CNET⁠47%

Here’s How Apple Gets Folks to Pay More for a Folding iPhone - CNET ⁠64%

By Bridget Carey⁠81%

7/24/2026, 5:36:57 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Optimism Bias, and Anchoring Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 37.4% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 587 faulty-reasoning hits from 254 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (7,916 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.80% of the article peer group.

I’ve been thinking a lot this week about the phone I used before my iPhone. 
It was a fantastic little flip feature phone called the LG EnV. 
It had a full QWERTY keyboard, a 2-megapixel camera with lens cover and flash, plus it played MP3s and rocked an SD card memory slot. 
So when Steve Jobs showed off the first iPhone in 2007, it didn’t impress me when compared with my EnV. 
Why would I want to downgrade to fewer features and pay more than three times as much? 
History doesn’t always repeat in tech, but it often rhymes. 
In this week’s episode of One More Thing, embedded below, I explain how folding phones are giving me that same feeling I had 19 years ago. 
Apple’s rumored folding iPhone is said to be a lot like the new Samsung Galaxy Fold 8. 
But it won’t likely have as good a camera as my current iPhone 17 Pro Max — and it might cost way more, too. 
Pricing will be a big challenge for Apple when it launches a folding phone — and price is a challenge with all folding phones. 
But news this week hints that maybe a new device upgrade plan at Apple will ease the pain of switching to a more expensive folding iPhone. 
For more One More Thing, subscribe to CNET’s YouTube page to catch Bridget Carey breaking down the latest Apple news and issues every Friday. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Bridget Carey: 3.4%CNET: 1.7%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 17.3%Bridget Carey: 8.0%CNET: 2.3%Anchoring Bias17.3%This article: 9.8%Bridget Carey: 6.7%CNET: 2.9%Availability Heuristic9.8%This article: 3.9%Bridget Carey: 4.7%CNET: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 2.6%CNET: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 7.5%CNET: 4.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Bridget Carey: 4.5%CNET: 1.3%Loss Aversion6.7%This article: 6.7%Bridget Carey: 4.9%CNET: 0.5%Status Quo Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.7%Bridget Carey: 6.6%CNET: 3.8%Optimism Bias19.7%This article: 9.4%Bridget Carey: 6.3%CNET: 1.3%Pessimism Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 3.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 1.6%CNET: 4.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Bridget Carey: 2.2%CNET: 1.4%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 9.8%Bridget Carey: 3.3%CNET: 0.4%Primacy Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.7%Bridget Carey: 4.5%CNET: 1.2%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.4%Bridget Carey: 7.6%CNET: 4.7%Hasty Generalization13.4%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 20.5%Bridget Carey: 6.8%CNET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.5%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.2%Bridget Carey: 3.4%CNET: 0.4%Burden of Proof10.2%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 37.4%Bridget Carey: 23.9%CNET: 6.3%Anecdotal37.4%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Bridget Carey: 2.2%CNET: 3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.7%Bridget Carey: 2.2%CNET: 0.0%Personal Incredulity6.7%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 2.2%CNET: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.2%Bridget Carey: 17.1%CNET: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 9.4%Bridget Carey: 3.1%CNET: 2.4%Indoctrination9.4%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bridget Carey: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Bridget Carey: 9.7%CNET: 13.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.4%

254 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.4%attributed speech230writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCNET • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNET

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNET: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNET: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.3 ptsWriter: 11.3%CNET: 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.