Moto X+1 only 16GB?

[Ry]

Never said it was mid ranged. I'm just saying 32GB isn't that much money for the manufacturer to put in their base model, so FLAGSHIP phones in 2014 (not 2012 or 2013) should have 32GB minimum. I heard it is very cheap for the manufacturer to do that, even though they charge $100 for a storage upgrade.

Should doesn't mean they have to.

If 32GB is the high-end spec, and the HTC One M8, LG G3, and Galaxy S5 all start with 16GB, these 2014 flagships must be mid-range.

That new 16GB Moto X+1? Mid-range.

That new 16GB Nexus 6? Mid-range.

That new 16GB Note 4? Mid-range.

It isn't that much money to do 32GB instead. But that eats into an OEMs profits.

As a phone maker (who's goal should be to MAKE MONEY): which route would you go?

1. Charge $500 for a 16GB phone that costs you $200 in parts only AND $600 for the same phone except 32GB instead that cost you $205 in parts only
2. Charge $500 for a 32GB phone that costs you $205 in parts only

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

These numbers are old and they vary by OEM and I'm estimating based on memory, so find your own sources - all that said, IIRC it's like $8 for an 8GB, $12 for 16GB, $18 for 32GB or something to that effect. When the OEM charges $50 more per stage (Google, Moto, etc), I kinda get it because their volume discount is probably less and they're not selling as many (obviously same issue) so the cost per device on the line is spread over higher due to sunk and fixed costs spread over fewer devices - there's a recoup. $100 more per stage is just obnoxious IMO, but if people will pay it then okay have fun.

Raw cost of parts is not the whole story either. Any hardware change adds money in other areas as well. They do need to be tested an validated, even if it doesn't take an insane amount of time to do it. That will add cost. The people cutting the deals with suppliers need to get paid. Having the extra assembly line also needs to get paid for.

It bothers me that people think the only cost involved is the actual wafer of memory.

 

[tdizzel]

It boggles my mind every time someone says that 32GB should be the minimum. Just because you can't manage with less storage than that doesn't mean that others can't. 32GB should be an option, since its obvious that some people want that, but its ludicrous to say it should be the minimum. I don't need and don't even want a phone with 32GB. I much rather the money spent on extra storage went to extra battery instead, The minimum should be whatever the lowest amount that people who are going to buy the phone will buy it with. Period. anything else should be an option.

 

[Aquila]

Raw cost of parts is not the whole story either. Any hardware change adds money in other areas as well. They do need to be tested an validated, even if it doesn't take an insane amount of time to do it. That will add cost. The people cutting the deals with suppliers need to get paid. Having the extra assembly line also needs to get paid for.

It bothers me that people think the only cost involved is the actual wafer of memory.

I was trying to imply that in the sunk and fixed costs but you said it better.

 

[unstoppablekem]

These numbers are old and they vary by OEM and I'm estimating based on memory, so find your own sources - all that said, IIRC it's like $8 for an 8GB, $12 for 16GB, $18 for 32GB or something to that effect. When the OEM charges $50 more per stage (Google, Moto, etc), I kinda get it because their volume discount is probably less and they're not selling as many (obviously same issue) so the cost per device on the line is spread over higher due to sunk and fixed costs spread over fewer devices - there's a recoup. $100 more per stage is just obnoxious IMO, but if people will pay it then okay have fun.

I know they have to make profit, but they don't need to rip people off.

 

[unstoppablekem]

It boggles my mind every time someone says that 32GB should be the minimum. Just because you can't manage with less storage than that doesn't mean that others can't. 32GB should be an option, since its obvious that some people want that, but its ludicrous to say it should be the minimum. I don't need and don't even want a phone with 32GB. I much rather the money spent on extra storage went to extra battery instead, The minimum should be whatever the lowest amount that people who are going to buy the phone will buy it with. Period. anything else should be an option.

What happens when Apple will make 32GB the minimum requirement for their newest high end phone? Will it be okay then? Or you still on denial that the company shouldn't lose $4 in being nicer to the consumer.

 

[tdizzel]

What happens when Apple will make 32GB the minimum requirement for their newest high end phone? Will it be okay then? Or you still on denial that the company shouldn't lose $4 in being nicer to the consumer.

I have never and will never own an iPhone so I don't care what apple does. And the big difference between iOS and Android is that Android is about choice, iOS is about control, so as long as I'm on Android I expect to have choice, not be dictated what I want in a phone. And I'm not in denial. I'm barely using half of the 16GB available on my Ultra. I don't need 32. But like I said, if you can't work with less than 32, then it should be an option for you. But I don't want it.

 

[unstoppablekem]

Anyways, this seems as a huge debate rather than answering my first question to you guys. D:
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk

 

[Ry]

Anyways, this seems as a huge debate rather than answering my first question to you guys. D:
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk

Because 16GB is still an acceptable starting point, even in 2014.

Posted via Android Central App (Moto X)

 

[Aquila]

Anyways, this seems as a huge debate rather than answering my first question to you guys. D:
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk

Listen to my facial expression. I'd be shocked if 32 wasn't an option via Moto Maker on day 1.

 

[unstoppablekem]

That post and some others were fine, but the majority were talking how 16GB should be in all phones.

And I also say 32GB should be minimum because soon, 128GB will be in phones. We already have 128GB microSD cards. Content is becoming bigger in size, and the more stuff and more pixels, means more use of storage space.

Anyways, I would get the Moto X+1 in 64GB if they don't offer microSD.

 

[PFKMan23]

As has been said, the people on this website are in the minority. I know plenty of regular people where 16 GB is more than enough. As far as the iPhone being the instigator for 32 GB being the case, I have no idea. It very well might be, but if they can get away with charging $100 more for a 32GB, why wouldn't they try to prolong it? Like I said before, I want 32 GB or bigger to become standard, but I just don't think it will be, certainly not this year.

 

[delrey1900]

Anyways, this seems as a huge debate rather than answering my first question to you guys. D:
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk

Uh, most of us did.

 

[unstoppablekem]

Uh, most of us did.

I meant to say that, my bad. I didn't mean all of you guys. But just imagine, the Moto X+1 with microSD card support would be better than just the built in storage. But if I had no choice, I would hope for a 64GB model.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

What happens when Apple will make 32GB the minimum requirement for their newest high end phone? Will it be okay then? Or you still on denial that the company shouldn't lose $4 in being nicer to the consumer.

You really think companies want to be nice to consumers?

Maybe you're the one in denial.....

EDIT: Companies can do consumer friendly things, sure, but they aren't going to knowingly take a hit in profit for the sake of the consumer.

 

[unstoppablekem]

You really think companies want to be nice to consumers?

Maybe you're the one in denial.....

EDIT: Companies can do consumer friendly things, sure, but they aren't going to knowingly take a hit in profit for the sake of the consumer.

Yeah, not every company is nice, especially Samsung (jk, lol), but doesn't mean they have the right to charge $100 for a storage upgrade when it costs them like 90% less.

Like I've said, all I want is a Moto X+1 with microSD and/or with 64GB. Is that too hard to say without people going crazy here?

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Yeah, not every company is nice, especially Samsung (jk, lol), but doesn't mean they have the right to charge $100 for a storage upgrade when it costs them like 90% less.

Like I've said, all I want is a Moto X+1 with microSD and/or with 64GB. Is that too hard to say without people going crazy here?

They absolutely do have the right to charge that. They can charge whatever they want. They will have no incentive to change until they stop making money making those types of decisions.

And no, that's not too hard to say. I'd be ok with 16GB + microSD or 32GB myself.

 

[unstoppablekem]

They absolutely do have the right to charge that. They can charge whatever they want. They will have no incentive to change until they stop making money making those types of decisions.

And no, that's not too hard to say. I'd be ok with 16GB + microSD or 32GB myself.

I'm fine with 16GB and microSD too. But if it was just internal storage, I would want 64GB.

 

[efstuck]

16gb + microsd would be ideal. I have the 16gb moto X and ...surprise..it isn't enough.

 

[meyerweb#CB]

Offering a 16 GB version lets them keep the base cost down. Adding a microSD slot lets people who need more storage get it, and adding the slot costs little. That's what I expect as a base model, but hopefully they'll offer a 32GB model, too.