Sorry to say this, fellows, but I don’t trust your Galaxy Fold tests

Spread the love

The Galaxy Fold flaunts a brand new form factor, and as far as the exterior design goes, this is the first device of its kind to enter uncharted territories. The biggest question surrounding Samsung’s first foldable phone is just how durable it is, and to this end, our boss Danny took the device to Egypt for a real-world test in a sandy environment. To our surprise, the phone survived unscathed.Meanwhile, various independent websites took it upon themselves to test the durability of the intricate hinge and foldable panel in lab-like conditions using a robotic contraption that repeatedly folds and unfolds the device. But as much as I appreciate the effort of trying to determine the Fold’s durability, I must say that I don’t trust these independent Galaxy Fold tests whatsoever.Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to imply that the websites and/or reviewers who have performed these Galaxy Fold tests are not to be trusted. All I’m saying is that the test they’ve devised seems to be flawed and very unrepresentative of real-world usage. The biggest issue I have is that they try to cram 100,000+ folds in as little time as possible, and they don’t seem to take into consideration the damage that can occur from heat generated by friction.No account for frictional heating in these independent testsBecause of this, the fold/unfold tests I’ve seen so far seem to defeat their own purpose. They aim to quickly determine how the hinge and/or the foldable panel will fare after years of usage, but the only thing they seem to reveal is how well the Galaxy Fold fares after a few hours of abuse.You may recall that Samsung tested the Galaxy Fold’s mechanical hinge using its own robotic contraptions, but take a closer look at the official video below and you will see that Samsung’s test doesn’t put unnecessary (or unrealistic) strain on the moving parts. There’s always a pause between each fold/unfold, and I assume this has less to do with Samsung wanting to shine a bright light on its product, and more to do with wanting to avoid frictional heating during testing – a phenomenon you would not have to worry about at all during normal usage, therefore, something that should not be a part of the testing procedure.

Leave a Reply