According to ExtremeTech, Samsung publicly unveiled a physical prototype of its long-awaited tri-fold phone at the APEC CEO Summit on October 28, 2025. The device features two hinges that allow it to fold twice, creating a 6.5-inch external display when folded and expanding to approximately 10 inches when fully unfolded. Industry analysts expect the device to debut at over ₩3 million (approximately $2,110), with Samsung planning initial production of 50,000 to 100,000 units for select markets including South Korea and China. The release appears aimed more at showcasing Samsung’s innovation leadership than driving mass-market sales, particularly following Huawei’s recent tri-fold model releases. This strategic move represents a significant escalation in the foldable technology arms race.
Table of Contents
The Engineering Hurdles Behind Tri-Fold Innovation
What ExtremeTech’s report doesn’t fully capture are the immense technical challenges Samsung must overcome. Adding a second hinge introduces multiple failure points that could compromise durability. Each fold creates stress concentration zones that accelerate material fatigue in the prototype phase. The device must maintain structural integrity across three separate display segments while managing increased weight distribution and thermal management complexities. Previous Galaxy Z series models faced criticism for visible creases and limited hinge longevity – problems that compound exponentially with additional folding mechanisms.
Strategic Positioning in a Crowded Premium Segment
Samsung’s pricing strategy reveals much about their target audience. At over $2,100, this device enters territory typically reserved for specialized professional equipment rather than consumer smartphones. The limited production run suggests Samsung is testing waters rather than committing to volume manufacturing. This approach mirrors early days of the original Galaxy Fold, where initial scarcity helped build premium perception before broader market adoption. However, the tri-fold faces steeper challenges given its even higher price point and the established competition from both traditional foldables and increasingly capable large-screen tablets.
The Global Foldable Technology Race Intensifies
The timing of Samsung’s reveal following Huawei’s Mate XT series indicates a strategic response in the ongoing technology leadership battle. While Samsung has dominated the Western foldable market, Chinese manufacturers have made significant advances in multi-fold technology. What’s particularly telling is Samsung’s choice of initial markets – South Korea and China represent both their home turf and their toughest competitor’s backyard. This suggests Samsung isn’t just defending existing territory but actively challenging Huawei’s innovation narrative in their strongest market.
User Experience and Practical Application Questions
Beyond the technical specifications lies the crucial question of practical utility. A 10-inch display creates new possibilities for productivity and media consumption, but also introduces significant usability challenges. The device’s thickness when folded, weight distribution, and pocketability remain unanswered questions that could determine its real-world appeal. Additionally, software optimization for three distinct screen states presents a monumental challenge for developers. Unlike the relatively straightforward transition between phone and tablet modes in current foldables, tri-fold devices require sophisticated UI scaling across multiple breakpoints that current Android implementations may not adequately support.
Broader Implications for Mobile Computing
Samsung’s tri-fold prototype represents more than just another form factor iteration – it signals a fundamental rethinking of mobile device categories. As industry analysis suggests, this development blurs lines between smartphones, tablets, and potentially even laptops. The success of such devices could accelerate the convergence of mobile operating systems toward more flexible, adaptive interfaces that transcend traditional device classifications. However, the technology’s ultimate impact will depend on whether manufacturers can deliver genuine utility that justifies the complexity and cost, rather than innovation for innovation’s sake.
