[Research Article] Apple Duo house of brands challenges and comparisons with Samsung Galaxy Fold

 This research article examines the brand management strategies of Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the emerging foldable smartphone category, with particular focus on Apple's forthcoming "iPhone Duo" and Samsung's established Galaxy Fold/Z Fold line. Through the lens of brand architecture theory, the study analyses how Apple's Branded House structure and Samsung's distinct Galaxy sub-brand architecture shape their respective approaches to foldable technology. The article traces the historical evolution of both companies' brand strategies, evaluates Samsung's decade-long brand-building success in foldables, identifies the strategic challenges facing Apple's Duo positioning, and projects the competitive brand dynamics through 2026 and beyond. The analysis reveals a fundamental tension: Samsung has invested seven years in educating the market and establishing category ownership, while Apple enters with a strategy that reframes the foldable not as a new category but as a natural extension of the iPhone ecosystem—a Branded House logic that leverages existing brand equity rather than building new category associations from scratch.

1. Introduction

The global smartphone industry stands at an inflection point. After nearly two decades of iterative refinement around the rectangular slab form factor, the foldable smartphone category has emerged as the most significant hardware innovation in mobile technology since the original iPhone. Samsung Electronics pioneered this category commercially with the Galaxy Fold in 2019, investing nearly seven years in market education, technical refinement, and category brand-building before Apple's entry with the iPhone Duo in 2026. The competitive dynamics between these two approaches offer a compelling case study in brand management strategy, particularly regarding the tension between first-mover category ownership and late-mover brand equity leverage.

This article examines the brand management implications of this competitive landscape through the theoretical framework of brand architecture. Specifically, it analyses how Apple's Branded House structure—characterised by a unified corporate brand across all product lines—contrasts with Samsung's more segmented approach, wherein the Galaxy brand operates as a distinct sub-brand within the broader Samsung portfolio. The central research question concerns how these differing brand architectures shape competitive advantage in the foldable category, and what strategic brand challenges each company faces as the market evolves toward 2026 and beyond.

The significance of this analysis extends beyond the smartphone industry. As brand architecture theory suggests, the choice between Branded House and House of Brands structures carries profound implications for market entry timing, pricing power, consumer perception, and competitive defensibility. The Apple-Samsung foldable competition provides a rare natural experiment in how these architectural choices play out in a rapidly evolving technology category.

2. Apple's House of Brands History: The Branded House Architecture

Apple Inc. represents a paradigmatic example of the Branded House brand architecture—a structure in which a single master brand dominates all product and service offerings. Under this model, customers encounter the parent company's brand at every touchpoint, and sub-brands derive their meaning and equity from their association with the master brand. Apple's product portfolio—iPod, iPhone, iMac, iPad, Apple TV+, Apple Watch, and now iPhone Duo—all share the "Apple" or "i" prefix nomenclature, reinforcing a unified brand identity that communicates consistency, premium quality, and ecosystem integration.

This architectural choice was not inevitable. In Apple's early history, the company operated more like a fragmented collection of product lines with inconsistent branding. The transformation began in the late 1990s when Steve Jobs returned to the company and initiated a radical simplification of both product lines and brand architecture. The introduction of the iMac in 1998, followed by the iPod and iTunes in the early 2000s, established a coherent brand strategy centred on the "i" prefix and a consistent design language. Jobs offered a more sophisticated brand strategy when the company released the iMac computer, iTunes jukebox software, and the iPod music player in the early 2000s, creating a template for how Apple would extend its brand into new categories.

The Branded House architecture has delivered extraordinary financial and brand value. By adopting this brand architecture, Apple became the first company worldwide to reach a $3 trillion market valuation, a milestone that reflects not merely product success but the accumulated equity of a unified brand promise. Apple's brand identity, built on a continuous vision of being different in an industry that historically prioritised technical specifications over design and user-friendliness, created a lifestyle product orientation that distinguished it from competitors. The company was the first personal computer company to move away from technical advertising toward communicating a lifestyle product, establishing a template for premium technology branding that persists to this day.

Crucially, Apple's Branded House structure creates powerful network effects and switching costs. The company creates "moats" around its interdependent architecture through proprietary software lock-ins, physical retail presence, marketing and public relations control, and ecosystem integration. Consumers who enter the Apple ecosystem—through an iPhone, Mac, AirPods, or Apple Watch—face psychological switching costs that are as significant as technical ones. The ecosystem makes Apple's brand feel essential rather than optional, a distinction that Samsung has struggled to replicate despite offering its own interconnected product range.

The extension logic of Apple's Branded House is critical to understanding the iPhone Duo strategy. When Apple enters a new product category, it does not create a separate brand identity (as it might under a House of Brands model). Instead, it extends the master brand into the new category, positioning the new product as a natural and inevitable evolution of the existing ecosystem. The iPhone Duo is not a new brand; it is an iPhone that happens to fold—and this framing carries enormous implications for how consumers perceive, evaluate, and adopt the product.

3. Samsung's House of Brands History: The Galaxy Sub-Brand Architecture

Samsung Electronics operates under a fundamentally different brand architecture. While the corporate Samsung brand encompasses a vast conglomerate spanning semiconductors, home appliances, displays, and mobile communications, the company's smartphone business has developed the "Galaxy" sub-brand as a distinct identity within the broader Samsung portfolio. This represents a hybrid approach—not a pure House of Brands (in which sub-brands operate with complete independence from the parent), but rather an endorsed brand architecture in which Galaxy derives credibility from Samsung while maintaining its own distinct identity, nomenclature, and marketing voice.

Samsung's corporate history predates its mobile ambitions by decades. Founded in 1938 as a trading company exporting dried fish and produce from Korea, Samsung evolved through electronics manufacturing (televisions, refrigerators, air conditioners), semiconductor production, and eventually telecommunications. The company established Samsung Electronics in 1969 as a television manufacturer with technology borrowed from Sanyo, and by the 1980s had merged its semiconductor, telecommunications, and home appliance businesses into a unified electronics division. Samsung's first mobile phone launched in 1988, but it was not until the Galaxy series debut in 2009–2010 that Samsung established itself as a serious contender in the smartphone market.

The Galaxy brand represented a strategic departure from Samsung's previous mobile naming conventions (which had used alphanumeric designations like "SGH" and "SCH"). The Galaxy name—evoking both the vastness of space and a sense of premium technological ambition—was designed to create a distinct identity for Samsung's premium smartphones, differentiating them from both the company's budget offerings and from competitor devices. The 2010 Galaxy S marked the beginning of Samsung Mobile's modern identity, and the series expanded into tablets with the Galaxy Tab line, creating a coherent product family under the Galaxy umbrella.

Samsung's approach to the Galaxy brand reflects what branding theorists describe as a "house of brands" logic within the mobile division, even as the corporate parent maintains a more unified identity. Samsung plays across all segments—from budget to ultra-premium—and this reach is both a strength and a source of brand dilution. As one analysis notes, Samsung wins in volume, variety, and innovation speed, but loses in clarity; Apple wins in perception, pricing, and profit. Samsung's Galaxy sub-brand architecture enables it to target multiple market segments with differentiated products while maintaining the credibility of the Samsung parent endorsement, but it also means that Galaxy products must compete for attention within a crowded portfolio that includes everything from $200 budget phones to $2,000 foldables.

The Galaxy Fold represents the apotheosis of Samsung's Galaxy sub-brand strategy. Unlike a conventional smartphone, the Fold was positioned not merely as another Galaxy device but as the flagship expression of Samsung's technological leadership. The naming—using "Fold" as a descriptor rather than a distinct brand name—signals that Samsung views foldable technology as a form factor attribute within the Galaxy family, not as a separate brand category. This is consistent with Samsung's broader approach of using descriptive suffixes (Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Z, Galaxy A) to differentiate products within a unified Galaxy identity.

4. Strategic Brand Success for Samsung Galaxy Fold: 2019–2026

Samsung's seven-year stewardship of the foldable category constitutes one of the most sustained and successful first-mover brand-building campaigns in recent consumer technology history. When the original Galaxy Fold launched in 2019 at a $1,980 price point, the product was widely viewed as an experimental curiosity—a technological demonstration rather than a commercial proposition. The first-generation device suffered from well-publicised durability issues, including display failures and hinge problems that threatened to undermine the entire category. Yet Samsung persisted, investing heavily in hinge mechanisms, display technology, and software optimisation year after year.

The strategic logic of this persistence was brand-building through category ownership. Samsung recognised that if it could establish the Galaxy Z Fold as the definitive foldable smartphone—the reference point against which all competitors would be measured—it would create a durable brand association that would be difficult for later entrants to displace. This required not merely technical excellence but a sustained marketing narrative that positioned foldables as the future of mobile computing. Samsung's brand messaging consistently emphasised innovation, pioneering spirit, and the transformative potential of foldable technology.

The results of this strategy are measurable. By 2021, Samsung had shipped more than four times as many foldable devices as in 2020, significantly exceeding analyst expectations of threefold market growth. The Galaxy Z Fold3 and Z Flip3, launched in 2021, surpassed Samsung's entire cumulative foldable sales from 2020 within their first month on the market. By 2026, Samsung remained the global leader in foldable smartphones with approximately 40% market share, followed by Huawei at approximately 30%. More importantly, Samsung had successfully "educated" the market over nearly seven years, transforming foldable phones from an unfamiliar idea into a recognised product segment with a stable consumer base.

Samsung's brand-building success in foldables rested on several strategic pillars. First, consistent innovation cadence: each generation introduced meaningful improvements—better hinges, reduced display creases, water resistance (IPX8 rating achieved with the Fold3 and Flip3), and software features like Flex Mode that demonstrated the practical utility of the foldable form factor. Second, premium positioning: the Fold was consistently marketed as the flagship of Samsung's lineup, commanding premium prices that reinforced its status as a luxury technology product. Third, ecosystem integration: Samsung positioned the Fold not as an isolated device but as the centrepiece of its broader Galaxy ecosystem, including earbuds, watches, and tablets.

However, Samsung's first-mover advantage has not translated into unassailable market dominance. By 2025, Samsung's share of the North American foldable market had declined from 65.6% to 50.9%, while Motorola's share surged from 30.1% to 44.1%. This erosion occurred before Apple's entry into the category, suggesting that Samsung's brand equity in foldables, while substantial, is not immune to competitive pressure—particularly from lower-priced alternatives like the Motorola Razr, which undercut Samsung's pricing by approximately $300. Samsung's annual updates have been criticised as iterative rather than transformative, a pattern that risks diluting the brand's association with breakthrough innovation.

5. Brand Strategy Challenges for Apple Duo

Apple's forthcoming iPhone Duo faces a unique set of brand strategy challenges that arise from the intersection of its Branded House architecture, its late entry into the foldable category, and the specific positioning choices embedded in the "Duo" naming and marketing strategy.

5.1 The Late-Mover Brand Equity Paradox

Apple's entry into foldables represents a classic late-mover strategy, but one complicated by the Branded House architecture. Under a traditional late-mover strategy, a company might enter an established category with a differentiated brand identity, leveraging its corporate resources while positioning the new brand independently. Apple, however, cannot do this: the iPhone Duo is positioned as an iPhone, not a separate brand. This means that the product's success or failure is directly attributable to the iPhone master brand, with implications for the broader Apple brand equity.

The paradox is this: Apple's brand equity is so powerful that it can "suddenly position a technology previously seen as interesting but non-essential as the logical next step for consumers". Apple can enter the foldable market and immediately command attention, shelf space, and consumer consideration in ways that new entrants cannot. Yet this same brand equity creates expectations of perfection and innovation that are difficult to meet. If the iPhone Duo is perceived as merely a "me-too" foldable—a reactive product rather than a transformative one—it risks weakening the iPhone brand's association with category-defining innovation.

The "Duo" naming strategy reveals Apple's awareness of this challenge. By avoiding the "Fold" nomenclature that Samsung and other competitors have established, Apple seeks to psychologically decouple its product from the existing foldable category and its associated pain points—particularly the display crease that has been a persistent consumer complaint. The "Duo" brand logic emphasises dual-screen collaboration and productivity rather than foldable mechanics, repositioning the product as a new category of device (a compact tablet that happens to be a phone) rather than a new form of phone.

5.2 Pricing and Scarcity as Brand Strategy

Apple's pricing strategy for the iPhone Duo—starting at $1,999 in the United States and 15,999 RMB in China—reflects a deliberate brand positioning decision that extends beyond simple margin maximisation. With a global limited production run of approximately 6 million units for 2026, Apple is actively suppressing supply below demand, creating artificial scarcity that reinforces the product's status as a luxury item.

This strategy represents what one analysis terms "identity inflation"—the use of product scarcity and high pricing to create a "social currency" that distinguishes the buyer from the broader iPhone user base. When everyone can afford an iPhone Pro Max, owning one ceases to signal distinction. The Duo, with its higher price and limited availability, creates a new tier of differentiation within the Apple ecosystem. Apple is essentially applying luxury goods logic—the Hermès Birkin model of controlled scarcity—to consumer electronics.

The risk of this strategy lies in its dependence on sustained demand. If the iPhone Duo fails to generate sufficient consumer desire, the scarcity strategy could backfire, creating perceptions of artificial exclusivity rather than genuine desirability. Furthermore, the strategy assumes that Apple's brand equity is sufficient to overcome the practical limitations of the first-generation device—the crease, the thickness, the compromises inherent in foldable engineering. Apple is betting that consumers will tolerate these imperfections as the price of early adoption and brand distinction, rather than rejecting the product as an overpriced compromise.

5.3 Ecosystem Integration and the Productivity Narrative

Apple's marketing for the iPhone Duo positions it as a "business productivity device," demonstrating use cases such as managing Zoom calls with multiple participants and viewing a broader Slack interface. This positioning leverages Apple's existing brand associations with professional creativity and productivity—associations built through decades of marketing Macs to designers, developers, and creative professionals.

The ecosystem integration challenge is both Apple's greatest advantage and a potential vulnerability. On the one hand, the iPhone Duo runs iOS and integrates seamlessly with iCloud, the App Store, and other Apple devices, creating a switching cost that Samsung cannot easily replicate. For existing iPhone users, the Duo is not a new platform to learn but a natural extension of a familiar ecosystem. This is the Branded House logic in action: the master brand provides a ready-made context for the new product, reducing adoption friction.

On the other hand, this integration creates constraints. The iPhone Duo must operate within the parameters of the iOS ecosystem, which was designed for conventional smartphones and tablets, not foldable devices. Apple is reportedly developing a customised iOS experience for the Duo, with core functionality centred on side-by-side app display and multitasking, but the degree to which the device can deliver genuinely new experiences—rather than simply more screen real estate for existing apps—remains to be demonstrated.

6. 2026 and Beyond: House of Brands Challenges for Apple Duo vs. Galaxy Fold

The competitive brand dynamics between Apple's iPhone Duo and Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold series will be shaped by several converging forces through 2026 and beyond. This section examines the specific challenges facing each company's brand architecture in the evolving foldable market.

6.1 Apple's Branded House Challenges

6.1.1 The AI Disruption of Smartphone Brand Value

The most significant existential challenge to Apple's Branded House strategy in foldables is not competitive pressure from Samsung but the broader technological shift toward AI-native devices. The explosion of AI and next-generation wearable devices threatens to gradually diminish the dominance of smartphones, directly jeopardising Apple's position. If AI assistants become the central interface layer of personal devices—more important than the smartphone software itself—then the value of hardware form factors like foldable screens may diminish relative to the intelligence embedded in the device ecosystem.

This creates a strategic dilemma for Apple's Duo brand positioning. If the Duo is marketed primarily as a productivity device, it must compete not only with Samsung's foldables but also with AI-powered devices that promise to automate productivity tasks without requiring larger screens. Apple's brand equity is built on hardware excellence, ecosystem integration, and user experience. If the locus of value shifts to AI capabilities—an area where Apple has been criticised as lagging behind competitors—the Branded House architecture may prove less advantageous than a more flexible House of Brands structure that could isolate AI ventures from the core iPhone brand.

6.1.2 Pricing Power in a Maturing Category

Apple's scarcity-based pricing strategy for the iPhone Duo depends on the product being perceived as a luxury item rather than a commodity technology product. As the foldable category matures—as Samsung's experience demonstrates—pricing pressure intensifies. Samsung has already faced competitive pressure from Motorola's lower-priced Razr, which offers a similar form factor at approximately 15% lower cost. Apple's premium pricing will be sustainable only if the brand can maintain a clear perceptual distinction between the Duo and competing foldables.

This is where the Branded House architecture cuts both ways. Apple's master brand provides instant credibility and premium positioning, but it also raises expectations. If the iPhone Duo is perceived as offering insufficient differentiation from competing foldables—or from Apple's own Pro Max models—the premium price becomes difficult to justify. The risk is that the Duo's foldable form factor becomes normalised over time, eroding the novelty premium that supports its luxury pricing.

6.2 Samsung's Galaxy Sub-Brand Challenges

6.2.1 Category Leadership Under Siege

Samsung's seven-year investment in foldable brand-building has established the Galaxy Z Fold as the category reference point, but this leadership position is now under threat from multiple directions. Apple's entry—the most anticipated competitive event in the foldable market—will inevitably draw consumer attention and media coverage away from Samsung's incremental updates. As one analysis notes, Samsung's yearly update cadence for foldables has largely turned into a "litany of bland iterations," a pattern that undermines the brand's association with breakthrough innovation.

The challenge for Samsung's Galaxy sub-brand architecture is that it must simultaneously defend the premium foldable segment against Apple while competing in the mid-range foldable segment against Motorola and other Android competitors. This dual-front competition stretches the Galaxy brand's positioning. The Flip series (which competes with Motorola's Razr) occupies a different price tier and consumer segment than the Fold series (which competes with Apple's Duo), yet both operate under the same Galaxy Z umbrella. Managing this portfolio complexity without diluting the Galaxy brand's premium associations is a significant strategic challenge.

6.2.2 Component Cost Pressures and Brand Value

Samsung faces additional pressure from supply chain dynamics. The memory shortage—described as "RAMageddon"—has already forced Samsung to raise phone prices and is likely to impact the company's new foldables. These cost pressures create a difficult choice: absorb higher costs and sacrifice margin, or pass them to consumers and risk weakening the value proposition of Galaxy foldables relative to Apple's Duo (which, with its luxury positioning and scarcity strategy, may be more insulated from price sensitivity).

Samsung's brand positioning has traditionally emphasised technological leadership and innovation rather than luxury exclusivity. This positioning is well-suited to a market where foldables are perceived as cutting-edge technology but may be less effective as the category matures and consumers evaluate foldables on practical grounds—durability, repair costs, and dust resistance—rather than novelty. If Samsung cannot resolve consumer concerns about repair costs and durability, it risks eroding the premium pricing power of the Galaxy Z brand.

6.3 Comparative Brand Architecture Implications

The contrasting brand architectures of Apple and Samsung produce different competitive dynamics in the foldable market. Apple's Branded House enables rapid brand extension—the iPhone Duo inherits the equity of the iPhone master brand immediately upon launch. Samsung's Galaxy sub-brand architecture, by contrast, required years of dedicated brand-building to establish the Fold as a credible premium product. However, Samsung's architecture also provides flexibility: the Galaxy brand can span multiple price points and form factors without the constraint of a single unified identity.

Looking forward to 2026 and beyond, the key question is whether Apple's late-mover brand equity advantage can overcome Samsung's first-mover category ownership. Historical precedent from other technology categories suggests that late movers with strong brands can indeed capture significant market share—Apple's iPod succeeded despite Sony's Walkman heritage, and the iPhone succeeded despite BlackBerry's enterprise dominance. However, in both cases, Apple entered with genuinely differentiated products, not merely brand extensions of existing categories. The iPhone Duo's success will depend on whether it can deliver a differentiated experience that justifies its premium positioning, rather than relying solely on Branded House brand equity.

7. Discussion

The Apple Duo versus Samsung Galaxy Fold brand competition illuminates several broader principles of brand management and competitive strategy. First, brand architecture is not merely an organisational choice but a strategic asset that shapes how companies enter new categories, price their products, and respond to competitive threats. Apple's Branded House structure provides immediate brand equity transfer but also creates expectations of consistency and excellence that constrain product positioning. Samsung's Galaxy sub-brand structure required greater upfront investment but offers more flexibility in target market segmentation.

Second, the temporal dynamics of brand-building matter enormously. Samsung's seven-year head start in foldables allowed it to establish category conventions, educate consumers, and build brand associations that Apple cannot simply replicate through superior brand equity. The "Fold" nomenclature, the hinge design, the crease tolerance—these are all category attributes that Samsung defined and that now constitute the baseline against which Apple's Duo will be evaluated. Apple's "Duo" naming strategy represents an attempt to redefine the category on its own terms, but this is difficult to achieve when consumer expectations have already been shaped by seven years of Samsung marketing.

Third, the foldable category illustrates the limits of brand equity as a competitive moat. Samsung's first-mover advantage in foldables did not prevent Motorola from capturing significant market share in North America, even before Apple's entry. Similarly, Apple's brand equity will not automatically translate into foldable market leadership if the product fails to deliver a compelling user experience. Brand architecture shapes the starting position but does not determine the outcome.

Fourth, the analysis highlights the importance of pricing strategy as a brand signal. Apple's decision to price the iPhone Duo at $1,999 and limit production to 6 million units represents a deliberate choice to position the product as a luxury item rather than a mainstream flagship. This strategy leverages Apple's brand equity to create artificial scarcity, but it also introduces risk: if the product fails to generate sufficient desire, the scarcity strategy could be perceived as manipulation rather than exclusivity. Samsung's pricing strategy, by contrast, has been more conventional, using the Fold's premium pricing to signal technological leadership while competing on value in the broader Galaxy portfolio.

Finally, the discussion must acknowledge the broader technological context. The foldable smartphone category exists within a rapidly evolving landscape where AI, wearable devices, and new form factors are competing for consumer attention. If the smartphone itself becomes less central to personal computing—replaced by AI assistants and ambient computing devices—then the competitive battle between Apple and Samsung over foldable phones may prove to be a contest over a declining asset. Both companies must manage their foldable brand strategies with an awareness that the category they are competing in may not remain central to the technology ecosystem indefinitely.

8. Conclusion

This research article has examined the brand management strategies of Apple and Samsung in the foldable smartphone category through the theoretical framework of brand architecture. The analysis reveals that Apple's Branded House structure and Samsung's Galaxy sub-brand architecture produce fundamentally different approaches to category entry, pricing, and competitive positioning. Samsung's seven-year investment in foldable brand-building has established the Galaxy Z Fold as the category reference point, but this first-mover advantage has not translated into unassailable market dominance. Apple's iPhone Duo leverages the iPhone master brand to enter the category with immediate credibility and premium positioning, but faces challenges in differentiating itself from existing foldables and justifying its luxury pricing.

The strategic implications for brand managers are clear. First, brand architecture is a strategic choice with long-term consequences for category entry and competitive positioning. Second, first-mover advantages in new technology categories are real but not permanent; sustained innovation and brand reinforcement are necessary to maintain category leadership. Third, late movers with strong brand equity can overcome first-mover advantages, but only if they offer genuinely differentiated products rather than relying solely on brand extension. Fourth, pricing and scarcity strategies are powerful brand signals but carry risks if consumer demand does not materialise as expected.

Looking toward 2026 and beyond, the competitive dynamics between Apple's Duo and Samsung's Galaxy Fold will be shaped by technological evolution, shifting consumer preferences, and the broader transformation of the personal computing landscape. The outcome of this competition will not be determined solely by brand architecture or marketing strategy, but by the ability of each company to deliver products that meaningfully enhance users' lives. Brand equity can open doors, but product experience determines whether consumers walk through them—and whether they stay.

References

[1] Zenodo. "Brand Architecture: Branded House vs. House of Brands." Zenodo, 2022.

[2] CBS Research API. "Samsung: Company History and Business Divisions." Master Thesis, n.d.

[3] Samsung Newsroom. "Pionieri del Fold: come la visione di Samsung ha formato il nuovo standard per l'innovazione mobile." Samsung News, 2026.

[4] Samsung Newsroom. "十年磨一劍：三星摺疊機如何定義智慧型手機的未來創新." Samsung News, n.d.

[5] Đời Sống Pháp Luật. "Samsung mất 7 năm để khai phá smartphone gập, Apple chỉ cần một chiếc iPhone Duo để khiến cả thị trường nhìn lại." Đời Sống Pháp Luật, 11 September 2026.

[6] Vietnam.vn. "Apple's biggest concern." Vietnam.vn, 28 September 2026.

[7] TechNews. "蘋果為何捨棄 Fold 命名，改採 Duo 品牌策略？" TechNews, 29 September 2026.

[8] Adquan. "苹果折叠屏15999：一场针对'身份通胀'的精准收割." Adquan, 28 September 2026.

[9] CNET. "Samsung Is Under Serious Pressure. Here's Why It Needs to Nail Its Next Z Fold Phone." CNET, 20 July 2026.

[10] Wccftech. "Samsung's Foldables Are Already Losing Ground In The US, And The Apple iPhone Fold Hasn't Even Launched Yet." Wccftech, 25 March 2026.

[11] LinkedIn. "Why does Apple beat Samsung in brand and revenue…" LinkedIn, 14 April 2026.

[12] Business Insider. "How Samsung Came From Nowhere To Ambush Apple And Become The World's Biggest Smartphone Seller." Business Insider, 12 March 2013.

[13] Express News. "As Apple shifts toward services, company needs to rethink brand." Express News, 11 August 2017.

[14] Economic Times (Hindi). "Apple: सिर्फ प्रोडक्ट बेचकर खुश नहीं हो जाती एपल." Economic Times, 30 April 2023.