After three months, Samsung is ending sales of the $2,899 Galaxy Z TriFold

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/after-three-months-samsung-is-ending-sales-of-the-2899-galaxy-z-trifold/

Samsung didn't offer an explanation for its decision, but it's not exactly a surprise.

64 points · 18 comments · view on lemmy.world

18 Comments

DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 179d

Oh... Samsung, the new Google

org@lemmy.org · 15 pts · 179d

Lmfao.

IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com · 13 pts · 179d (7 replies)

It's the only foldable that actually makes sense.

mrfriki@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 178d (2 replies)

It better makes sense because it cost like 3 high end phones :)

fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 178d (1 reply)

3 times the screen 3 times the price.

SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 178d

Only 1 times the RAM tho

cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 178d (3 replies)

How does it make sense? They call it a Tri Fold but it only folds twice, not three times.

It's a phone and a tablet in one but costs more than the two of them together, even if the tablets are an iPhone Pro and an iPad Pro.

Make it make sense.

mutilated_sphincter@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 178d (1 reply)
0x0@infosec.pub · -1 pts · 178d

Fitting nick lmao

Triumph@fedia.io · 8 pts · 178d

It folds into three sections. Trifold.

BigBrownBeaver@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 178d

Well the front fell off

Jhex@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 178d (3 replies)

Can they stop a sale if it was not selling?... maybe stop "offering" tehehehehehe

cRazi_man@europe.pub · 13 pts · 178d (2 replies)

Did you read the article?

"Samsung didn’t offer a rationale for this decision, but poor sales probably isn’t it. While the phone retailed for a whopping $2,899, Samsung was selling every unit it could produce. The company’s website actually teased restocks until recently, and desperate buyers were paying above MSRP on the second-hand market."

Jhex@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 178d (1 reply)

Of course I didn't! who do you think I am hehehe.

Having said that, this makes little sense.. was Samsung producing 100 a week?

Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 178d

Rule 1: never read the article

solrize@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 178d (1 reply)

I suspect they broke too often. First thought was low sales but article says otherwise.

GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 178d

articles lie.

thatradomguy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 178d

Hahaha