CNET45%

Samsung Is Under Serious Pressure. Here’s Why It Needs to Nail Its Next Z Fold Phone 84%

By Katie Collins97%

7/20/2026, 10:34:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 210 hits. Analysis detected 2,768 faulty-reasoning hits from 798 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.4% and a BS Rank of 84% (3,536 of 21,203 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.30% of the article peer group.

As Samsung gears up for its annual folding phone fest, the company is under more pressure than ever to prove its foldables are the ones to beat. 
At Galaxy Unpacked, due to take place on Wednesday in London, Samsung is widely expected to unveil its next-generation Galaxy Z Fold and Galaxy Z Flip devices  and it needs them to be good. 
Samsung’s foldable line dates back to 2019 and the company’s latest devices, the Galaxy Z Fold 7 and Galaxy Z Flip 7, both unveiled this time last year, impressed us with their mix of durability, practicality and innovation. 
But this year, we hope to see Samsung really push its foldables to the next level in response to shifting market sands that mean it can’t afford to rest on its laurels. 
Seven years on from launching the first Galaxy Fold, Samsung has established itself as the market leader for this phone category, but the competition is heating up. 
In 2025, North America saw a 28% year-on-year jump in foldable phone shipments, according to Counterpoint Research, but Samsung’s dominance declined, with Motorola gaining significant ground. 
That’s all down to the Razr  a flip phone in the style of the Galaxy Z Flip 7 that costs around $300 less than its Samsung rival. 
The success of this phone sparked Motorola’s market share to jump to 44% in 2025, an increase of around 14% since 2024, which is almost exactly the same amount as Samsung lost. 
Motorola now has four foldable phones at a variety of prices, including the Razr Fold  its first book-style foldable, which it introduced earlier this year. 
Other competition is coming from Google with the Pixel Fold, and in countries outside of the US, Chinese companies, including Honor and Huawei. 
If rumors are to be believed, Apple will also join them in a matter of months, with many expecting the company to launch a widescreen, book-style folding phone at its annual September event. 
Then there’s RAMageddon, the memory shortage that has already forced Samsung to raise its phone prices and will likely impact the company’s new foldables, too. 
All of this adds up to a high-stakes moment for Samsung. 
It can’t afford to simply rely on minor upgrades  it needs to prove it has the chops to dominate the foldable market with both its Flip and Fold phone, but especially the latter. 
When it comes to the Galaxy Z Fold, Samsung’s biggest competition comes from a phone that doesn’t exist yet, and from a company that might change the shape of the game altogether. 
Foldables have yet to become widespread and are largely still in the early-adopter stage, but with Apple expected to unveil its first folding iPhone as soon as this fall, that could change very soon. 
It’s not that Samsung and other foldable-makers haven’t done a sterling job of architecting and refining this subcategory of phones, but Apple’s track record for mainstreaming emerging tech means it could be pivotal  especially in the American market. 
When Apple enters the fray, Counterpoint forecasts that it could absorb a 28% share of the foldables market by the end of this year. 
Many people buying Apple foldables will be existing iPhone owners, but the research firm also predicts Apple’s offering has the potential to turn the heads of current Android users considering the leap to a book-style foldable. 
“The eagerly anticipated Apple foray into this category threatens to reset consumer expectations,” says Paolo Pescatore, analyst at PP Foresight. 
In anticipation of this, Samsung will need to put its most competitive foot forward. 
“Samsung must use its early market lead, deep experience, and partnerships such as Gemini to exploit the unique capabilities of the foldable form factor fully,” he adds. 
“Ultimately, this is about delivering tightly integrated hardware, software and services as one seamless experience. 
” 
Already, we’re expecting Samsung to fight off the incoming competition by unveiling a new, wider rectangular device, which is much like Apple’s rumored take on the foldable phone. 
Key to the success of this device will be Samsung’s approach to using this fresh shape and screen aspect ratio to enhance the experience it offers on its standard Fold-style phone. 
The company can use the years of insight into how people get the most from their foldable phones to its advantage here. 
And if it gets it right, it will not only continue to be Apple’s primary rival in all areas of the smartphone space, but it could prove that its pioneering work in foldables has been fundamental to crafting the one market-leading device. 
Everything’s to play for and the pressure on Samsung is intense. 
We can’t wait to see how the chips land. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.7%Katie Collins: 7.1%CNET: 1.7%Confirmation Bias17.7%This article: 6.9%Katie Collins: 3.3%CNET: 2.3%Anchoring Bias6.9%This article: 14.8%Katie Collins: 9.9%CNET: 2.9%Availability Heuristic14.8%This article: 5.9%Katie Collins: 2.0%CNET: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.9%This article: 4.0%Katie Collins: 1.3%CNET: 0.2%Hindsight Bias4.0%This article: 7.3%Katie Collins: 4.2%CNET: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias7.3%This article: 10.3%Katie Collins: 14.6%CNET: 4.6%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 9.6%Katie Collins: 6.1%CNET: 1.3%Loss Aversion9.6%This article: 3.4%Katie Collins: 1.1%CNET: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 2.8%Katie Collins: 0.9%CNET: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.8%This article: 14.7%Katie Collins: 11.2%CNET: 3.7%Optimism Bias14.7%This article: 15.5%Katie Collins: 5.2%CNET: 1.3%Pessimism Bias15.5%This article: 20.1%Katie Collins: 10.2%CNET: 3.6%Negativity Bias20.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Katie Collins: 9.8%CNET: 4.3%Halo Effect14.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.3%Katie Collins: 5.9%CNET: 1.4%Recency Bias14.3%This article: 4.8%Katie Collins: 1.6%CNET: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.5%Katie Collins: 1.2%CNET: 0.1%Straw Man3.5%This article: 11.3%Katie Collins: 9.9%CNET: 4.3%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 11.8%Katie Collins: 3.9%CNET: 1.2%False Dilemma11.8%This article: 4.3%Katie Collins: 1.4%CNET: 0.5%Slippery Slope4.3%This article: 1.9%Katie Collins: 0.6%CNET: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.9%This article: 26.3%Katie Collins: 8.8%CNET: 4.8%Hasty Generalization26.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 2.8%CNET: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.6%Katie Collins: 3.3%CNET: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion5.6%This article: 1.8%Katie Collins: 0.6%CNET: 0.4%Begging the Question1.8%This article: 13.9%Katie Collins: 7.1%CNET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.0%Katie Collins: 3.3%CNET: 0.3%Burden of Proof10.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.1%Katie Collins: 2.7%CNET: 0.1%Composition/Division8.1%This article: 4.8%Katie Collins: 1.6%CNET: 6.2%Anecdotal4.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 24.1%Katie Collins: 8.0%CNET: 3.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)24.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.4%Katie Collins: 5.5%CNET: 1.0%Unattributed Quote16.4%This article: 2.5%Katie Collins: 1.7%CNET: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 16.8%Katie Collins: 10.8%CNET: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice16.8%This article: 13.8%Katie Collins: 6.6%CNET: 2.5%Indoctrination13.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Collins: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Katie Collins: 1.1%CNET: 13.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

798 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers11%attributed speech711writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageCounterpoint Research • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coveragePaolo Pescatore • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coveragePaolo Pescatore • 27 words • 100.0% coveragePaolo Pescatore • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePaolo Pescatore • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paolo Pescatore

98%flagged-word coverage
63 attributed words72% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+31.2 ptsWriter: 11.7%Paolo Pescatore: 42.9%42.9%Quote-first Misdirection+31.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paolo Pescatore: 31.7%31.7%Biased Writer Voice-18.8 ptsWriter: 18.8%Paolo Pescatore: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-18.4 ptsWriter: 18.4%Paolo Pescatore: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Paolo Pescatore: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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