CNET47%

Here’s How Apple Gets Folks to Pay More for a Folding iPhone - CNET 64%

By Bridget Carey81%

7/24/2026, 5:36:57 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Optimism Bias, and Anchoring Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 37.4% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 587 faulty-reasoning hits from 254 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.7% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,916 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.80% of the article peer group.

I’ve been thinking a lot this week about the phone I used before my iPhone. 
It was a fantastic little flip feature phone called the LG EnV. 
It had a full QWERTY keyboard, a 2-megapixel camera with lens cover and flash, plus it played MP3s and rocked an SD card memory slot. 
So when Steve Jobs showed off the first iPhone in 2007, it didn’t impress me when compared with my EnV. 
Why would I want to downgrade to fewer features and pay more than three times as much? 
History doesn’t always repeat in tech, but it often rhymes. 
In this week’s episode of One More Thing, embedded below, I explain how folding phones are giving me that same feeling I had 19 years ago. 
Apple’s rumored folding iPhone is said to be a lot like the new Samsung Galaxy Fold 8. 
But it won’t likely have as good a camera as my current iPhone 17 Pro Max  and it might cost way more, too. 
Pricing will be a big challenge for Apple when it launches a folding phone  and price is a challenge with all folding phones. 
But news this week hints that maybe a new device upgrade plan at Apple will ease the pain of switching to a more expensive folding iPhone. 
For more One More Thing, subscribe to CNET’s YouTube page to catch Bridget Carey breaking down the latest Apple news and issues every Friday. 
Confirmation Bias
10.2%
Anchoring Bias
17.3%
Availability Heuristic
9.8%
Representativeness Heuristic
3.9%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
6.7%
Status Quo Bias
6.7%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
19.7%
Pessimism Bias
9.4%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
6.7%
Primacy Effect
9.8%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
6.7%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
13.4%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
20.5%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
10.2%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
37.4%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
6.7%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
6.7%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
10.2%
Indoctrination
9.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
9.4%

254 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.