CNET47%

Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra Needs These Upgrades to Win Me Over 69%

By Prakhar Khanna54%

7/6/2026, 5:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 54.3% saturation with 483 hits. Analysis detected 2,326 faulty-reasoning hits from 890 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,905 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.50% of the article peer group.

The Galaxy Z Fold 7 was one of my favorite phones of 2025. 
It was spectacularly thin and light, and unlike other Samsung foldables of the past, it felt like a regular phone in everyday use. 
The Korean phone-maker also added a few crucial upgrades like a stronger hinge, 200-megapixel main camera and a bigger cover screen, helping it win the CNET Editors' Choice Award in Abrar Al-Heeti's review. 
A year later, it remains one of the slimmest and lightest book-style folding phones, setting the stage for its successor, the rumored Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra. 
That's right, Samsung is rumored to add an "Ultra" moniker to its book-style fold, while the all-new wide-screen device that's also rumored could be named the Galaxy Z Fold 8. 
The two phones are likely to be announced within a few weeks, but ahead of the launch, there are tougher challengers out there. 
I'm coming from the Oppo Find N6 and Honor Magic V6, and I noticed several meaningful quality-of-life features that I wish Samsung would add to its upcoming device. 
I enjoyed using a less reflective inner screen with a minimal crease and didn't miss out on a good zoom camera. 
I didn't have any such issues on the Find N6. 
The Oppo phone didn't attract smudges and it was easier to view in direct sunlight, thanks to a less-reflective panel with almost no crease. 
Talking about the crease, you can barely feel it with your nail and it's hard to see it. 
In contrast, my Galaxy Z Fold 7's screen bump is deeper and has deepened over time. 
Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold 7 got a much-needed 200-megapixel camera upgrade last year. 
Samsung also updated the ultrawide camera to a slightly bigger sensor. 
However, it didn't upgrade the third camera. 
As a result, the Galaxy Z Fold 7 had the same 10-megapixel 3x optical zoom telephoto camera as the Fold 6, which was the same as the Fold 5 and its predecessor from 2022. 
Samsung has been using the same telephoto camera for four years now. 
While it has improved the processing, its 1/3.94-inch sensor size is too small to offer a pleasing-looking natural bokeh. 
A bigger sensor with larger physical aperture can help with stronger, more natural bokeh effect by physically narrowing the depth of field. 
It could allow the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra to have one of the most complete camera systems on a smartphone. 
We'll likely know soon whether any of these upgrades make it into the next line of Galaxy foldable phones. 
Until then, you can check out what we've heard so far about the Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra in this rumor roundup. 
The Galaxy Z Fold 7 had the lowest battery capacity compared with other recent book-style foldable phones. 
While I liked its battery optimization in my first month of use, during which the 4,400-mAh cell was getting me through the day, things changed when I started traveling. 
Once I was on the road, the constant navigation, messaging and camera use didn't help, and I was left with middling battery life. 
By contrast, both the Oppo Find N6 (with a 6,000-mAh battery) and Honor Magic V6 (with a 6,600-mAh battery) fared better in similar usage. 
The phones have batteries with silicon-carbon anode tech, which allows for more capacity without adding additional weight. 
Both the Oppo and Honor phones are slightly thicker and heavier than their Samsung rival, but I don't mind because they remain comfortable to hold and use with one hand. 
I hope Samsung adopts silicon-carbon battery technology for its upcoming foldable phones, but there are no rumors pointing towards any such adoption. 
However, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is tipped to pack a larger 5,000-mAh battery in a thinner design, weighing the same 215 grams as the Z Fold 7. 
It is expected to be powered by the same Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite "for Galaxy" chip as the Galaxy S26 Ultra. 
Going by the processor's efficiency on that phone, a 5,000-mAh battery on the Z Fold 8 Ultra could potentially deliver an all-day battery life. 
Hopefully, it'll last longer when traveling too. 
The Galaxy Z Fold 7 had a major design overhaul last year. 
It went from feeling like I was holding a thick, narrow bar to holding a regular phone. 
And it was the best Samsung redesign in years. 
However, the Galaxy Z Fold 7 has a massive flaw for left-handed people. 
You simply can't hold the phone in your left hand without feeling a sharp edge poking into your palm. 
The current-gen Samsung foldable has flat sides, which feel premium in the hand. 
But the bottom-left corner, right below the hinge, is too sharp to hold it comfortably. 
I noticed this when I first held the phone in my left hand and it painfully dug into my palm. 
Now, I make sure I use it with my right hand. 
I haven't had this issue on any other folding phone in 2026. 
Most of them have curved edges, so they are more comfortable to use, no matter which hand I'm holding them in. 
I hope Samsung fixes this design so the upcoming Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra will be more comfortable for both hands. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.4%Prakhar Khanna: 1.9%CNET: 1.7%Confirmation Bias8.4%This article: 6.6%Prakhar Khanna: 1.8%CNET: 2.3%Anchoring Bias6.6%This article: 15.2%Prakhar Khanna: 2.8%CNET: 2.9%Availability Heuristic15.2%This article: 7.5%Prakhar Khanna: 1.4%CNET: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 3.8%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.2%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 2.4%Prakhar Khanna: 3.4%CNET: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias2.4%This article: 1.5%Prakhar Khanna: 3.6%CNET: 4.5%Framing Effect1.5%This article: 3.4%Prakhar Khanna: 0.6%CNET: 1.3%Loss Aversion3.4%This article: 4.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.9%CNET: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.4%CNET: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.1%Prakhar Khanna: 7.4%CNET: 3.8%Optimism Bias19.1%This article: 4.8%Prakhar Khanna: 0.6%CNET: 1.3%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 18.2%Prakhar Khanna: 1.8%CNET: 3.6%Negativity Bias18.2%This article: 8.4%Prakhar Khanna: 2.2%CNET: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Prakhar Khanna: 0.1%CNET: 0.4%In-Group Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Prakhar Khanna: 5.4%CNET: 4.3%Halo Effect16.5%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Prakhar Khanna: 1.6%CNET: 1.4%Recency Bias9.4%This article: 1.5%Prakhar Khanna: 0.5%CNET: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.1%Prakhar Khanna: 2.5%CNET: 4.2%Appeal to Authority6.1%This article: 2.6%Prakhar Khanna: 0.9%CNET: 1.2%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.5%CNET: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.2%Prakhar Khanna: 4.9%CNET: 4.7%Hasty Generalization12.2%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.4%CNET: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.7%Prakhar Khanna: 1.1%CNET: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 1.5%Prakhar Khanna: 1.0%CNET: 0.5%Begging the Question1.5%This article: 13.6%Prakhar Khanna: 2.1%CNET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.6%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.9%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.9%This article: 2.5%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.3%Appeal to Nature2.5%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.1%CNET: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 54.3%Prakhar Khanna: 7.3%CNET: 6.3%Anecdotal54.3%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.8%Prakhar Khanna: 4.2%CNET: 3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.8%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.2%CNET: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 1.6%CNET: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.4%CNET: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.5%Prakhar Khanna: 7.9%CNET: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice1.5%This article: 5.4%Prakhar Khanna: 5.0%CNET: 2.4%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Prakhar Khanna: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Prakhar Khanna: 6.6%CNET: 13.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.5%

890 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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