Are you smoking what Google-Motorola smoking....?

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

 

[tech_head]

No, not the specific processor. But they want the latest and greatest. It could be iPhone, etc. Bottom line is that the competition is the high end of the market at that price.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

No, not the specific processor. But they want the latest and greatest. It could be iPhone, etc. Bottom line is that the competition is the high end of the market at that price.

So you're still contending that the X isn't a high-end device? Based on what exactly? Since you just took the processor out of the equation.

The only really forward facing feature that doesn't match the One or S4 is the 720p display, but I can tell you, looking at the One X+ and One next to each, the 720p panel on the One X+ is still plenty impressive. I would be willing to bet that if you never told the average consumer that they were different that wouldn't even notice the resolution difference. AMOLED vs LCD is another matter, but a lot of that is preference. Phil said he's plenty happy with the display, and that he can see it in daylight.

 

[NoYankees44]

This thing costs approx $225 to make (in parts), which is the exact same range as the S4 and HTC One, and slightly higher than the iPhone (highest priced of them all retail). These prices exclude development, etc. and incidentally are the same costs as the Nexus 4. The Nexus did not use cheap parts, nor does this. The Nexus pricing is a subsidy, not a compromise on the device. There is no attempt to over charge. That is what they're trying to convey. This is not a "mid-range" device in any way except maybe the screen, compared to the S4 and One.

Just out of curiosity, where was it officially post how much the phone costs in parts?

Sent from my SCH-I535

 

[Aquila]

Just out of curiosity, where was it officially post how much the phone costs in parts?

Sent from my SCH-I535

It wasn't by Moto, that was Goldman Sachs detailing a parts teardown when they were trying to justify a low off-contract price to the public.

 

[srkmagnus]

Just out of curiosity, where was it officially post how much the phone costs in parts?

Sent from my SCH-I535

There's no tear down that I'm aware of. The coming weeks we'll probably see something and an estimate of what it costs.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rule9]

the One and S4 will probably see a price drop on contract quite a few months before the X. Something else to consider

 

[LegalAmerican]

90% of people put a case on their phone so the customized backs are just a gimmick.

I hear ya, but i'm going to be MAD if the phone manufacturers get sick of people calling every choice a "gimmick" and so they stop offering us choices like Apple. Why do we have to criticize every single option that's laid before us when it comes to phones? Who gives a crap if someone doesn't want to customize their phone? It's still cool that the option exists and that doesn't mean it's a stupid gimmick. (Like I said, I do agree that it shouldn't be the most hyped aspect of the phone, but it's still kinda cool)

- - - Updated - - -

90% of people put a case on their phone so the customized backs are just a gimmick.

I hear ya, but i'm going to be MAD if the phone manufacturers get sick of people calling every choice a "gimmick" and so they stop offering us choices like Apple. Why do we have to criticize every single option that's laid before us when it comes to phones? Who gives a crap if someone doesn't want to customize their phone? It's still cool that the option exists and that doesn't mean it's a stupid gimmick. (Like I said, I do agree that it shouldn't be the most hyped aspect of the phone, but it's still kinda cool)

 

[blazin247]

Right. And why do you have that opinion? How did you arrive there? It seems to me that an opinion like that would have to be based on the assumption that it might not perform on par with the competition. Is that the case in how you formed your opinion? I mean, otherwise, how would you know? And if you're one to look at benchmarks, then the performance preview at Ars Technica shows it outperforming the GS4 in some capacities. So...?

I'm not being combative here. I'm just asking questions.

You've asked this, and it's been answered. My opinion isn't based on performance, benchmarks (which are probably the biggest BS around- see Samsung's recent drama with boosting benchmark scores), or any articles written by tech sites which are given phones for free to review. I don't even need to touch the X to know that it's going to be zippy, and it's going to run everything I want it to without a problem. I know the screen is going to look good, and I'm sure the battery is going to last a good party of a day. This is pretty much a given with any name brand-maker phone produced in the past 2 years now. I'm not bashing the phone. My first Android phone was the Droid, then the Droid X and X2, and I just recently switched over to Samsung with the S3 (with a few phones thrown in between that I got rid of before contract). I'm a Moto lover. They've always had, bar none, the best reception of any phone on the market, and their build quality was bullet-proof. The two biggest drawbacks Moto has always had were that the camera always sucked, and the battery always sucked (except for the Maxx, I hear). I digress, though. My point is that I don't dislike the phone. I hope it succeeds. In my OPINION, it's overpriced because it's using a smaller battery, a smaller screen, an older processor (with newer GPU's admittedly), doesn't have the extra addons like the Stylus of the Note 2, the IR blaster of the S4, etc. These little changes in components equal dollar savings, which is completely acceptable and expected in capitalism. I buy my phone off contract, because I am not going to lose unlimited until Verizon pulls the plug, and then I'm going to pull the plug on Verizon, thankfully, at last. I expect a phone to be priced accordingly to the components inside of it. In a month, there is going to be a phone sporting the S800, and it's going to sell for the same price as the Moto X. Now let me stop you before you even begin typing a response- I don't CARE about the processor, the speed, the cores, etc., as long as it's quick enough to do what I want. What I care about is charging me, the consumer, according to what you're putting in the device. If you're going to charge me for cutting edge technology, put the technology in my phone. If you're not going to, don't charge me the same price. I'm sorry my opinion doesn't make sense to you. You probably still think I care about cores, and speed, or some other stupid stuff, and will never understand the stand on principle that I'm making. I look at this as an Apple type phone debut by Moto- putting a bunch of fancy terms like "proprietary SOC" and "innovating features" and "optimized software" into an ad campaign to sell a phone that is way, way overpriced to a population that doesn't know any better. They've insulted my intelligence, and therefore, regardless of how much I want Moto or the X (which again, looks great) to succeed, I'm going to pass on this phone (edited to add: until the price comes down to a reasonable level). I'm not going to waste another moment replying to you about this, so take this answer for what you will.

 

[Raptor007]

No, they can always introduce a REAL phone. This is what $12 Billion dollars bought Google, it certainly wasn't the patents since they suck wind in court rulings. I wanted a high end phone something to get other OEM's off their butts but not this joke. I could have lived with 720p but not the old processor, or the lack of storage, no F'in way.

 

[blazin247]

No, they can always introduce a REAL phone. This is what $12 Billion dollars bought Google, it certainly wasn't the patents since they suck wind in court rulings. I wanted a high end phone something to get other OEM's off their butts but not this joke. I could have lived with 720p but not the old processor, or the lack of storage, no F'in way.

Just out of curiosity, you have what is probably the best phone out, why are you looking at a new one?

 

[Aquila]

If you're going to charge me for cutting edge technology, put the technology in my phone. If you're not going to, don't charge me the same price.

They're doing both. Not sure why this is lost on a few people in these forums, but there is literally nothing "mid-range" about this device, unless it takes 1080p to be "high end".

to sell a phone that is way, way overpriced to a population that doesn't know any better.

The question is why you think it is overpriced. It is created at similar cost to other 2013 "flagships" and retailed at similar costs. Are you pissed at Samsung, LG, HTC, Apple and Sony for over charging as well?

They've insulted my intelligence

You misunderstanding is not the same thing as them insulting you.

I expect a phone to be priced accordingly to the components inside of it.

It is. So what's the problem?

In my OPINION, it's overpriced because it's using a smaller battery, a smaller screen, an older processor (with newer GPU's admittedly), doesn't have the extra addons like the Stylus of the Note 2, the IR blaster of the S4, etc.

It costs $9 less to produce than the S4 and is $75 cheaper for like models. Samsung is ripping you off far more than Moto.

I'm sorry my opinion doesn't make sense to you.

You're right, because you're backing it up with a lot of misconceptions and/or lies without ever attempting to understand the distinctions in terms, pricing concepts, etc. that are being thrown around.

 

[blazin247]

NothingIsTrue, before I reply to anything else you've said, I'm going to ask you once again...please post a link from a reputable component/teardown site that details the cost of the Moto X.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

NothingIsTrue, before I reply to anything else you've said, I'm going to ask you once again...please post a link from a reputable component/teardown site that details the cost of the Moto X.

I can say that to you too. How do you know it doesn't cost MORE to make the X?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Aquila]

NothingIsTrue, before I reply to anything else you've said, I'm going to ask you once again...please post a link from a reputable component/teardown site that details the cost of the Moto X.

2nd time in this thread (links have been posted in others) It was Goldman Sachs's analyst's review of the device in a 21 page report they put out detailing the impact on the market, pricing, etc. This was originally posted by Barron's, and has been on PhoneArena and Phandroid. It is not an iFixit teardown, but it is the closest thing that exists thus far. In a world wear processors cost $20 (Snapdragon)-$28 (Exynos), there is not going to be a lot of swing in device manufacturing costs. The $200-$250 range of 2012/2013 devices is going to true for many "flagships". The iPhone 5 is $204, the S4 $234, etc. so this cost is directly in line with those devices, while both are priced retail at $649 and this is $75 cheaper for the like version.

 

[benhmadison]

You've asked this, and it's been answered. My opinion isn't based on performance, benchmarks (which are probably the biggest BS around- see Samsung's recent drama with boosting benchmark scores), or any articles written by tech sites which are given phones for free to review. I don't even need to touch the X to know that it's going to be zippy, and it's going to run everything I want it to without a problem. I know the screen is going to look good, and I'm sure the battery is going to last a good party of a day. This is pretty much a given with any name brand-maker phone produced in the past 2 years now. I'm not bashing the phone. My first Android phone was the Droid, then the Droid X and X2, and I just recently switched over to Samsung with the S3 (with a few phones thrown in between that I got rid of before contract). I'm a Moto lover. They've always had, bar none, the best reception of any phone on the market, and their build quality was bullet-proof. The two biggest drawbacks Moto has always had were that the camera always sucked, and the battery always sucked (except for the Maxx, I hear). I digress, though. My point is that I don't dislike the phone. I hope it succeeds. In my OPINION, it's overpriced because it's using a smaller battery, a smaller screen, an older processor (with newer GPU's admittedly), doesn't have the extra addons like the Stylus of the Note 2, the IR blaster of the S4, etc. These little changes in components equal dollar savings, which is completely acceptable and expected in capitalism. I buy my phone off contract, because I am not going to lose unlimited until Verizon pulls the plug, and then I'm going to pull the plug on Verizon, thankfully, at last. I expect a phone to be priced accordingly to the components inside of it. In a month, there is going to be a phone sporting the S800, and it's going to sell for the same price as the Moto X. Now let me stop you before you even begin typing a response- I don't CARE about the processor, the speed, the cores, etc., as long as it's quick enough to do what I want. What I care about is charging me, the consumer, according to what you're putting in the device. If you're going to charge me for cutting edge technology, put the technology in my phone. If you're not going to, don't charge me the same price. I'm sorry my opinion doesn't make sense to you. You probably still think I care about cores, and speed, or some other stupid stuff, and will never understand the stand on principle that I'm making. I look at this as an Apple type phone debut by Moto- putting a bunch of fancy terms like "proprietary SOC" and "innovating features" and "optimized software" into an ad campaign to sell a phone that is way, way overpriced to a population that doesn't know any better. They've insulted my intelligence, and therefore, regardless of how much I want Moto or the X (which again, looks great) to succeed, I'm going to pass on this phone (edited to add: until the price comes down to a reasonable level). I'm not going to waste another moment replying to you about this, so take this answer for what you will.

This is the best, most sensible response yet. The phone looks great, but based on smartphone pricing at this time you aren't getting the cutting edge technology you are being charged for and that is what the "android geeks" are up in arms about.
Sent from my HTC One using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Aquila]

This is the best, most sensible response yet. The phone looks great, but based on smartphone pricing at this time you aren't getting the cutting edge technology you are being charged for and that is what the "android geeks" are up in arms about.
Sent from my HTC One using AC Forums mobile app

As just addressed again (and again), that IS the perception, but it is false. A little research and understanding of this device clarifies that it is directly appropriate in relevance, pricing, etc. This device just has a different approach to user experience than Samsung. Different is only worse if the performance and experience is worse for the person holding the phone.

 

[benhmadison]

No, they can always introduce a REAL phone. This is what $12 Billion dollars bought Google, it certainly wasn't the patents since they suck wind in court rulings. I wanted a high end phone something to get other OEM's off their butts but not this joke. I could have lived with 720p but not the old processor, or the lack of storage, no F'in way.

You are right, it's the combination of display/carrier exclusive/processor/16gb internal that makes it disappointing.

Sent from my HTC One using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

This is the best, most sensible response yet. The phone looks great, but based on smartphone pricing at this time you aren't getting the cutting edge technology you are being charged for and that is what the "android geeks" are up in arms about.
Sent from my HTC One using AC Forums mobile app

But you're getting technology that's far more cutting edge than what's being used on the phone in your signature. Nobody knows how this will work out for Moto, it may fail, it may even catch fire in a week, but it's something far more advanced than anyone else has done so far.

 

[Aquila]

But you're getting technology that's far more cutting edge than what's being used on the phone in your signature. Nobody knows how this will work out for Moto, it may fail, it may even catch fire in a week, but it's something far more advanced than anyone else has done so far.

I'm not sure why there are a handful of people that seem to have no idea what this means. Counting cores has nothing to do with how the device will actually perform.