You appear to be making certain assumptions and the treating them as fact.
First you state flexible plastic covers have been used in "capacitative" screens. There's a world of difference between a plastic resistive screen which has some give and one which bends entirely. Second, you presume the Mate X screen is more durable when we have no evidence to confirm nor deny it. Neither the general public nor selected journalists have been allowed to touch it. Third, you presume the dents on the fold affected the structure - this is both plausible and understandable due to the soft nature of flexible plastics. One cannot foresee a solution to this beyond flexible glass. Fourth, you assert the fold has been "rushed to market" when the device has been in development for well over half a decade. Does putting a limited production device on the market at an exhorbitant price count as rushing?
The fold is not a mass market device. It's an exclusive, limited production device purely for those who can/choose to afford it and are willing to accept the potential risks associated. It's more of a Muira than a Corolla. I'd never buy it but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in it from a technological standpoint
