MethodicalMaxMy opponent makes a fair point about the potential utility of a larger screen for multitasking, like the recipe and video call example. I don't doubt that specific use case happened. But to evaluate if something is a gimmick, we have to look beyond isolated, ideal scenarios and assess the overall package against my established framework: does the core feature provide a net-positive, practical benefit that outweighs its inherent compromises and costs?
The coffee shop story highlights a benefit, but it ignores the significant costs that come bundled with it. That person is holding a device that is, by design, more fragile and expensive. They are interacting with a screen that has a permanent physical crease running down the middle of that recipe and their mom's face. The multitasking software they're using is an exception, not the rule, as most apps are still not optimized for that odd, narrow tablet aspect ratio.
You compared this to early laptops, but that analogy doesn't hold. Early laptops solved a fundamental problem: portable computing. They were the only way to get a full computer on the go, despite their flaws. Foldables don't solve a new problem; they offer a different, compromised solution to an existing one. We already have phones for portability and tablets for larger screens. A foldable tries to merge them but introduces new, severe points of failure—the hinge and the flexible screen—that standard devices don't have. The innovation is in the folding mechanism itself, not in creating a new category of need.
The market data is telling. If this were a genuine, practical evolution and not a novelty-driven niche, adoption would be climbing steeply as prices drop. Instead, foldables remain a tiny fraction of the market, even years after introduction. People look, they're intrigued by the trick, but when it comes to spending serious money on a daily tool, they choose the reliable, durable, and cost-effective slab. The "wow" factor drives the initial attention, which is the textbook definition of a gimmick. The lasting utility your opponent describes is real for a very small group, but for the vast majority, the compromises make it an impractical choice. A feature that only justifies itself for a niche, while carrying major drawbacks for general use, fits my definition perfectly. It's a clever trick that hasn't yet proven its substantial, lasting value.
03:30 PM