>>106001368 (OP)Dual-screen/foldables aren’t worth it to me, mostly because of the aspect ratio. That said, I can still think of reasons people might go for them (some already mentioned ITT):
>space-savingWomen’s pockets are usually tiny, so flip phones actually fit. That said, most women carry bags anyway though, so it seems like a minor perk at best.
>novelty factorEven though I don’t think it’s worth the trade-offs, it’s kinda cool that phones can fold now
>screen space is still more screen spaceIt’s not always useful screen space (especially for video/games), but extra real estate still feels better for reading, multitasking, etc.
>status-signallingNormies mostly care about surface-level stuff. Folding phones have an obvious “this was expensive” flex that better specs can’t signal. Most people still think Android = poorfag unless it’s visibly flashy.
>niche work useFor salespeople or field reps, a folding phone can be whipped out to show clients a pitch, product photos, calendar, etc. Split-screen is also more usable on a bigger unfolded display.
>nostalgia factorSome people just miss flip phones. The foldable Motorola Razr in particular was banking on that.
>cutenessSome girls and troons just like kawaii pocket-sized shit, and flip foldables scratch that itch.
>e-reading (comics, manga, etc.)Still not as good as a proper e-ink device or tablet, but more portable than those while offering a bigger screen than a standard phone.
>certain gamesMost games won’t support the weird aspect ratios, but the few that do might benefit. Less screen gets blocked by your thumbs, and it’s great for DS/3DS emulation with dual screens.
When it comes to tri-fold phones, it’s a different story. They can open up to proper tablet size and handle 16:9 content better. If the price drops and durability improves, I’d probably grab one. Feels more like you’re getting two devices in one instead of a novelty gimmick.