I’m an OG Pixel fanboy, but I switched to the Galaxy Z Fold6

I’ve been an Android die-hard for fifteen years. I bought the original Nexus One the day it went up for pre-order, and I’ve generally stuck with Google-branded hardware as much as possible. I’ve even got a Pixel C tablet and a Pixel Slate in my collection. 

But for my ascension to folding phones, something I’ve been waiting to do for a long, long time, I bailed on Google’s second-gen (and poorly named) Pixel 9 Pro Fold. I traded in my Pixel 7 for Samsung’s Z Fold6. And I don’t think I’m going to regret it. 

Despite my love for “clean” Android and AOSP-based ROMs (back when Android ROMs were a thing), I think Samsung is leagues ahead in this niche. And I don’t think Google can catch up anytime soon. Here in no particular order are my reasons. 

Samsung has the experience 

Folding phones are tricky in a lot of ways. They’re still a super-expensive niche of the phone market, kind of like the original Motorola Razr or the first-gen iPhone when they debuted. They’re ridiculously expensive status symbols (yes, that’s a bit of a self-burn there), and phone makers can only commit so many resources to this tiny sliver of sales. 

But Samsung is now on its sixth generation of folding phones, with no less than ten models (across the Z Fold and Z Flip lines) under its belt. No other company has the experience it’s gained, the research and development in making these phones and making them last. 

While Google and other competitors like OnePlus can reverse-engineer some of Samsung’s work, especially the hinge mechanisms and internal space management, there’s just no replacing the advantage that Samsung has gained by doing all this stuff first. It doesn’t hurt that Samsung, as a huge player in the display market, is making its own folding screens. That allows the company to peek behind the curtain and maximize its advantages in this most crucial aspect of hardware design. 

I have more confidence that Samsung can handle subtle things like managing power across a split battery, and that the phone won’t fall apart after a year or two.

Samsung has the software 

But hardware isn’t the only variable in this equation. Samsung doesn’t have its fingers as deep into the core of Android as Google does, but when it comes to mobile it’s almost as invested in software. 

After more than a decade of deeply customizing its phone and interface software, Samsung’s OneUI is a viable alternative to the “cleaner” builds of Android seen on Pixel and Motorola phones. Samsung phones are still very busy in terms of apps, and they take a lot longer to get to a more comfortable place for my daily use. But once I’ve got everything set up, leaning heavily on apps like Nova Launcher and Vivaldi browser, it’s close enough to my happy place. 

And once again, Samsung’s years of experience in the folding niche comes into play. Even without the OneUI homescreen, I’ve found the Z Fold6 to be incredibly flexible at handling apps across the smaller and larger screens, and juggling two (or even three) on screen at once without issue. Messing around with Samsung’s Galaxy Tab hardware convinced me of this — it’s embarrassing how poorly Google’s own version of Android handles tablets at this point. 

Smart safety nets, like the ability to set an app to open in 16:9 or 4:3 if the developers haven’t optimized it for folding phones or tablets, help smooth down any wrinkles. I’ve found that there’s nothing I want to do on the Z Fold that I can’t, and naturally it shines with games and video. 

Samsung has the desktop options 

This one hurts me to admit, but Samsung handles external hardware and niche use cases much better than Google does. The Pixel phones only gained the ability to output video from the USB-C port with the Pixel 8, something even the iPhone could do years before that. 

Meanwhile, Samsung has been leveraging video out on both phones and tablets for the better part of a decade, and not just as a way of putting video on bigger screens. Samsung DeX, a mobile-powered desktop environment, has grown from a novelty to a serious point in its favor. 

Trying out DeX on the Galaxy Tab S8+, I was shocked at how similar it felt to using, say, a Chromebook. It’s not quite powerful or flexible enough to replace my desktop PC. But sitting there with an external monitor, a keyboard, and a mouse, the only things that are truly off-limits are my full access to Photoshop and PC games. Even those are somewhat manageable with tools like GeForce Now and Photopea. And crucially, Samsung can do it with a phone acting as a productivity-boosting second screen. 

It looks like Android 15 may include something like DeX in a desktop mode. But here I’m running into the same issue with folding phone hardware and software design: Samsung just has the experience to make it better, at least for the time being. 

Google’s aesthetics are way off 

Naturally this is all subjective, but Google’s folding phones haven’t been visually appealing to me so far. The original Pixel Fold looks striking from the front and the back, and I like how it’s proportioned more like a standard phone when closed. But the inner screen is marred with some huge bezels, kind of missing the entire point of the form factor. 

The Pixel Fold 2 Pixel 9 Pro Fold (jeez, how did Google mess this name up even worse than “Galaxy Z Fold”?) is a lateral move, even with larger screens. The interior screen ditches the bezels, but hangs on to a camera cutout, still marring the nice big vista. And the rear camera moved from an appealing “visor” to just a huge and unsightly island, drawing unavoidable comparisons to the newest iPhones. 

In contrast, Samsung was hiding away the interior camera three generations ago, letting that big screen be as big and as unmarred as possible. Yeah, the under-screen camera sucks, but that’s less of an issue with a folding phone — just flip it around and use the rear cameras for selfies with the front screen as a viewfinder. Given this capability, I’d just as soon get rid of the interior cam altogether. 

On top of all this nit-picking, the Z Fold series just looks more grown-up to me. The Fold6 in particular, with its far more angular build and sharper screen corners, seems like a device that’s focused on getting things done. And if I’m paying this much for a phone, I want it to look good from every angle. 

On the subject of payment…

Surprisingly, Samsung wins on price too 

The Galaxy Z Fold6 costs $1899.99 in the US for its base model, a notable bump up from the Fold5. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold costs $1799.99. The numbers say Google’s ahead, right? 

Not so fast. Samsung has this annoying habit of advertising products in its online store with the price you get for a maximum trade-in. So for example, you’ll see a new Galaxy Tab model advertised as “$199.99″on sale — a great deal. But you’ll click through and find you can only get that price if you have a nearly new iPad Pro, and you’re willing to send it in. I’d call that disingenuous advertising at best. 

But Samsung does offer some truly impressive deals on trade-ins if you have a device that’s even remotely recent. And for the kind of tech-obsessed people who are buying some of the most expensive phones on the market, it’s a factor that’s worth considering. 

Samsung offered me $500 for my two-year-old Pixel 7 in trade-in, while Google offered only $360. You’d think that Google would try and build a little brand loyalty, maybe offer a boost by going Pixel-to-Pixel. Nope. 

Frankly there’s no way that either Samsung or Google would get their money back on these deals. A brand new Pixel 7 is going for around $325 on the secondary market, so a refurbished one will put them both in the hole after shipping and the costs of selling it to a third party. Clearly both companies are leaning on a big profit margin for a super-expensive phone to make up the difference. 

I think Samsung juices its trade-in value by a lot, trying to muscle its way into more marketshare. It’s problematic, but from a consumer perspective, the numbers don’t lie. With my phone trade-in the price difference disappears and gets me a $60 net discount on the Fold6. 

Similar trade-ins all give Samsung an advantage. For the Galaxy Z Fold5, Samsung offers $1200 to Google’s $540. (There’s that brand loyalty.) For a base model iPhone 15 Samsung will give you $500 versus Google’s $480. Even for a budget trade-in, Samsung wins out: the Pixel 5a can get you $450 at Samsung versus just $175 at Google. The six-year-old iPhone 11 gets $300 from Samsung, $175 from Google. 

In fact, Samsung says it’ll take any “other iPhone” and give you $300 off. So theoretically I could buy an ancient iPhone 3G for $30, blow off the dust and make sure it turns on, and send it in to Samsung for a $270 net gain. I don’t think I’d bet my trade-in on that…but as a $30 experiment if you want to keep your old phone, it’s not bad. 

I hope Google can catch up 

Though I think Samsung is far ahead on the foldable form factor at the moment, I still love the purity of Google’s version of Android…even if it’s a lot less pure than it used to be. I hope Google is serious about the Pixel Fold series, and puts in the effort it needs to make it a success. 

I don’t have a lot of confidence in that, unfortunately. Google’s multiple attempts to break into the tablet market, and the multiple times it’s failed and started over, fills me with dread. You’ll note that there was no mention of the Pixel Tablet at the Pixel 9 launch. 

The “Google Graveyard” has become such a specter for the company that it’s now starting to seriously affect almost any consumer product it offers. I think it’s a big factor (though far from the only one) in why Stadia failed. And Google’s desire to inject AI into every possible facet of its business, presumably selling a monthly add-on that nobody I know is interested in subscribing to, makes me think the company’s attention will be elsewhere by the time the Pixel 10 Pro Fold begins development. 

I think there’s a pretty decent chance that Google will abandon foldables within two to three years, once again letting Samsung reign over this part of Android’s market. And in all fairness, Samsung will have earned it.