Motorola "X" Phone

[JHBThree]

4.3 in. display, 720p (342ppi), 16gb storage, 1gb ram, 5mp camera (1.2mp front), 1080p recording, dual core 1.4ghz Krait, 305 Adreno, 2000 mah battery.

Look familiar? That's the HTC First. And it's $ .99 on AT&T. Ninety-nine CENTS.

I don't care if the Moto X battery lasts ONE MONTH between charges with 12 hours of on-screen time/day.

Google better hope these "new" features break everything we know about the universe.

What are you trying to prove? Because you just proved that the Moto X has better specs.

 

[karn101]

I don't think he's saying it's better. I think it's more like, the price better be on point because something pretty similar in specs is being sold for 1 dollar. That's how I read it, and I somewhat agree. I am extremely curious to see the Verizon off-contract price.

 

[bquindawl]

I don't think he's saying it's better. I think it's more like, the price better be on point because something pretty similar in specs is being sold for 1 dollar. That's how I read it, and I somewhat agree. I am extremely curious to see the Verizon off-contract price.

I am.very curious of this too. This will end up being a pretty good test of exactly how much they can get away with, I have a feeling.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[bunique4life05]

http://androidcommunity.com/moto-x-pricing-tipped-to-undercut-the-nexus-4-20130722/

"Latest tips suggest Google and Motorola will undercut the Nexus 4 with both the price, and with what they offer. That being a 16GB Moto X smartphone (off contract) for the same price as the 8GB Nexus 4. According to reports we?ve received ourselves here at Android Community, and from GizmoFusion, Google and Motorola will be making a huge push with this budget friendly device. Thanks for the photo @evleaks.
The tipster claims the 16GB Moto X will cost users just $299, off contract, and will also be sold by carriers. Then the 32GB Moto X will be $349, which is a pretty impressive price with all things considered. However, it isn?t yet known what carriers will be asking, but we?re hearing that will be $99 and $149, respectively."

$349 for 32GB please have awesome battery life and fast os updates.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Gerg04]

Moto X pricing tipped to undercut the Nexus 4 - Android Community

"Latest tips suggest Google and Motorola will undercut the Nexus 4 with both the price, and with what they offer. That being a 16GB Moto X smartphone (off contract) for the same price as the 8GB Nexus 4. According to reports we?ve received ourselves here at Android Community, and from GizmoFusion, Google and Motorola will be making a huge push with this budget friendly device. Thanks for the photo @evleaks.
The tipster claims the 16GB Moto X will cost users just $299, off contract, and will also be sold by carriers. Then the 32GB Moto X will be $349, which is a pretty impressive price with all things considered. However, it isn?t yet known what carriers will be asking, but we?re hearing that will be $99 and $149, respectively."

$349 for 32GB please have awesome battery life and fast os updates.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using AC Forums mobile app

Very interesting. I LOVE love love my G Note 2. But I am super intrigued and really considering selling the GN2 to pick this up at that price. Like you guys have been saying above, they better have some really nice features to outweigh the old hardware. I've said a million times: you couldn't pry my Note from my cold dead hands. But there's something about having stock Android on the cheap. Plus I'm a total technology wh*re. I just can't help myself.

 

[jtc276]

http://androidcommunity.com/moto-x-pricing-tipped-to-undercut-the-nexus-4-20130722/

"Latest tips suggest Google and Motorola will undercut the Nexus 4 with both the price, and with what they offer. That being a 16GB Moto X smartphone (off contract) for the same price as the 8GB Nexus 4. According to reports we?ve received ourselves here at Android Community, and from GizmoFusion, Google and Motorola will be making a huge push with this budget friendly device. Thanks for the photo @evleaks.
The tipster claims the 16GB Moto X will cost users just $299, off contract, and will also be sold by carriers. Then the 32GB Moto X will be $349, which is a pretty impressive price with all things considered. However, it isn?t yet known what carriers will be asking, but we?re hearing that will be $99 and $149, respectively."

$349 for 32GB please have awesome battery life and fast os updates.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using AC Forums mobile app

Damn. I really hope there's a 64gb version. I don't see how such a "customizable" phone couldn't come in the three common storage variants. I would pay whatever since I'm selling a Galaxy S4 to buy this phone (or I might be).

Posted via Android Central App

 

[lets_go_android]

Damn. I really hope there's a 64gb version. I don't see how such a "customizable" phone couldn't come in the three common storage variants. I would pay whatever since I'm selling a Galaxy S4 to buy this phone (or I might be).

64GB would be great, but I doubt we'll see that. All the other specs so far have not been at that top-of-the-line level, so I would not expect the storage to be either.

I hope $300/350 will be the pricing we will see. Makes sense to me that it should be less than the Nexus 4. Otherwise, most people would just buy that instead. Given how much advertising money they're putting into this, it's clear they want this to sell in big numbers. To accomplish that, it would really help to be affordable.

 

[moosc]

What folks fail to remember is the real cost of the nexus 4 was around $599. Google took a hit and sold way cheaper. I get so mad when folks don't realize this.

64GB would be great, but I doubt we'll see that. All the other specs so far have not been at that top-of-the-line level, so I would not expect the storage to be either.

I hope $300/350 will be the pricing we will see. Makes sense to me that it should be less than the Nexus 4. Otherwise, most people would just buy that instead. Given how much advertising money they're putting into this, it's clear they want this to sell in big numbers. To accomplish that, it would really help to be affordable.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

 

[Clocks]

What folks fail to remember is the real cost of the nexus 4 was around $599. Google took a hit and sold way cheaper. I get so mad when folks don't realize this.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

This mad?

 

[drhill]

What folks fail to remember is the real cost of the nexus 4 was around $599. Google took a hit and sold way cheaper. I get so mad when folks don't realize this.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

Got a source for that? Or have you just never heard of mark up?

Look at this: iPhone 5 Carries $199 BOM, Virtual Teardown Reveals - IHS iSuppli

The $650 iPhone 5 16GB costs $207 for materials and assembly. Now this doesn't count R&D, marketing, shipping, the box. But to believe the these things cost $600+ in what is basically a psuedo-closed market is silly. I can't find the source, buy my Galaxy Nexus was around the same when it came out too.

 

[jbruha]

What folks fail to remember is the real retail cost of the nexus 4 was around $599. Google took a hit and sold way cheaper. I get so mad when folks don't realize this.

FTFY. The materials used in the construction of these devices lies right around the $200 area, give or take. If you want to factor in other production and marketing costs to get it closer to $600, you can, but there will still be a margin on it if it's sold that high.

The only thing Google lost when they sold it at that price was any profits from it, which was intentional. It was to saturate the market again and release a product that made all of their services easily accessible for more people to use them. While these devices perform like computers, they are not priced like computers.

If you or anyone else would like to discuss how the pricing of smartphones work and how carrier subsidies play their part in it, I'd be more than happy to do so.

 

[jdbii]

FTFY. The materials used in the construction of these devices lies right around the $200 area, give or take. If you want to factor in other production and marketing costs to get it closer to $600, you can, but there will still be a margin on it if it's sold that high.

The only thing Google lost when they sold it at that price was any profits from it, which was intentional. It was to saturate the market again and release a product that made all of their services easily accessible for more people to use them. While these devices perform like computers, they are not priced like computers.

If you or anyone else would like to discuss how the pricing of smartphones work and how carrier subsidies play their part in it, I'd be more than happy to do so.

Isn't this illegal under the WTO rules? I mean, when one company heavily subsidizes a product, don't other companies get to allege unfair trade practices for over saturating the market with unfairly subsidized product at below market value? Isn't that what the whole brouhaha is with Chinese solar panels in Europe or countless other examples? I never understood why Google never came under the same fire from other OEMs for heavily subsidizing the Nexus 4.

 

[Pollster]

Isn't this illegal under the WTO rules? I mean, when one company heavily subsidizes a product, don't other companies get to allege unfair trade practices for over saturating the market with unfairly subsidized product at below market value? Isn't that what the whole brouhaha is with Chinese solar panels in Europe or countless other examples? I never understood why Google never came under the same fire from other OEMs for heavily subsidizing the Nexus 4.

Probably because you're not doing anything wrong unless you truly pay to play. If you simply forgo profit and sell at cost to reap other profit benefits later, then a fight against that is opening the can of worms "How little profit is too little?"
Must everyone make the same profit margin as Apple or be accused of being noncompetitive?

 

[jbruha]

Isn't this illegal under the WTO rules? I mean, when one company heavily subsidizes a product, don't other companies get to allege unfair trade practices for over saturating the market with unfairly subsidized product at below market value? Isn't that what the whole brouhaha is with Chinese solar panels in Europe or countless other examples? I never understood why Google never came under the same fire from other OEMs for heavily subsidizing the Nexus 4.

I'll do my best to explain, but the short answer is that it was because they were the ones selling it and there was nothing illegal about it. Even at those low prices, there was still some form of markup on it, even if it was minimal. Also keep in mind that the only entity paying $599 for a smartphone, ever, is the end user (or carriers to Apple for the iPhone). These devices are negotiated and sold in bulk with their own markup from each manufacturer to each carrier. So really, when you compare a $299 Nexus 4 sold to you directly through the Play Store without a service contract attached to it, to a multi-million order of Galaxy S IV's to AT&T/Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile at $3-400 each (hypothetically), the only real difference is Google cut out the carrier as the middleman and the contract between you and an awesome device. Compare that to if you had bought that same Galaxy S IV on contract for $199 or less, and the Nexus 4 is still technically more expensive. This is how wireless carriers convolute the ecosystem and create an environment to make it exceptionally hard to be prosecuted for any misconduct. That's not to say any of these actions are illegal, but if they ever pushed that boundary, there's a ton of loopholes that would keep them protected.

 

[lostaggie]

Probably because you're not doing anything wrong unless you truly pay to play. If you simply forgo profit and sell at cost to reap other profit benefits later, then a fight against that is opening the can of worms "How little profit is too little?"
Must everyone make the same profit margin as Apple or be accused of being noncompetitive?

This has to do more with government subsidizing not private. A private company can choose to buy market...