"Motorola was early to foldable phones, announcing its first Razr-branded foldable in 2019. Since then, the company has churned out a series of foldable flip phones, but the new Razr Fold is its first attempt at a tablet-style foldable. Samsung, Google, and others have been making devices like this for a while, so we know the formula, and the Razr Fold doesn't change the game."
"Like the competition, the Razr Fold has flagship specs and a giant foldable display that fits in your pocket. It also comes with a hefty $1,900 price tag. While Motorola has made progress overcoming some traditional shortcomings of foldables, the phone still feels rather impractical, while still being very cool. Is "cool" enough reason to spend almost two grand on a phone, though?"
"The Razr Fold lives up to its flip-phone namesake-the device is pretty slim for a foldable, measuring 10.1 mm when closed and 4.7 mm when open. It's not as svelte as the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, but it beats the Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold. The weight also falls right in the middle at 243 g. Motorola has a lot of experience with hinges, and the Razr Fold reflects that."
"The phone feels solid, but it doesn't carry the same durability rating as most other flagship smartphones. It's IP49-rated, which means it's water-sealed but not resistant to dust and particulates. That could be a problem for a device with a movable hinge."
The Razr Fold is Motorola’s first tablet-style foldable, following earlier Razr-branded flip models. It uses flagship specifications and a large foldable display designed to fit in a pocket. The device is relatively slim for a foldable, measuring 10.1 mm closed and 4.7 mm open, and weighs 243 g. Its hinge movement feels smooth, holds near any angle without wobbling, and opens to a nearly flat position. The phone feels solid but lacks the durability rating common on many flagships, with an IP49 rating that is water-sealed but not dust and particulate resistant. The price is $1,900, raising questions about practicality despite its appeal.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]