Samsung launches thin S25 Edge as Apple reportedly prepares the iPhone 'Air'
Samsung on Tuesday unveiled a thin version of its flagship smartphone in an unusually timed launch as it looks to maintain momentum in its mobile divison against an uncertain consumer backdrop and U.S. tariff policy.
The Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge is just 5.8 millimeters thin and weighs 163 grams, making it one of the thinnest smartphones on the market.
Samsung said the device starts at $1,099 and goes on sale on May 30.
The launch comes just under four months after Samsung staged its annual flagship phone launch for the S25 series. It is unusual for Samsung to launch a new high-end device this soon after the January event with the normal timeline generally being the middle of the year for the unveiling of its latest foldable phones.
The move highlights the South Korean tech giant's desire to capitalize on the success of the S25 range as it faces rising competition from Chinese players and an uncertain macroeconomic environment.
Samsung reported last month that it saw a jump in revenue and profit in the first quarter of the year at its mobile division thanks to strong sales of its S25 series.
However, Daniel Araujo, vice president at Samsung's mobile division, warned on an earnings call last month that smartphone demand is expected to decrease in the second quarter due to "seasonality trends" and forecasts could be "adjusted" further due to global tariff policy.
U.S. President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs took effect in April though they were paused shortly after. The White House exempted certain tech products such as smartphones and chips, providing some reprieve for companies like Samsung and Apple. The U.S. and China meanwhile agreed on Monday to pause most of their tariffs on each party.
Araujo said that the S25 Edge could help "sustain flagship-centric sales," underscoring why Samsung has decided to launch the phone now.
Thinner phones have become an obsession with smartphone makers who are hoping these devices will appeal to people who want the flagship experience without the size of a traditional device. Samsung's S25 Edge has a 6.7-inch display, the same as the Galaxy S25+, but it is thinner and lighter.
The phone also packs a dual camera system and Samsung's latest AI features.
"For the second half of 2025 'thin is most definitely in'," Ben Wood, chief analyst at CCS Insight, told CNBC.
"Samsung is first out the gate with a slim design, but Apple is expected to follow in September, and the burgeoning Chinese brands such as Honor and Xiaomi probably won't be far behind."
Samsung may be trying to get ahead of its closest rival Apple, which is gearing up to launch a thin version of its flagship device dubbed the iPhone 17 Air, according to a Bloomberg report this year.
"It is hard to believe this is not a pre-emptive strike following the widespread speculation that Apple will have a thin iPhone in its next line-up," Wood added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prediction: in 12 months the dirt-cheap Shell share price could turn £10,000 into…
The Shell (LSE SHEL) share price looks cheap right now, with a price-to-earnings ratio of just 8.95. That's well below the average FTSE 100 P/E of 15 times. There's a reason for that, of course. Shell shares have fallen with the oil price, slumping almost 10% in 12 months. They're still up 67% over five years though. That's less than half the drop suffered by FTSE 100 rival BP. Shell seems to have a better idea how to navigate the push to net zero, but with the oil price hovering around $65 a barrel, it's still struggling. It's far from a done deal that Shell can bounce back from today's lows and make investors rich all over again. There is little sign the oil price is about to recover. With OPEC+ increasing production, it could fall further, especially as China struggles and Donald Trump brings volatility. Then there's the push towards net zero, which could go either way. Theoretically, building a new line of renewable energy will threaten fossil fuel behemoths, but we need them to help us push through the transition. This is particularly true given exponentially rising energy demand, thanks to AI and the rest. Shell's first-quarter results, published on 2 May, showed adjusted earnings of $5.6bn. That's a big drop from $7.73bn a year earlier but ahead of analyst expectations of $4.96bn. The company also announced another $3.5bn quarterly share buyback programme, marking the 14th consecutive quarter of at least $3bn in buybacks. Cash flow from operations came in at $9.3bn, slightly below consensus expectations of $9.6bn. So what about that dividend? A trailing yield of 4.4% is okay, but not exactly to die for. It's expected to creep up in 2026, but only to 4.49%. Shell isn't the dividend superstar it once was. Over the last 15 years, I would have expected shareholder payouts to compound at a decent clip. Instead, it's fallen by an average of 2.88% a year. The board didn't just slash its full-year dividend from 188 US cents in 2019 to 65.3 cents during the 2020 pandemic. It rebased it. While payouts have climbed at a decent clip since, they started from that lower level. In 2024, the total dividend was 139 US cents. That's at levels last seen in 2007. The 19 analysts serving up one-year share price forecasts have produced a median target of around 3,027p. If correct, that's a handsome increase of around 21.5% from today. Combined with that yield, this would give investors a total return of 26%. Based on that, if somebody invested £10,000 in the stock today, it would grow to £12,600 in a year. Obviously, nobody can predict the future like that. I use it only as a guide to market thinking. Here's another. Of the 32 analysts giving one-year stock ratings, an impressive 23 name Shell a Strong Buy. Four say Hold and five say Sell. Shell continues to face risks, as the oil price slows, net zero spreads confusion, and the global economy struggles. It may look cheap, but there's no guarantee its shares will suddenly close the valuation gap. But for those wanting exposure to energy, today's low valuation does make Shell worth considering. More so than BP, in my book. The post Prediction: in 12 months the dirt-cheap Shell share price could turn £10,000 into… appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Harvey Jones has positions in Bp P.l.c. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The only ‘Made in America' smartphone maker has a message for Apple about manufacturing in the Trump tariff era
Todd Weaver has an important message for Apple as it faces growing demands by President Donald Trump to reshore some of its smartphone production: Don't listen to the conventional wisdom. Experts have long said that manufacturing iPhones in the U.S., rather than Asia, as Apple does, would be logistically impossible and ridiculously expensive. But Weaver argues companies can indeed do it successfully, and at a similar or only slightly higher cost—if given several years to navigate the inevitable complications. Weaver should know: His startup, Purism, is among the few, if not the only business, that assembles smartphones in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. pedigree is the main selling point of his company's Made in America device, the Liberty Phone. 'It is challenging to do this in the U.S.,' Weaver acknowledges. 'It's probably the reason I'm the only one.' And yet, he says his company has managed to make it work and has been profitable for the last two years—a real world example of what's possible on a hot-button topic in which political talking points and vested interests often dominate the debate. President Donald Trump recently put U.S. smartphone production in the spotlight as part of his global trade war. On May 23, he used social network Truth Social to publicly attack Apple for importing iPhones into the U.S., rather than making them domestically, and then threatened the company with a 25% tariff if it continued to do so. Whether any of the import taxes will become permanent is unclear given Trump's whiplash decision-making and court challenges by third parties. Still, Apple has long assembled its iPhones overseas, mainly in China, and has resisted relocating any of that production to the U.S. In April, when Trump announced his tariffs, Apple went so far as to shift the sourcing of most U.S.-bound iPhones to India, which faced lower import taxes. U.S. assembly was never publicly mentioned as a possibility. In the past, Apple CEO Cook explained the reluctance by saying the abundance of skilled labor and top-notch suppliers overseas would be difficult to reproduce at home. Weaver's company, of course, is no Apple, which has sold more than 2 billion iPhones globally since introducing the first models in 2007. The devices unleashed a new era in the tech industry in which mobile devices became the prime focus. Purism, in contrast, has sold just tens of thousands of phones since debuting its first model in 2018, according to Weaver. And the company is barely-known outside the world of tech nerds. Its Liberty Phone, manufactured near San Diego, comes with U.S.-made electronics installed on a metal chassis from China. It retails for $1,999. Another phone, the Librem 5, is mostly the same design, except it's made in China with Chinese parts, and costs $799. The company also produces tablet computers, laptops, and servers. Purism pitches its Made in America device as more secure and privacy friendly than those from major manufactures like Apple. Because all the critical parts and assembly are domestic, it's easy to verify that they haven't been tampered with by a foreign adversary that wants to snoop or stuff them with explosives. The phones also run on a Linux-based open source operating system. Anyone with technical know-how who is worried about the security can review the code—unlike with more popular phones, which come with operating systems that can't be easily inspected. Additionally, Purism's phones come with three kill switches that lets users physically disconnect their device from cell service, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, along with its microphone and camera. When turned on, the switches sever the electrical circuit to the features they control and make it impossible for them to be accessed by hackers, Weaver said. Toggling on Airplane Mode, as users often do on more mainstream phones, is less secure, he said, because it's a purely software feature that doesn't cut power to the device's chips. Customers who are especially security conscious can pay extra to have their devices shipped with 'tamper evident tape' on the packaging, among other options, to flag any monkey business during transit. Purism's biggest customers are government agencies, many of which require high security, and individual consumers. The company's clients, Weaver said, include the FBI and the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Weaver said the cost of manufacturing the Purism's two phones is largely the same, despite one being made overseas and the other domestically. The phone that's made in China costs around $600 for parts, manufacturing, and assembly while the U.S.-made one comes in at $650. 'Producing goods in China vs. the U.S. is the same plus or minus 10%,' said Weaver, based mostly on automation. The difference between what Purism charges customers for its two phones is partly due to the higher profit margin the company collects for its U.S.-made device. People who want stronger security are often willing to pay extra for it, Weaver said. It also covers the extra overhead from some customers wanting to verify that Purism's supply chain is secure and the small additional cost of U.S. manufacturing. Purism's assembly line is in Carlsbad, Calif., where up to a dozen workers put together devices. The area is home to a pool of skilled labor thanks to the local defense industry and manufacturing for other mobile carriers. That relatively modest assembly line is a major contrast to the factories that make iPhones, operated by contract manufacturers, mostly in China. Those facilities can be the size of several football fields and employ over 100,000 people who work around-the-clock shifts. Weaver said the U.S. is at a huge disadvantage to China when it comes to skilled workers, who make up a significant part of the workforce in smartphone factories. The only way to reverse the shortage and lay the groundwork for companies to reshore their production is to encourage more people to learn skills that are useful in the manufacturing process, he said. 'If you go over to China you can find buildings and buildings of thousands of electronics engineers. If you look here, you can find maybe five total,' Weaver said. Apple, for example, would risk a catastrophe if it suddenly, in 2026, needed to ramp up staffing in the U.S. to produce millions of iPhones, he said. Training enough people for such a massive undertaking would take years. Weaver said Purism, founded in 2014, took several years to develop its domestic supply chain. The company's small size means it only needs limited quantities of components, which makes it impossible to achieve the economies of scale that come from producing huge numbers of devices. Manufacturing in the U.S. also comes with higher labor costs than in China. But with the help of automation, those extra costs can be kept to a minimum by reserving human labor for tasks performed after production is complete, such as soldering, assembly, repairs, and testing. Apple, on the other hand, would need vast amounts of components to keep its assembly line humming. While the company would likely be able to cut deals with domestic suppliers for most iPhone parts, some, such as high-quality cameras, may be impossible to quickly source in the U.S. and it would therefore have to import them, Weaver said. One analyst has said iPhones could end up costing $3,500 if made in the U.S., to account for the extra costs and hassles. Weaver agrees that it would cost Apple substantially more to produce iPhones in the U.S., if it had to move production quickly. But given enough time, Apple could substantially reduce the cost after developing a new supply chain, finding enough workers, and by relying on extensive automation. For Apple, opening a domestic manufacturing plant would therefore need to be a years' long process, Weaver said. That's why he criticized Trump's tariffs for taking effect almost immediately. Yes, many of those tariffs have since been delayed. But the takeaway for businesses is that they can't plan ahead. And yet, that's exactly what's required for something as complex as shifting manufacturing to the U.S. Trump's tariffs would be far more effective if phased in over many years, Weaver said. In that scenario, companies would have a clear and increasing incentive to reshore production—without being punished right off the bat. Weaver argues his U.S. manufacturing effort is already paying off and that it will gain momentum over time. He hopes the recent scandal involving U.S. officials using the chat app Signal to discuss a military strike against Yemen, and then accidentally inviting a journalist to join them, will help lift sales by encouraging the federal government to focus more on security. Weaver wouldn't get into the specifics of Purism's financials other than to say it has millions in annual revenue and turned profitable in 2023. The Liberty Phone is its biggest seller. Wayne Lam, an analyst with market research firm TechInsights, gave a mixed take on Purism's prospect. In an email, he said: 'They can be a successful niche player, but the odds of success are lower thanks to the bigger brands. They won't be able to compete in the consumer market but government/enterprise/military are all niche markets they can address.' To fund the expansion of his business, Weaver is trying to raise additional investment after taking in $16 million in funding over the years. Some of that money would go to fixing a shortcoming with his phones. Because they don't use Apple's iOS or Google's Android operating systems, they are incompatible with many of the most popular mobile apps like Uber. To get such apps work on its devices, Purism must make technical tweaks for each one. Purism can at least claim one small advantage over the giant companies that dominate the smartphone industry. If Trump's tariffs become permanent, it won't feel much impact from its U.S.-made phone, while the big players and their foreign-made devices could be hammered. This story was originally featured on
Tom's Guide
an hour ago
- Tom's Guide
I swapped my Apple Watch for the Galaxy Watch 7 — here's what I liked and disliked
Smartwatches have become an essential bit of kit for many, with features like fitness tracking, notifications, sleep monitoring, and heart-rate checking that were once novel and impressive. Now? They're expected. For years, I've been mostly in the Apple Watch camp. As my usual go-to everyday smartwatch, it's proven to be sleek, responsive, and — since it's tightly-knit with my iPhone and other Apple gear — it just works. Until now, I hadn't found a good enough reason to switch. But with Samsung's latest wearable, the Galaxy Watch 7, launching alongside the feature-rich Galaxy Watch Ultra and the much-hyped Galaxy Ring, I was curious. Was it time to try the other side? Could Samsung's circular contender pull me away from the Apple Watch Series 10? As someone who tests gadgets for a living, I decided it was time to find out. I've been wearing the Galaxy Watch 7 day in, day out — at the gym, pottering around the yard, walking around the block, shopping trips, in bed, and everywhere in between — to see how it stacks up against Apple's polished powerhouse. Here's everything I liked, and what I felt didn't quite hit the mark. Let's start with looks because, in my opinion, that's still what matters most on your wrist. Swapping from Apple's distinct rectangular slab to Samsung's traditional round face was — I have to say — a bit of a relief. I've never really been a fan of the Apple Watch's angular design, so it didn't take long to get used to, and prefer, the Watch's 7's more traditional circular face design. Samsung's latest wearable comes in 40mm and 44mm sizes, and the version I wore (the former) struck a great balance — not too chunky, not too delicate. The aluminium case keeps things lightweight, and I really liked the muted khaki finish of my review unit — it's subtle, modern, and goes with anything. The sapphire crystal glass is also a win, sporting a premium feel and a level of scratch resistance the aluminium Apple Watch 10 can't quite match without going up to the stainless steel model. Samsung's bezel is minimal and sleek, and the buttons are well integrated — I never once missed Apple's Digital Crown. If you're into traditional watch styling, Samsung's rounded aesthetic will feel more at home. The Apple Watch Series 10 features a bright and responsive touch screen, a comfortable and lightweight case and more smart functions than you'll know what to do with. Some of my favorites include on-wrist translations and global tide tracking. You also get useful safety tools and lots of holistic-tracking tech. The Samsung Galaxy Watch 7 provides in-depth, AI-backed, holistic insights into everything from sleep quality to fitness training and recovery. A handsome and easy-wearing watch, the touchscreen is bright and responsive, smart features and third-party apps are plentiful, and battery life is good for a full day. While the Galaxy Watch 7 does a decent job on the design front, its display doesn't quite dazzle in the same way the Apple Watch Series 10 does. Don't get me wrong, it's bright, colourful and sharp, and outdoors in the sun it's still clear and visible. But Apple's display just has the edge here — it feels more vibrant, especially when it comes to viewing angles and responsiveness. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. And then there's haptics. The Apple Watch is the gold standard here with crisp, tight vibrations that never miss a tap. The Galaxy Watch 7, in contrast, just isn't quite as responsive. It's by no means an issue, but it's just not as refined or as satisfying as on Apple's wearable. One of my unexpected highlights was the sheer joy of swapping bands on the Galaxy Watch 7. Sure, Apple's proprietary band system is clever, but it's also rather limiting — and not to mention expensive. Samsung's choice to use a quick-release system compatible with standard 20mm or 22mm bands means I could use all sorts of third-party straps without it putting a big dent in my wallet. From sporty silicone to classic leather, you could quite quickly build up a new mini collection of different styled straps for the Watch 7. And while Samsung's own bands are decent, it's the freedom to personalize without Apple's markup that does it for me. Lovely stuff! If only I had a dollar for every time a smartwatch brand promised 'all-day battery' and failed to deliver. Unfortunately, despite its promises, Samsung's Galaxy Watch 7 also falls into that camp. It claims 'up to 40 hours of battery life' — and yes, in some cases it'll stretch a full second day — but in reality, with notifications on, GPS use, and a bit of music control, I was plugging it in nightly. Sigh. Still, it's still a little better than my Apple Watch 9, which Apple claims lasts 18 hours (and, in my experience, often hits that mark). Nevertheless, the Galaxy Watch 7's charging speed doesn't match up. It'll give you about 40% in 30 minutes, which is fine, but Apple's fast charge still has the edge, especially when you're in a rush to leave the house. This was the big one. Apple Watch is only focused on iPhone users. If you live in the Apple ecosystem, it's seamless. But it's also a walled garden with zero Android support, no Google Maps native app, and limited options for third-party customisation. The Galaxy Watch 7, on the other hand, is a Wear OS 5 device, and it plays nicely with a huge array of Android phones and also can be used by iPhone users (although more limited than on Android). The Google Play Store access on your wrist also works super well — I could download Spotify, Google Maps, WhatsApp, and even control my smart home with the Google Home app. The interface feels smoother than on past Galaxy Watches, and while Samsung's own One UI Watch skin adds a few quirks, it's generally very intuitive and responsive. The new Exynos W1000 chip seems to help, too, with everything from app launches to swiping around feeling faster and slicker than on older models. Okay, so it's time to talk money. The Samsung Galaxy Watch 7's prices start at $299 for the 40mm Bluetooth model and $329 for the 44mm version. If you want LTE connectivity, it's an extra $50 on top for either size, so you're looking at $349 and $379, respectively. Compare that to the Apple Watch Series 10, which starts at $399 for the 42mm GPS version and jumps to $499 if you want the same size with cellular. Opt for the larger 46mm model and you're looking at $429, or $529 if you want it fully connected. So, if we're comparing like for like, Samsung's pricing undercuts Apple at almost every level, and you're still getting very similar top-notch features. Add in the fact that Samsung often offers deals and trade-in offers, too, makes it even more tempting if you're already in the Android ecosystem. Annoyingly, you can't pair a Galaxy Watch with an iPhone in a way that gives you the full experience. While the Galaxy Watch 7 technically can work with iOS, some features and health metrics — like ECG, blood pressure monitoring, and Samsung Health's more advanced tools — are either stripped back or unavailable entirely. The same goes for certain third-party apps and watch face options, which are much more robust when used within Samsung's own ecosystem. To get the most out of the Galaxy Watch 7, you really need to pair it with a compatible Android phone, ideally, a Samsung one. I tested mine with the Samsung Galaxy S25 Plus, and it was a seamless, enjoyable experience. It boasted fast pairing, full feature access, and top-notch integration with Samsung Health, SmartThings, and the new Galaxy Ring ecosystem. On top of that, the Galaxy S25 Plus' big, bright AMOLED screen made it a joy to manage watch settings, workouts, notifications, etc and it felt like both devices were built to work with one another — probably because they are. Of course, it's not easy to move away from iMessage, but if you're fully onboard the Samsung train, the S25+ and Galaxy Watch 7 combo is as slick and functional as it gets on Android. After two weeks of using the Galaxy Watch 7, I can honestly say it's a strong rival to Apple's popular wearable. The design is smarter than I expected, the software is powerful and flexible, and the price is right. It's a great option for Android users — and for once, Apple fans may have something to be envious of. Still, it's not perfect. Battery life is still just okay, the screen's responsiveness isn't perfect, and the tighter integration of the Apple Watch with iPhone still can't be beaten if you're fully invested in that ecosystem. So, did I switch for good? Not yet, but I'm seriously considering it. I've gone back to my Apple Watch for now, mainly because I'm a creature of comfort (and you gotta love the seamless iOS experience), but the Galaxy Watch 7 did make a huge impression on me. If I were to move to a Samsung phone full-time (and after using the Galaxy S25+, I'm genuinely tempted) the Galaxy Watch 7 would be my go-to wrist wearable.
