I just saw the future of phones inside Samsung Display with 2 jaw-dropping ‘slidable’ concepts 46%

By Mark Spoonauer44%

7/14/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Anecdotal, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 25.7% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 1,474 faulty-reasoning hits from 615 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48% and a BS Rank of 46% (11,906 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.40% of the article peer group.

Right now the best foldable phones are considered leading edge when it comes to phone design, but that might not be the case for long. 
I was one of the first people in the world to go inside Samsung Display’s headquarters in South Korea, and I got a sneak peek at new concepts that take things in boldly weird new directions. 
Samsung Display showed us two so-called “slidable” designs. 
The first looks like a compact slab phone, dubbed the Flex Slidable. 
Starting at 4.7 inches, it expands via a sliding mechanism to reach a mammoth 7.2 inches. 
According to Samsung, pulling one end of the device causes a hidden display to slide out. 
But I could see there being a button to let you slide the display on command. 
The actual process of unfurling was on the slow side, but again this was a demo concept. 
The second slidable was even more intriguing, called Flex Hybrid. 
This concept also has a sliding display that grows to 7.2 inches, but it’s also foldable for even more versatility. 
It’s the first mobile device I’ve seen that combines the two technologies  foldable and slidable  into a single product. 
Foldable tech is applied to the left side of the screen and slidable technology to the right, which according to Samsung makes this a product “that can satisfy both portability and entertainment needs simultaneously.” 
When are slidables coming? 
So my question for Samsung Display was, how close are we to slidable phones actually becoming real shipping products? 
“We have to consider the real-world usage pattern,” said Byung Duk Yang, executive vice president at Samsung Display. 
“So I think the display might be ready, but we should consider many aspects of the usage. 
When we have confidence that we can deliver meaningful innovation to users, then we are going to release the product.” 
“It’s not easy, the slidable form factor. 
I know many people are very interested in slidable and stretchable (phones). 
But I’m an engineer, and from the engineer point of view there are many obstacles we have to overcome.” 
Byung Duk Yang, Executive VP of the Core Component Technology Team, Samsung Display Of course, it’s one thing to be able to show off a slick demo device. 
It’s quite another to deliver a sliding form factor that reaches the level of reliability Samsung Display has achieved with foldable panels. 
We saw a mini torture chamber at Samsung Display that folds displays up to 500,000 times. 
“It’s not easy, the slidable form factor. 
I know many people are very interested in slidable and stretchable (phones). 
But I’m an engineer, and from the engineer point of view there are many obstacles we have to overcome,” Yang said. 
Zero bezels are (almost) here 
Last but not least, I checked out Samsung Display’s nearly bezel-less display. 
How small are we talking? 
The 6.8-inch OLED screen’s bezels are so tiny I could barely make them out as I got up real close. 
Samsung positioned the panel behind a tablet-size display on purpose so you couldn’t tell where the small screen ended and the big one began. 
The top size has a border of just 0.4mm, and the left, right and bottom have bezels that measure 0.6mm. 
Samsung achieved this feat through advanced designed techniques, including minimizing the width of the outer wiring and using sophisticated module technology. 
The result is bezels that are up to 40% smaller compared to the phones shipping today. 
Apple is rumored to be working on a nearly bezel-free handset for the iPhone 20 , but Samsung could beat them to the punch. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Mark Spoonauer: 0.7%Tomsguide: 1.5%Anchoring Bias2.6%This article: 25.7%Mark Spoonauer: 8.3%Tomsguide: 3.1%Availability Heuristic25.7%This article: 2.6%Mark Spoonauer: 0.7%Tomsguide: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Mark Spoonauer: 0.2%Tomsguide: 3.6%Overconfidence Bias0.8%This article: 7.5%Mark Spoonauer: 2.5%Tomsguide: 4.6%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 1.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.6%Mark Spoonauer: 0.9%Tomsguide: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 2.8%Mark Spoonauer: 0.7%Tomsguide: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.8%This article: 18.9%Mark Spoonauer: 7.4%Tomsguide: 4.9%Optimism Bias18.9%This article: 9.1%Mark Spoonauer: 2.3%Tomsguide: 1.3%Pessimism Bias9.1%This article: 1.6%Mark Spoonauer: 0.4%Tomsguide: 4.0%Negativity Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 1.5%Tomsguide: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 1.6%Tomsguide: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Mark Spoonauer: 2.0%Tomsguide: 0.4%In-Group Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Mark Spoonauer: 3.5%Tomsguide: 5.3%Halo Effect11.4%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Mark Spoonauer: 3.0%Tomsguide: 1.2%Recency Bias4.1%This article: 11.2%Mark Spoonauer: 2.8%Tomsguide: 0.5%Primacy Effect11.2%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.4%Mark Spoonauer: 8.9%Tomsguide: 3.8%Appeal to Authority24.4%This article: 5.2%Mark Spoonauer: 1.3%Tomsguide: 1.6%False Dilemma5.2%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.3%Mark Spoonauer: 4.3%Tomsguide: 5.2%Hasty Generalization13.3%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.5%Mark Spoonauer: 3.7%Tomsguide: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion12.5%This article: 8.8%Mark Spoonauer: 2.2%Tomsguide: 0.5%Begging the Question8.8%This article: 3.9%Mark Spoonauer: 1.0%Tomsguide: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.9%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.1%Mark Spoonauer: 0.8%Tomsguide: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.1%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.0%Mark Spoonauer: 5.2%Tomsguide: 2.7%Anecdotal21.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.8%Mark Spoonauer: 5.4%Tomsguide: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.8%Mark Spoonauer: 0.7%Tomsguide: 0.2%Special Pleading2.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Mark Spoonauer: 0.7%Tomsguide: 1.4%Unattributed Quote2.9%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 4.6%Tomsguide: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.9%Mark Spoonauer: 13.0%Tomsguide: 12.4%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 4.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Spoonauer: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Mark Spoonauer: 3.7%Tomsguide: 14.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.4%

615 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers43%attributed speech351writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageSamsung Display • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSamsung • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSamsung • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 18 words • 100.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 17 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 20 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 7 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 12 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 19 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 7 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 12 words • 0.0% coverageByung Duk Yang • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSamsung • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSamsung • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Samsung

100%flagged-word coverage
95 attributed words36% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +29.0 ptsWriter: 6.8%Samsung: 35.8%35.8%Biased Writer Voice-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Samsung: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.