However, camera quality has physical limitations, which opposes capitalistic principles of ongoing, large improvements. Brands somehow need to make improvements, while keeping camera sensors at a logical size, which is why they heavily rely on artificial enhancements and AI 'making up' data (pixels), which often results in an oversharpened look. HDR has also been gradually upscaled, to make pictures with little data look clear and vibrant.

More real details however, can only be obtained by letting more light hit the sensor - requiring a larger sensor.

Fake it 'till you make it

Another way companies have tried to 'improve' cameras, is by allowing for more zoom. Zoom needs space, which phones don't have, so they allow for more digital zoom, which they could have done years ago, since it's just cropping, not an advancement. The only limit for digital zoom is the minimum quality accepted by manufacturers, so a budget brand like Nothing can have the furthest digital zoom in the world with a terrible camera.

shifting the focus - and perfecting it

Another major way of improving cameras is stabilisation, which once again needs space. Apple has perfected the technology, attaching the sensor to thin magnetic cable straps, moving the sensor against the phone's movement in real time.

The same effect can be achieved by cropping into the image and stabilising in post, which reduces image quality.

Apple can only make 'shot on iPhone' commercials by fixing drawbacks in post and using huge stabilisation rigs, added lenses, optimal bright sets and battery packs. Apple also has the advantage of allowing users to export the RAW file, enabling post-production editors the optimal base for color grading.

Samsung ships similar features throughout their S-lineup.

Google's AI overview has repeatedly been criticised by website hosts, for causing a zero-traffic browsing experience. Users are provided with AI grnerated text, tailored to their needs and therefore do not click on links. Traffic is only generated, if a user clicks a link, not if an AI does so, as traffic is relevant for the site's ad revenue. Not only do companies not receive nearly as nuch ad revenue from people browsing with no intention of actually purchasing the product/service, their money spent on appearing as a sponsored result at the top is now hidden below the shiny, interactive explainer.

Agentic AI shopping

In addition, consumers are - especially with Google pushing AI agents - no longer falling for 'people who bought this product, acquired this add-on aswell, because they only click 'buy', once again without even visiting the site. They also can't find providers selling their niche style of e.g. driftwood and sail fabric decor, which they could come back to, because the AI doesn't even encourage to browse, causing massive losses for sellers.

Those sellers can just be small teams of influencers, trying to sell you a screwdriver after explaining how to fix your PC - But you don´t even get to that point, as the AI overview only shows credit (sources or links) if seen as necessary.

Advertisers

Advertisers - generation over 75% of Alphabet's (Google's parent company) revenue, could shift their investments towards more user-specific platforms going the opposite, ad-friendly direction, such as Meta. In fact, that´s already started happening, with Meta´s ad revenue growing with over 20% year over year since 2024, significantly surpassing Google.

Advertisers will have to fundamentally change the strategy of advertising on Google, prioritizing AI-driven placements over keyword-based website recommendations and formats like Dynamic Search Ads (algorithm generates keywords and headlines automatically. SEO professionals, e.g. from the marketing branch, are in massive trouble, if Google doesn´t provide visible web space eligible for positive ROI (return on investment).

Specifically, SEO (search engine optimization) now prioritizes comprehensive topic coverage and conversational user intent, rather than strict keyword density or exact-match terms. This seems like a step in the right direction,

Information:

Since Reddit struck the deals with Google, making them a major data feeder for Gemini, they´ve had massive trouble with traffic. They used to be the major portal for specific questions*, now their exact content is served straight by AI.*

Second: The Users

Users are currently unable to turn off AI overview. Due to the flashy, animated design, they are often drawn to the easy and direct answer to their question, though their intent was to research and summarize themselves - which in many cases could even lead to a more accurate answer.

By providing the tool, Google enables tailored answers in seconds, which eliminates the need for certain skills, such as the short and long term memory of facts of any kind, forcibly causing cognitive decline. While other services, like ChatGPT, offer the same principle, they aren´t search engines and consumers may choose to avoid their usage. With Google, however, you don´t have many alternatives.

From my experience, AI overview blocker extensions don´t work reliably either.

And even if you do ignore the AI overview, you can´t really be pleased with your work of figuring something out by navigating dozens of sites, because you know that you scrolled past the answer hours ago.

About the inaccurate answer mentioned: While sources vary strongly, depending on you preferred sources and question, AI is not reliable. Google Gemini (powering the AI overview) pulls about 20% of it´s sources from Reddit - a forum based on opinions, open for everyone to publish on - and another third from Quora and YouTube - same problem.

Third: Google themselves

Unless you´ve been living under a rock, you´ve probably heard of the new Fitbit Air, let alone the WHOOP. These have been out for quite some time now and Garmin - you know, THE smartwatch and tracking company, now sees the potential of a new trend towards face- and screenless fitness trackers. Because who needs the data on their wrist, if you could just wear a sleek woven band and look up the stats on your phone?

WHOOP´s business model

WHOOP as we know it today has existed since 2018, at the time at the brink of bankrupcy. The real growth only started in 2020 onward, when people had too much time to realise they really need to start paying 200 to 350 USD a year to track their fitness and motivate themselves to finally start that workout. Once they stop paying, the wristband itself becomes useless.

Now here´s an idea: Buy a cheap smartwatch and pay 200 USD once and just own the product. But if a sleek, modern look is your thing? Feel free. The thing is, though: If you pay the 200 USD+ subscription - which you have to, because WHOOP doesn´t offer any stats and tracking for free - you´re going to tell your friends and anyone who might care remotely.

The Fitbit Air as the affordable allrounder, the Garmin CIRQA as the...?

Back to the point, Google´s Fitbit Air is what really had people wondering whether Garmin will jump on the train. It would make for a great product for people who already use, say, a lily 2 as a compromise because looks stylish while also providing the data, or people who simply want to wear their fancy watch without losing out on the tracking. Because the problem many people face, when buying a smartwatch, is that they are simply not pretty and the "compromise"-watches Garmin offers are far from top spec. Garmin has not announced the product yet, but a trademark filing, a product listing and Garmin’s own app code make it very clear what´s being developed.

Whether the Garmin CIRQA will be any different is to be seen, but it would be an obvious way to separate themselves from the Fitbit Air, if they made a more premium strap. This way, the product would sit between the kind of basic Air, priced at 99 USD (plus an optional 99.99 USD/year Google health premium subscription) and the overkill extremists WHOOP, all while offering it as an one time purchase (Besides the very much optional Connect+ AI features locked behind a subscription paywall). The pricing is allegedly said to be around 200€ or 200 USD depending on the market, like many companies purposefully ignoring conversion rates and taking the most out of consumers purchasing power. That said, it will feature the Elevate V5, used in the Fenix 8 and Forerunner 970 and the skin temperature and pulse oximetry sensors necessary for sleep and recovery tracking. Reports suggest that the CIRQA will not feature any exceptional hardware or GPS and instead focus on having the best software and calibration, though WHOOP is tough competition and the real benefit will only be for people who already have data in Garmin Connect and can keep using the ecosystem. It will focus on the same metrics as the WHOOP, that being sleep tracking and stress recovery. For an in-depth review and comparison, check out THE5KRUNNER (linked below, not sponsored).

Keeping it present

For now though, the Fitbit Air has the advantage of being first in its price category and offering huge value for that price. Whether Amazfit and Polar will catch on is uncertain, but in my opinion unlikely, given customers brand relationships. I personally question, whether the concept will catch on enough for investors to pour in enough money for proper smartwatch-unrelated improvements. While I do think that they haven´t reached their peak just yet, I feel like further generations can only be economically viable, if the technology that is being improved for smartwatches anyway, can be implemented for screenless straps. So will Garmin normalize and spread screenless trackers like they did with smartwatches? No, as long as smartwatches´ benefits are the bigger eyecatcher than their subjective looks, the market won´t experience a vast change anytime soon.

CIRQA expectation: Garmin CIRQA: Release Date, Price, Specs and Whoop Comparison (2026)

CIRQA vs. Fitbit Air: Garmin CIRQA vs Fitbit Air: Who Wins the Whoop Switcher?

In most countries, the majority of consumers buy their phones in stores, paying the full price once and then using their device until it dies or they simply feel like enough time has passed for reasonable upgrades to be implemented in the newer models.

In the United States on the other hand, carriers like AT&T, T-mobile and Verizon dominate the carrier market, which (according to CIRP - Apple report)¹ in total make up about 55% of all phone purchases in the country. This is a unique situation only currently so prominent in the United States.

The follow-up

Now, Apple profits massively off of this sales structure, as they are achieving over 75% of their total sales through the strategy, which essentially forces you to buy a new phone every two to three years, even if the old phone hasn´t really aged yet. The same goes for Samsung, though Apple remains the dominant seller² with a market share of nearly 60%, Samsung following not-so-close-behind with just over 20% (That is total sales, not just carrier sales).²

The problem doesn´t end there though, because you don´t just need to buy a phone, you need to buy a phone from a company that has a contract with your carrier. And those contracts - surprise, surprise - are dominated by the mentioned brands, which is why smaller or more niche brands like Nothing or Xiaomi essentially have no good way of expanding within the US market, with even Google struggling to grow substantially.

(Sidenote, Google Pixel hardware is famously lacking in performance and Google Pixel software is notorious for bugging out (especially the camera app, which is arguably the most important feature for many consumers), but let´s not pretend the average person knows that.)

The cultural factor

In addition to the way the market operates, the cultural factor is not to be ignored. If in any group, say a friend group of students, the majority already has an iPhone, their favorite celebrities (who do everything right and should definitely be copied) - carry an iPhone, the cashier at Walmart - calls the manager on an iPhone, then of course there´s an undeniable peer pressure to be like them and show off the newest bright orange brick of a phone (from a company whose abilities to adjust for an AI market demand shift go no further than Genmoji).

And if you can´t even see your account draining hundreds of dollars, as it it doing so very slowly, then why not? Luckily foldables haven´t reached the "cultural peer pressure"-state yet, because that would get very expensive very quickly.

The political factor

The biggest players in the industry currently are from China and the US (besides Samsung), which means that US consumers basically don´t have many choices, even if they don´t have a carrier plan. Because Chinese brands are either failing, getting banned or sanctioned or - as a result of both the previous arguments - simply not being trusted. Because the narrative "US-designed is good, Chinese is bad" is a huge factor, even if it´s only subconsciously affecting consumers. A driving factor of this is the fact that phone brands like to play with the legal meaning and the effect that slogans may have. Meaning, that while "Designed in California" may sound great, where are the low-wage workers actually assembling or creating the parts for your iPhone? In China and Taiwan, not far from the assembly line for Oppo and Xiaomi devices. But once again, let´s not pretend the average consumer knows that, it´s tucked away well behind the curtain.

To be fair, TSMC, the semiconductor manufacturer US companies massively depend on, is building factories in the US, more specifically Arizona, which - while still being a Taiwanese company using Dutch technology - brings the US manufacturers one step closer towards their dream of independence.

Different approaches

Different approaches have been made to be unique as a brand, in order to acquire a piece of the pie, which would be great to bring more competition and variety, even if it was just in lower price categories. However, so far - not just in the US, but globally - these approaches haven´t been able to change up the landscape. The strategies are not substantial enough or only work in certain buyer demographics. Take Fairphone, for example: They knew they had to target the European market, not just because they are Dutch and that´s just how growing a company locally works, but because their whole selling point is to be environmentally friendly and fair. This calls for a niche buyer demographic in itself, as the amount of younger, eco-conscious customers with enough money is little. In addition to that, these people will have to have an interest in researching which non-average phone to buy, because chances are they won´t just stumble upon them in their local store. In the US, even younger generations have a conservative tendency, meaning while it is a huge market, it´s also the hardest to conquer for the brand.

¹https://cirpapple.substack.com/p/mobile-carriers-are-critical-to-iphones

²https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

Yes, video content wasn´t much bigger in the unfolded state and a wide-fold would fix that, but having that squashed, square format when closed seems like a huge trade-off for me personally. I´m not sure how well Samsung has integrated apps and websites to work well with the aspect ratios, the closed one in particular, but I have a feeling devs have got a lot of work and glitch-fixing to do, if these phones get popular.

We don´t know for sure who´s idea a passport-style was, with Apple being the first to have publicly - if not intentionally - introduced the concept to the public.

Now, it´s no secret that confidential data seems to flow seamlessly between the two big players Apple and Samsung. What a coincidence that both of them release an ultra-thin phone just months apart. What a coincidence they both had titanium rails in the same period. And it´s not like Samsung quickly copied Apple - there´s whole supply chains being coordinated to bring changes to the market.

The point is, that multitasking may be a key factor in the next few updates, given the tablet-like form factor allows for a great use of the already existent PC-like pop-up view windows OneUI already enables on "normal" phones. It´ll be interesting to see how that improves and if they´ll go full on multiple desktop mode or keep it closer to a normal phone interface.

Unlike Samsung, who have been officially teasing for months now, Apple is keeping their original approach of leaking as little as possible. For this reason, the only real evidence we have is the case manufacturer´s dummies, the fact that the iPhone Air exists, which would be an obvious stepping stone toward a phone with two thinner that average halves, and iOS 27 including code named "foldState" and "angleDegrees". In addition to that, Apple unveiled the "Device Hub", which lets developers adjust the shape format of their applications, potentially fixing what I mentioned about devs not being ready for the Samsung wide-fold. However, this could just be useful for any broad portfolio of devices. Meaning, that devs can make apps work on both the iPhone, the iPad and the MacBook more easily. I think the arrival of an Apple fold is pretty certain still, but I do question - even though Device Hub is out - if Apple is ready for a wide foldable. The company has always sort of laid back and let others do the gambling, while finding their own way of doing it, once the technology is ready. In this case, they´ve done just that when it comes to e.g. crease technology, but the form factor is a huge gamble.

Another question mark is, whether Google will jump on the train. For now, it´s a very clear no, as this would oppose Google´s marketing strategy massively, which has been build around building hype through what can barely still be called early leaks.

Android just introduced Bubbles for multitasking, which in my opinion show that - though it is a multitasking feature - Google is not focusing on the big screens, since bubbles are nearly equally useful on normal phones as on foldables. I feel like they would have leapt more towards size-adjustable windows like Samsung, as these make more sense when optimising for larger screens.

In conclusion: Normal foldables make little sense for some tasks, but I think there´s a reason why Samsung will allegedly keep the wide-fold as the lower-spec foldable in their lineup, which is that it´s a niche product in an already niche category. I also think that it will be a phase, not a product line to be kept up, kind of like Apple´s mid-range shenanegans, which only last two years.