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

[Premium1]

I'm guessing if they're in the store they're going to be actually using the phone to see how it compares to the others you mentioned....

...which is far more than you can say.

you would be surprised what you see in the stores.

 

[JungleLarry]

you would be surprised what you see in the stores.

Nothing surprises me anymore, unfortunately -- not even the responses in this thread.

Let's look at this from another lens. Say you want to buy a really fast car. You get your options narrowed down to Ferrari, Lamborghini, and McLaren. Looking at the prices and the spec sheets, you just can't figure out why they're valued so differently and you go to a test drive thinking you're going to buy the one with the most horsepoooooooooower. Seems sensible, right? More power = more fast.

Well, you get there and quickly realize that this isn't the case. Around a track other things start to contribute to how quick a car is perceived and the time it can put down. Much to your surprise, the car with the worst "specs" is actually faster around a track than the one with the most horsepooooooooooower; the one you, in your infinite wisdom, picked to the be the fastest based on numbers. Things like handling, suspension design, weight distribution, throttle response, brakes, on-board computing, etc. seem to contribute far more to the overall speed than you had originally estimated. Moreover, the car with the most horsepower might have the worst driver's seat, which would seriously put a damper on your driving experience, yes?

There are those of us who live in the real world and put stock in practical value, and there are those of you that geek out over spec sheets because talking about gigacore processors makes you happy. That's fine. But if a company can squeeze more out of less -- make a phone that people will use and enjoy without having their brains numbed by spec sheet data -- then what in the world are you complaining about? Don't like it? Don't buy it.

Until you folks can pick up this phone, test it, and comparatively show that the Moto X is slower than its high-spec'd competitors in real world tests, all that's currently being spouted is ignorance and speculation akin to the hype that was generated before it was even announced.

I have used both the GS4 and HTC One extensively. I've given them both as gifts and I think they're wonderful devices. I am still excited for the Moto X and I'm trying to approach it with an open mind; all I care about is what the phone actually does...in the real world...not on a spec sheet.

Phone specs, like horsepooooooooooower, are just numbers. Get over it.

 

[NoYankees44]

Lets also remember that this is the first smartphone made in the US. The cost to produce ANY PRODUCT in the united states much outweighs the cost to produce OCONUS. This will obviously be reflected in the retail price of the device.

This is true, but in no way a pass. If they cannot produce the product for the right price, that's not my problem. I will buy from a company that can.

Sent from my SCH-I535

 

[Farish]

This is true, but in no way a pass. If they cannot produce the product for the right price, that's not my problem. I will buy from a company that can.

Sent from my SCH-I535

But your statement is only correct if the majority of people believe that the Moto X is overpriced at 199. We will find out in about 3 months time if that is really the case.

 

[Jennifer Stough]

Google would be expected to swallow the cost of CONUS production, and cost of parts in order for it to be the price many of you want. While it's a nice concept, it isn't a realistic one.

This is true, but in no way a pass. If they cannot produce the product for the right price, that's not my problem. I will buy from a company that can.

Sent from my SCH-I535

 

[benhmadison]

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.

As far as the processor goes it seems like you may be right. The new screen notifications and such seem innovative. Although I am on AT&T and could get the 32gig version, many people are not on AT&T and therefore are stuck with a 16 gb version. Couple that with a downgrade in display quality from what we have grown accustom to on high end devices and it just seems there are better choices available. Again it looks like a great device, but definitely not something I would trade a S4 or a ONE for.

 

[Premium1]

Nothing surprises me anymore, unfortunately -- not even the responses in this thread.

Let's look at this from another lens. Say you want to buy a really fast car. You get your options narrowed down to Ferrari, Lamborghini, and McLaren. Looking at the prices and the spec sheets, you just can't figure out why they're valued so differently and you go to a test drive thinking you're going to buy the one with the most horsepoooooooooower. Seems sensible, right? More power = more fast.

Well, you get there and quickly realize that this isn't the case. Around a track other things start to contribute to how quick a car is perceived and the time it can put down. Much to your surprise, the car with the worst "specs" is actually faster around a track than the one with the most horsepooooooooooower; the one you, in your infinite wisdom, picked to the be the fastest based on numbers. Things like handling, suspension design, weight distribution, throttle response, brakes, on-board computing, etc. seem to contribute far more to the overall speed than you had originally estimated. Moreover, the car with the most horsepower might have the worst driver's seat, which would seriously put a damper on your driving experience, yes?

There are those of us who live in the real world and put stock in practical value, and there are those of you that geek out over spec sheets because talking about gigacore processors makes you happy. That's fine. But if a company can squeeze more out of less -- make a phone that people will use and enjoy without having their brains numbed by spec sheet data -- then what in the world are you complaining about? Don't like it? Don't buy it.

Until you folks can pick up this phone, test it, and comparatively show that the Moto X is slower than its high-spec'd competitors in real world tests, all that's currently being spouted is ignorance and speculation akin to the hype that was generated before it was even announced.

I have used both the GS4 and HTC One extensively. I've given them both as gifts and I think they're wonderful devices. I am still excited for the Moto X and I'm trying to approach it with an open mind; all I care about is what the phone actually does...in the real world...not on a spec sheet.

Phone specs, like horsepooooooooooower, are just numbers. Get over it.

I got over it and won't be buying because for full retail which I need for unlimited data its not worth it IMO. But thanks for telling me what I should buy with MY money. Plus most people don't "try" out a phone before they buy it regardless of what you think. I know people who work in cellular stores so think I have a solid understanding and first hand experiencing from being in stores and seeing what people actually do when buying a phone.

 

[Farish]

As far as the processor goes it seems like you may be right. The new screen notifications and such seem innovative. Although I am on AT&T and could get the 32gig version, many people are not on AT&T and therefore are stuck with a 16 gb version. Couple that with a downgrade in display quality from what we have grown accustom to on high end devices and it just seems there are better choices available. Again it looks like a great device, but definitely not something I would trade a S4 or a ONE for.

1 out of 3 are on ATT, 1 out of the other 3 is on Verizon. The other 1 gets divided by everybody else.

Scary but true.

 

[Speedygi]

I actually liked that they did not emphasize on the specs and they went with the experience changing route. You can literally see how sublime the Moto X is as a phone to hold and use. They , like Blackberry and Apple, knows that the specs only matter to a certain point and even if you have ****ty software anyways, all the highest end specs aren't going to mean jack.

Also, I think this helps drive the prices down so that more consumers can afford them. We have seen so many times how Samsung has priced their highest end phones, and while that is in accordance to the demand they have, that does not cater to the crowd more willing to pay lower.

With that, it could be a really good midrange phone that will sell a lot.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[JungleLarry]

I got over it and won't be buying because for full retail which I need for unlimited data its not worth it IMO. But thanks for telling me what I should buy with MY money. Plus most people don't "try" out a phone before they buy it regardless of what you think. I know people who work in cellular stores so think I have a solid understanding and first hand experiencing from being in stores and seeing what people actually do when buying a phone.

The extent of my financial advice was, in summary, to not buy something you don't like. If you find that disagreeable in some way, then please, by all means, do the exact opposite.

I also know people who have worked in cellular stores, but unlike you I don't seem to have mastered the technique of developing expertise via social osmosis. One day....one day.

 

[anon(27512)]

I wonder if there's a way to disable the "Post New Thread" button in this forum. I come here for information and this is the trash I have to sift through.

Seems to me all the complaints about the Moto X are that it isn't the Samsung Galaxy S4...or the HTC One...or whatever. Guess what, kids? There's already a phone like the GS4. It's called the GS4. There's even a phone just like the HTC One. It's called the HTC One. And get this kicker....they're both available for purchase!

Not sure what all the whining is about. You sound like Motorola ran over your dog and owes you something. Last I checked, they don't. They simply made a phone they thought would sell (and it will). Just because it doesn't fit your needs doesn't mean it's not an attractive alternative to someone else.

And that's the key word for today -- "alternative." There's plenty of them on the market right now, blessed be thy Android.

Now shaddap already.

^that.

 

[SteelGator]

Nothing surprises me anymore, unfortunately -- not even the responses in this thread.

Let's look at this from another lens. Say you want to buy a really fast car. You get your options narrowed down to Ferrari, Lamborghini, and McLaren. Looking at the prices and the spec sheets, you just can't figure out why they're valued so differently and you go to a test drive thinking you're going to buy the one with the most horsepoooooooooower. Seems sensible, right? More power = more fast.

Well, you get there and quickly realize that this isn't the case. Around a track other things start to contribute to how quick a car is perceived and the time it can put down. Much to your surprise, the car with the worst "specs" is actually faster around a track than the one with the most horsepooooooooooower; the one you, in your infinite wisdom, picked to the be the fastest based on numbers. Things like handling, suspension design, weight distribution, throttle response, brakes, on-board computing, etc. seem to contribute far more to the overall speed than you had originally estimated. Moreover, the car with the most horsepower might have the worst driver's seat, which would seriously put a damper on your driving experience, yes?

There are those of us who live in the real world and put stock in practical value, and there are those of you that geek out over spec sheets because talking about gigacore processors makes you happy. That's fine. But if a company can squeeze more out of less -- make a phone that people will use and enjoy without having their brains numbed by spec sheet data -- then what in the world are you complaining about? Don't like it? Don't buy it.

Until you folks can pick up this phone, test it, and comparatively show that the Moto X is slower than its high-spec'd competitors in real world tests, all that's currently being spouted is ignorance and speculation akin to the hype that was generated before it was even announced.

I have used both the GS4 and HTC One extensively. I've given them both as gifts and I think they're wonderful devices. I am still excited for the Moto X and I'm trying to approach it with an open mind; all I care about is what the phone actually does...in the real world...not on a spec sheet.

Phone specs, like horsepooooooooooower, are just numbers. Get over it.

I love this analogy. You can take it one step further and be pissed they are not selling them as cheaply as a Corvette, because the Vette is really just as fast.

 

[STARGATE]

I love this analogy. You can take it one step further and be pissed they are not selling them as cheaply as a Corvette, because the Vette is really just as fast.

Lol
You dare compare a Vette to some of the best of the best from Italy and England! Are you out of your mind!

Sent From a Galaxy S4 Away!

 

[Puzzlegal]

I sold phones for a year. Not once did anyone ever come in and say "I want the phone that has the Snapdragon xxxx and 2gb of RAM. Make sure it's the one that's clocked the highest." Not once. Ever.

They came in and either 1) didn't know what they wanted 2) wanted the Galaxy 3) wanted the iPhone. That covers 90% of the people that walked in to the store. The other 10% were flip and feature phone users (yeah, they still exist). They wanted the Galaxy and the iPhone because they saw it on tv. Marketing. It's all marketing.

"People shopping for $200+ phones are shopping specs." No they aren't. I think I'm qualified to say that I know a LOT about the smartphone world. I've been on three sides of it. Regular consumer (non-techie and techie), salesperson (for AT&T), and now, the tech news side.

I think you are right.

I'm not going to buy this phone. The only reason I am shopping for a new phone is that Motorola screwed over Photon owners and locked us out of updated beyond Gingerbread. So there's no way I'm going to reward them for that by buying a new Motorola. Also, I don't really trust them re unlocking stuff and upgrading stuff, what with the (incredibly deceitful, as well as unpleasant) way they treated Photon owners.

BUT, that being said, this phone looks like a decent choice if you don't mind buying from Motorola.

The specs on most mid-range phones are plenty good enough for most users. The issues people have are battery life, signal strength, and some convenience/confusion/usability issues. This phone seems to have taken a serious look at improving battery life, Moto's generally have good radios, and Moto also seems to have thought carefully about how people use phones, and what gimmicks would actually be helpful. And hey, people who have seen it say that screen looks good and the camera takes nice photos. Those are other features people care about.

And I think the customized back thing will be very popular. Everyone likes their stuff to be "theirs", and people care about color and texture. You look at the case every day. (Well, I don't use a protective cover, and most of the phones I see on the train are naked, too. If you always hide your phone in an otterbox, that feature won't matter to you. So, popular among lots of prospective customers, not all.)

 

[STARGATE]

I'm not going to buy this phone. The only reason I am shopping for a new phone is that Motorola screwed over Photon owners and locked us out of updated beyond Gingerbread. So there's no way I'm going to reward them for that by buying a new Motorola. Also, I don't really trust them re unlocking stuff and upgrading stuff, what with the (incredibly deceitful, as well as unpleasant) way they treated Photon owners.

That's exactly why I didn't wait to see what Moto brought to the table! I was told and promised by them that my Photon was getting ICS and at the last moment...:banghead::banghead:

Motorola will not see more money from me!

Like I have said before; they can go to hell for all I care!

Sent From a Galaxy S4 Away!

 

[ChuckG73]

Motorola take my money.

 

[SolarPlexus]

One thing to, also, be taken into account is the fact that most folks will be coming in off of contract obligations.
So they will likely be coming form previous generation phones (HTC 1X, S3,etc).
So imagine a non-phone geek walking into a store. They have their S3 In hand ready to trade in.
They pick up the S4, HTC One, And Moto X. Do you really think they are going to be able to tell the difference in the screens? We know they won't be able to tell a difference in speed (according to review after review after review)
Now Add the simple things like the Voice Command (Which is cooler than Siri) the active display notifications, and the Assist. (Sure you can do some of the Assist stuff with 3rd party stuff but they aren't going to show that in the store)
I can definitely see MANY non-phone geeks I know going for the Moto X. And can definitely see that it is worth the price.
Many folks on this forum care about Benchmarks and "high end" processors and Full HD. But lets be for real. If you are reading this you are less than half of a percent of the market which Apple and Motorola are aiming (at least right now) They want to create a better EXPERIENCE rather than win awards for fastest phone.

 

[Aquila]

It seems like my quote of Goldman Sachs' report of $225 for the BOM was $4 off. It's actually closer to $221.

Teardown Reveals Google's Moto X Costs $221 to Build - Arik Hesseldahl - News - AllThingsD

 

[roadkizzle]

It seems like my quote of Goldman Sachs' report of $225 for the BOM was $4 off. It's actually closer to $221.

Teardown Reveals Google's Moto X Costs $221 to Build - Arik Hesseldahl - News - AllThingsD

I find it interesting compared to the Galaxy S4. The Moto X's display costs $62.50 while the Galaxy S4's costs $75.00.

The amazing part is that apparently Samsung spends $20 per phone for their Snapdragon 600 processors while Motorola pays $28 for each of their custom Snapdragon S4's.

I think it's quite clear that Motorola did not make their design decisions in an attempt to cut costs as opposed to making a great phone.

The Galaxy S4 overall costs $237 which is only $16 more than the Moto X. I have no idea how people can claim the Moto X justifies a $99 on-contract price.

Teardown Reveals Samsung Galaxy S4 Costs $237 to Build - Arik Hesseldahl - News - AllThingsD