Samsung’s upcoming Galaxy Z Fold 7 is shaping up to be a landmark release in the foldable smartphone space—at least in terms of technical specs and innovation. The company is taking baby steps toward refining its foldable lineup, but one aspect has highlighted a rather reactive and, frankly, misguided approach to design: the controversial “Saturn Ring” camera ring. Instead of claiming a bold aesthetic or innovative approach, Samsung seems to be scrambling to fix an avoidable design flaw long after its launch, illuminating a persistent issue in how the tech giant prioritizes style over substance.
Reacting to Backlash Rather Than Leading Design
Previously, Samsung leaned into a hefty metal ring framing its camera module on foldable phones such as the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and the Galaxy S25 series. This “Saturn Ring” design, intended perhaps to add a futuristic, space-age flair, instead received widespread criticism. Users called it cheap-looking and inelegant—a jarring departure from Samsung’s usual reputation for premium craftsmanship. Now, only months before the Galaxy Z Fold 7’s launch, Samsung is reportedly dropping the rings entirely. This belated decision to discard the rings feels less like thoughtful innovation and more like damage control.
This pivot is somewhat symptomatic of a broader problem in the smartphone industry, where consumer feedback often only reaches the redesign stage in retrospect, rather than guiding iterative improvements. Samsung could have learned from the backlash to the S25 cameras and improved the Z Fold 7’s design earlier but instead carries a sense of sluggishness in responding. Honestly, it rather undermines confidence in Samsung’s design foresight and ability to push forward clean, confident design language.
Form Over Function or Vice Versa?
From the leaked renders, the Galaxy Z Fold 7 appears to stick close to the well-received Fold 6’s silhouette, albeit with a lighter, slimmer build and the removal of the camera ring. The triple camera setup remains, but without the metallic encirclements that distanced many users. In design terms, this is unquestionably a better look, cleaner and less intrusive—a move toward subtlety in a market saturated with over-designed devices. However, the real question is whether removing an unnecessary decorative ring is enough of a design leap to justify user excitement or loyalty.
The truth is, Samsung’s foldable phones have shown enormous technical progress—improvements in screen durability, hinge engineering, and internal hardware—but their aesthetic evolution feels pedestrian. The weak handling of the camera ring debacle suggests Samsung views design as an afterthought, something to be fiddled with only if complaints pile up, rather than proactively shaping a distinct and elegant product identity. Given Samsung’s market dominance, this reactive mindset is a concerning sign.
What This Means for the Future of Foldables
Samsung pushing a slimmer, lighter foldable phone powered by the Snapdragon 8 Elite chip certainly sounds impressive on paper. The Galaxy Z Fold 7 promises large internal and external displays, enabling users to juggle between compact phone mode and immersive tablet use. Yet, the tepid design changes raise the prospect that Samsung’s real innovation lies predominantly in specs rather than vision.
If Samsung can’t get the design right consistently—from trivial-looking camera rings to the overall foldable form factor—it risks alienating potential users who crave not just advanced tech but also a bold, coherent product statement. A foldable device isn’t just a gadget; it’s a pioneering form factor demanding a fresh approach throughout the user experience, including aesthetics.
Samsung’s hesitant approach to addressing valid design grievances is a disservice to an otherwise exciting category. While other brands crawl to catch up technologically, Samsung should be sprinting ahead with both technical muscle and design elegance. Dropping the “Saturn Ring” is a patch, not a statement. It’s time Samsung learned that leadership in foldables means proactive design leadership rather than reactive fixes after public outcry.