I understand where this perspective is coming from - I could have thought the same thing when I first heard about it - but in this case it's definitely not vapourware.

I have designed, cut, and built foldscopes, and I can confirm that they work incredibly well and are cheap and quick to make. (I knew the professor involved from my time at MIT, and worked with the group on alternate designs, as I had some previous background in folding of various sorts.)

Back up that bus without running people over... I've used them IRL and seen micro-scopic features, so your assessment seems to lack evidence.

Anyhow, crazy awesome clinical, education and novelty value. There are plenty of situations where donating lab equipment is as cruel as giving someone a white elephant, but this is the polar opposite.

The cost is mostly in the bead. The tricky part is holding it a precision distance from the focusing plane, which the paper contraption accomplishes (clearly it's been simplified). The other neat aspect of the prototypes was that one part can be sanded down more on one side than another, where sliding a part allow very fine focus.

It's not vaporware. I've built them myself. Why make such a critical and cynical comment? I ask sincerely and not judgmentally. What value does it offer other readers?

We in the tech community deal with "X made! Follow us for commercial release"...

And that day never comes for many projects. So yes, skepticism is warranted in the sciences. And frankly, until I can buy one or download the CAD drawings, it effectively does not exist.