Moto X : Price Tag is NOT Surprising

[Paisley]

Droid maxx or razr maxx? did it just come out and is 299?

because if it's pretty new, there's your gap btwn 30 and 600 that he was talking about.

 

[ChuckG73]

because if it's pretty new, there's your gap btwn 30 and 600 that he was talking about.

You are very confused. On contract and off contract prices. Do you understand the difference? I am not planning on ever buying another phone that comes with a contract. The Droid Maxx is 699 off of contract.

 

[Paisley]

You are very confused. On contract and off contract prices. Do you understand the difference? I am not planning on ever buying another phone that comes with a contract. The Droid Maxx is 699 off of contract.

oh, sry, i misread that for some reason, lol. i don't know why i read that as 299 off, yes, i know the dif, just misread.

 

[briankariu]

First of, the nexus 4 was never subsidised. It was sold at cost. The bom was about $200 so stop talking like they made losses selling the phone.
You asked for a phone that has a price of $129...
gsmarena.com/xiaomi_unveils_ultracheap_quadcore_hongmi_aka_red_rice_droid-news-6494.php

Yeah other than the mediatek proc.... BOOOMMM

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Aquila]

The Nexus was subsidized, right?

First of, the nexus 4 was never subsidised.

The N4 was sold at "break even" for LG's expenses via the play store, and marked up slightly from there for T-Mobile. For a time, T-Mobile was offering a further subsidized price to sign a contract (no longer an option, though some affiliates and subsidiaries still offer this). The term subsidized, relative to the Nexus 4, is typically not speaking to a carrier subsidy, but rather than Google was eating the delta between production costs borne by and repaid to LG, and those associated with advertising, R&D, support, etc.

So, in this example, LG paid roughly $200 for parts and $100 per device to make it a functioning phone and Google pays them the $300. Typically LG would have added expenses in advertising, development, etc. that they'd recoup by pricing the phone accordingly, + a built in margin based on their expectant recurring expenses, such as warranties, litigation, etc. Google is eating those costs, and thus subsidizing the delta between LG's break-even and the consumer's pocket.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume Google is actually losing $100 or so per device over time, factoring in the advertising (very low cost to Google), RMAs, etc. but we really have no idea because it hasn't been broken down on a per device basis. Either way, the device IS subsided by Google, and, depending on where you purchased it and when, it may have been further subsidized by a carrier.

 

[GadgetGator]

These midrange comments are bunk without any real world experience. I know the iPhone is behind Android by a long ways on hardware and features, but do you consider the iPhone midrange?

Yes, between the small screen size, locked down OS and performance that has been eclipsed by other chipsets, I do consider the iPhone to be a midrange device at this point. And I consider the Moto-X to be an upper midrange device. Which is fine. It works on this device. I think it will be quite successful.

 

[Ry]

So the Moto X costs $199 on contract. And now, predictably, tons of people are going whine and scream and b@#!$ that the price they made up isn't real. Some people speculated an unrealistic price point and spread around like wildfire as if it was fact. It should have been obvious when the Droid Ultra with similar specs was released with a $199 price tag that the Moto X would be similar. But people just kept repeating this ridiculous $299 price tag, and now the internet is going to go ballistic because people refused to stop and think "Wait, we made this up."

Before you rage about the price some more, keep in mind NOBODY promised you this price, it was made up and demanded by people who seem to think all phones should be sold for little to no profit. If you are legitimately shocked and disappointed that this phone wasn't sold at a crazy low price, you have no one to blame but yourself for believing it, as the proof was there for a while.

Google's Motorola Unit to Spend Up to $500 Million Marketing 'Moto X' Phone - WSJ.com

Also, you are free to wait for the Nexus 5, since it will undoubtedly be better. Just remember, the Nexus 5 isn't even confirmed to EXIST. Before you start hyping the Nexus 5, remember what JUST HAPPENED with the Moto X. Let this be yet another lesson about what happens when you make crap up and treat it like fact.

After a bit of a hiatus, I'm glad to come back to posts like this.

 

[Ry]

The N4 was sold at "break even" for LG's expenses via the play store, and marked up slightly from there for T-Mobile. For a time, T-Mobile was offering a further subsidized price to sign a contract (no longer an option, though some affiliates and subsidiaries still offer this). The term subsidized, relative to the Nexus 4, is typically not speaking to a carrier subsidy, but rather than Google was eating the delta between production costs borne by and repaid to LG, and those associated with advertising, R&D, support, etc.

So, in this example, LG paid roughly $200 for parts and $100 per device to make it a functioning phone and Google pays them the $300. Typically LG would have added expenses in advertising, development, etc. that they'd recoup by pricing the phone accordingly, + a built in margin based on their expectant recurring expenses, such as warranties, litigation, etc. Google is eating those costs, and thus subsidizing the delta between LG's break-even and the consumer's pocket.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume Google is actually losing $100 or so per device over time, factoring in the advertising (very low cost to Google), RMAs, etc. but we really have no idea because it hasn't been broken down on a per device basis. Either way, the device IS subsided by Google, and, depending on where you purchased it and when, it may have been further subsidized by a carrier.

Apparently everything should cost only their BOM.

 

[snookiesnoo]

Yes, between the small screen size, locked down OS and performance that has been eclipsed by other chipsets, I do consider the iPhone to be a midrange device at this point. And I consider the Moto-X to be an upper midrange device. Which is fine. It works on this device. I think it will be quite successful.

Which tells us you know little about the iPhone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[JungleLarry]

No need to revive every dead thread in this forum. Thanks.

 

[GadgetGator]

Which tells us you know little about the iPhone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Actually I know quite a lot about the iPhone. But do tell...now you got me curious. What do you think I am missing?

 

[bryantest]

Moto X price will reportedly drop to $100 on contract this winter
Moto X price will reportedly drop to $100 on contract this winter | The Verge

https://twitter.com/evleaks/status/373759936406114304/photo/1

 

[snookasnoo]

You are way off. I don't much care about the price but what people don't like is that this a a mid spec phone with a high end price.

So the Moto X costs $199 on contract. And now, predictably, tons of people are going whine and scream and b@#!$ that the price they made up isn't real. Some people speculated an unrealistic price point and spread around like wildfire as if it was fact. It should have been obvious when the Droid Ultra with similar specs was released with a $199 price tag that the Moto X would be similar. But people just kept repeating this ridiculous $299 price tag, and now the internet is going to go ballistic because people refused to stop and think "Wait, we made this up."

Before you rage about the price some more, keep in mind NOBODY promised you this price, it was made up and demanded by people who seem to think all phones should be sold for little to no profit. If you are legitimately shocked and disappointed that this phone wasn't sold at a crazy low price, you have no one to blame but yourself for believing it, as the proof was there for a while.

Google's Motorola Unit to Spend Up to $500 Million Marketing 'Moto X' Phone - WSJ.com

Also, you are free to wait for the Nexus 5, since it will undoubtedly be better. Just remember, the Nexus 5 isn't even confirmed to EXIST. Before you start hyping the Nexus 5, remember what JUST HAPPENED with the Moto X. Let this be yet another lesson about what happens when you make crap up and treat it like fact.

 

[snookasnoo]

Actually I know quite a lot about the iPhone. But do tell...now you got me curious. What do you think I am missing?

I don't think you do. The iPhone is built with high quality components and much better quality control, testing, and service and support than most Android phones. Any of them actually. This costs money. That is why the screen sharpness, color and contrast are still great, performance is excellent, and the camera on the iPhone 5 is still the best on the market a year after its introduction. Also many of the components, like the processor, are a custom SOC. Liking Android doesn't mean you have to constantly announce to the world, as you do in your signature, that you don't like the iPhone. It's a good indication you ego is wrapped up in your choice of device which is pathetic and is also makes you sound like an immature teenager. Be happy with what you have.

 

[Aquila]

You are way off. I don't much care about the price but what people don't like is that this a a mid spec phone with a high end price.

I think it's been handily explained that this is not a "mid spec phone" in many threads here, so I won't go into the specifics other than to say the other threads and anatech's review are a great read.

I agree with you that was the day 1 reaction, but a little research and understanding about what it actually is, rather than what it looks like go a long way. From a "spec" perspective, this *might* be the highest "spec'd" phone out (until the G2 starts rolling, then that can be compared), and from a performance standpoint it certainly is.

Either way, in light of the facts, the argument would make more sense to say that the Galaxy S4 is way over-priced, than the Moto X is. The S4 is still being priced the same as the One and X (at least on Verizon, I didn't check AT&T out), despite the latter two both being much better performing devices.

The price of the X is definitely reflective of the quality of performance, feature set and the parts used (a $221 BOM vs the $234-237 in the S4). There was no valid reason to assume a Google subsidy to knock it down to cost.

 

[GadgetGator]

I don't think you do. The iPhone is built with high quality components and much better quality control, testing, and service and support than most Android phones. Any of them actually. This costs money. That is why the screen sharpness, color and contrast are still great, performance is excellent, and the camera on the iPhone 5 is still the best on the market a year after its introduction. Also many of the components, like the processor, are a custom SOC. Liking Android doesn't mean you have to constantly announce to the world, as you do in your signature, that you don't like the iPhone. It's a good indication you ego is wrapped up in your choice of device which is pathetic and is also makes you sound like an immature teenager. Be happy with what you have.

The only thing immature was your reply to me. You really don't know a thing about what you are talking about. I own Apple products. Don't make assumptions. Plus you are bringing up points that I didn't even raise. Care to respond to the actual points I made?

 

[tech_head]

Heard on the radio, the X is going to be $99 on contract in the last quarter of this year.