Seeing John Ternus unfold the iPhone Duo at the Emmy Awards left me wondering whether Apple’s approach to reflections really is better than Samsung’s. Its inner screen looked washed out in the footage, with little of its content visible. Not exactly the most flattering look for Apple's first foldable.

Judging the iPhone Duo's display based on this one real-world video from the red carpet wouldn't be fair, though. We don't know the brightness setting, the camera's exposure, or how the screen actually looked to someone holding it.

But it does raise a question worth asking: does Apple’s matte treatment make the content easier to see than Samsung’s low-reflection finish, or just make reflections less obvious?

The two companies are approaching the same problem in fundamentally different ways. Apple is trying to diffuse reflections across the surface, while Samsung is trying to reduce them without giving up the more traditional glossy OLED look. That difference is what makes this comparison interesting to me.

Samsung takes a noticeably different approach. The Galaxy Z Fold8's inner display isn't matte, but it does use a low-reflection treatment and reaches up to 3,000 nits of brightness. Apple quotes the same 3,000 nits of peak outdoor brightness for the Duo and combines that with its nano-texture surface.

On paper, the brightness figures are therefore very similar. But brightness alone doesn't tell us which phone will actually be easier to use outdoors.

Reflections in sunlight matter just as much. Even a very bright screen can become uncomfortable to read when reflections obscure its contents. Samsung has been working on this problem for a while without making its displays look matte.

The Galaxy S24 Ultra was a particularly good example. Its Gorilla Armor cover glass reduced reflections significantly compared to previous Galaxy phones, while the display itself still retained the glossy look, deep blacks and vibrant colors people expect from an OLED screen. Samsung has since continued improving its anti-reflective technology, and the Fold8's inner display also benefits from a low-reflection finish.

Apple’s nano-texture surface tackles that problem by changing how reflections appear. It scatters reflected light so a window or lamp is less likely to appear as a sharp reflection.

That can absolutely be useful. But the reflected light doesn't simply disappear.

A matte surface can also spread light over a larger area of the display, which could affect perceived contrast, darker content and fine details. Instead of seeing one sharp reflection, you could potentially end up with a larger washed-out area under difficult lighting conditions. And that is exactly what makes the Emmy footage interesting, even if it isn't enough to draw a final conclusion from.

There have also been positive hands-on impressions of the Duo under strong indoor lighting, so I'm not saying Apple's display is automatically worse. But I do think Samsung's approach has an obvious potential advantage: it reduces reflections without completely changing the character of the display.

That's what I'd want to compare directly. Put small text on both phones, open darker photos and look at how vibrant colors appear outside. Does Apple's matte screen make everything easier to see, or does Samsung's more traditional display maintain better contrast and clarity while still keeping reflections under control?

The Fold8 and Fold8 Ultra are particularly interesting here because you can already see how much Samsung's low-reflection treatment improves the experience compared to older Galaxy foldables. You still get a glossy OLED display, but reflections are far less distracting than they used to be.

There are still some practical questions around how the nano-texture surface will behave in everyday use.

Apple lists a fingerprint-resistant oleophobic coating for the Duo, but it will be interesting to see how fingerprints and smudges affect the matte surface under bright light, and whether keeping it clean requires any different care from a conventional glossy display.

Those are secondary questions for now. The bigger one is still the viewing experience: does the nano-texture actually make content easier to see across different lighting conditions, or does reducing visible reflections come with trade-offs in contrast, sharpness or color?

That is something we'll only be able to answer properly once the Duo can be tested side by side with the Fold8.

The comparison I want is fairly straightforward: put the Duo and Fold8 next to each other, open the same article and photos, and use them indoors and outside. Compare them at similar brightness levels under the same lighting, and then see what happens when both phones push their displays as hard as possible outdoors.

I haven't carried out that test yet. But I'm also not convinced that making the entire display matte is automatically the better solution just because reflections and the crease become less noticeable.

When I'm reading an article, checking a photo, or watching something on Netflix or YouTube, I care much more about contrast, sharpness and seeing the content clearly than hiding the fold down the middle.

And when it comes to the crease itself, I think it's something that is mostly complained about by people who haven't used a foldable for an extended period of time. It's a bit like the punch-hole camera on a normal smartphone. You notice it at first, but after using the device every day, you mostly stop paying attention to it.

You also spend most of your time interacting with the left and right sides of the inner display with your thumbs, rather than constantly running your fingers across the middle.

From the first hands-on footage, Apple definitely seems to have done a good job of minimizing the crease. For me, though, a less visible crease would not be worth losing contrast or clarity in the content I actually look at. That is the trade-off I want a direct comparison to investigate.

Samsung has reduced reflections while still keeping the qualities people expect from a high-end OLED display. Apple has chosen a much more radical solution. For me, the test is whether that change makes the content clearer in everyday use, not simply whether the surface looks less reflective.