08-09-2013 11:44 PM
78 1234
tools
  1. dpham00's Avatar
    The other pricing consideration that I think is relevant and perhaps lost in translation is that all of the sunk costs, (R&D, building the plant, hiring people, payroll, commissions, sales, advertising, taxes, etc) are spread out among devices sold. They aren't planning to sell 10 million of these, they know it isn't an S4. The more devices you spread the sunk costs over, the more profit you average per device. If you figure it's $225 for the device, $75 for assembly, and spread the other $100 for advertising, $50 for operating expenses... that's $450 and that's without a carrier getting any cut of the pie. Margins on this could already be slim, we don't really have a way of knowing unless someone from decision sciences, accounting or the board room leaks an ROI.
    Actually, carriers pay the manufacturer between $200-$300 for android devices, granted the article was written last year, so it maybe a little higher, but my guess would be less than $450 as that is iPhone territory. IPhones are a different story, and carriers have to pay between $400-450. Granted this is in general, so moto situation could be higher.

    For the s4, the $237 already includes the manufacturing cost, which is approximately $8.50

    http://betanews.com/2012/06/07/iphon...rrier-profits/

    Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II
    08-03-2013 01:04 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Actually, carriers pay the manufacturer between $200-$300 for android devices, granted the article was written last year, so it maybe a little higher, but my guess would be less than $450 as that is iPhone territory. IPhones are a different story, and carriers have to pay between $400-450. Granted this is in general, so moto situation could be higher.

    For the s4, the $237 already includes the manufacturing cost, which is approximately $8.50

    iPhone kills carrier profits

    Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II
    I'm reading that article very differently. I'm reading that $400-$450 as the average delta between the consumer's subsidized price and the negotiated wholesale price less buyback return. Basically that $850 iPhone that costs the consumer $399 has $450 unpaid on it, but the carrier might be paying $800 or $825 to Apple for it.

    So in terms of the X-Phone under this scenario, the consumer pays $199, Verizon pays $300-$375, Motorola gets $500-$575, Verizon gets their money back over time either in the form of an EFT or by customer retention due to the contract.

    I may be misunderstanding what that is saying though, let me know if I need to re-read it. But I'm reading that for an "average" Android phone, Verizon only has to pay the OEM $200-$300 to make up the delta between contract price and MSRP (or negotiated price), whereas it's $400 with Apple... assuming that it's likewise or worse on the S4 and HTC One, if that model is correct.
    dpham00 likes this.
    08-03-2013 01:15 AM
  3. dpham00's Avatar
    I'm reading that article very differently. I'm reading that $400-$450 as the average delta between the consumer's subsidized price and the negotiated wholesale price less buyback return. Basically that $850 iPhone that costs the consumer $399 has $450 unpaid on it, but the carrier might be paying $800 or $825 to Apple for it.

    So in terms of the X-Phone under this scenario, the consumer pays $199, Verizon pays $300-$375, Motorola gets $500-$575, Verizon gets their money back over time either in the form of an EFT or by customer retention due to the contract.

    I may be misunderstanding what that is saying though, let me know if I need to re-read it. But I'm reading that for an "average" Android phone, Verizon only has to pay the OEM $200-$300 to make up the delta between contract price and MSRP (or negotiated price), whereas it's $400 with Apple... assuming that it's likewise or worse on the S4 and HTC One, if that model is correct.
    I think you are right and I misread it.

    I paid $37 for my Verizon note 2 and $50 for my Rezound (near release) So, let's just say Verizon paid $550 for the note 2, that would mean that the carrier subsidy in my case was worth $513 for the note 2. I used one of my dumb phone lines, so I am paying $403($10/mo line access + $6.40 per month, 1/5 share of the $34 account access charge). That's a net loss for verizon of $110 for the note 2. that doesn't even include dumb phone usage. And I bought both devices at a third-party retailer (best buy and Costco), but I heard that they lose commission in cases like mine.

    Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II
    Aquila likes this.
    08-03-2013 01:48 AM
  4. spawndoodling's Avatar
    I get the specs argument - to a degree. Not everyone cares about tech specs. But you can't deny one feature that they completely missed the boat on: screen size and resolution. A lot of people are screen size hounds - tech savvy or not - and want the bigger screen. One of the primary reasons the Galaxy S3 and S4 have been such coveted devices is because they're all screen. Now we all know that screen size doesn't necessarily make a better screen, but it certainly gives that outward appearance to the untrained eye. But if you don't want to increase screen size to epic proportions a la Samsung, you still have the option of maximizing screen resolution. HD, AMOLED, Retina - whatever they call it - is crucial nowadays. Even behind the times Apple maintains pace with superior screens on the market because they've spent so much time on pixel density. But 720p only, a smaller screen than the vast majority of Android flagships, and no features to boost pixel density? That's a lose-lose situation for one of the only hardware features that smartphone consumers universally pay attention to.

    My problem with Google and Motorola is that they already knew this was the case. Why are Galaxies selling like hotcakes? They didn't even need to hire consultants or focus groups for that one - it's clear that screen size and resolution are among the top 3 and top 5 reasons consumers go with the Galaxy. And I'm sure the same stands for the vast majority of HTC One and iPhone buyers as well. Coming out with a phone that has NO selling point screen-wise is going to kill Motorola in stores, especially when salesmen are forced to "um" and "uh" their way through any distinguishable - or at least marketable distinguishable features - that make the Moto X's screen superior.

    But when you consider Motorola again playing into exclusives and the classic US market faux pas, that's when you know they really dropped the ball. How is it that one of the largest companies in the world cannot at least roll out the Moto Maker for more than one carrier? The confusion and anger is already imminent: I can already see consumers rushing into Sprint and Verizon stores to "make" their X phone only to be told that's an AT&T exclusive. This is not 2006. The biggest selling point of your phone shouldn't be a carrier exclusive, for 3 months, 3 days, or any period of time. And Google has the resources to advertise the X phone on their own and really front the cost for most of everything - they didn't need AT&T for this. It's almost like Motorola turned a blind eye to one of the problems plaguing them for years: their never ending reliance on Verizon for "carrier exclusives." And on top of that, with Samsung succeeding on another level with jamming their phones onto every carrier possible with every feature and color possible, you would think Motorola would at least make this a no brainer. Or at least launch the Moto Maker on more than one carrier.

    I would buy the Moto X in a heartbeat - don't get me wrong. But this announcement was not subdued or less exciting because everything was leaked beforehand. It was less exciting because Motorola injected serious BUTS and ANDS into their announcements. Underwhelming and less exciting doesn't mean you're not going to purchase something, it merely means that there was potential for more.

    Of course I could be wrong - and there could be more constraints with money and manufacturing I don't even know exist - but in a tech world where marketing and messaging are just as big (if not bigger) than the products themselves, I think it's very difficult - and near impossible - to make the case that Motorola hit one out of the park.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    Roundpotato likes this.
    08-03-2013 02:50 AM
  5. TheLibertarian's Avatar
    I get the specs argument - to a degree. Not everyone cares about tech specs. But you can't deny one feature that they completely missed the boat on: screen size and resolution. A lot of people are screen size hounds - tech savvy or not - and want the bigger screen. One of the primary reasons the Galaxy S3 and S4 have been such coveted devices is because they're all screen. Now we all know that screen size doesn't necessarily make a better screen, but it certainly gives that outward appearance to the untrained eye. But if you don't want to increase screen size to epic proportions a la Samsung, you still have the option of maximizing screen resolution. HD, AMOLED, Retina - whatever they call it - is crucial nowadays. Even behind the times Apple maintains pace with superior screens on the market because they've spent so much time on pixel density. But 720p only, a smaller screen than the vast majority of Android flagships, and no features to boost pixel density? That's a lose-lose situation for one of the only hardware features that smartphone consumers universally pay attention to.

    My problem with Google and Motorola is that they already knew this was the case. Why are Galaxies selling like hotcakes? They didn't even need to hire consultants or focus groups for that one - it's clear that screen size and resolution are among the top 3 and top 5 reasons consumers go with the Galaxy. And I'm sure the same stands for the vast majority of HTC One and iPhone buyers as well. Coming out with a phone that has NO selling point screen-wise is going to kill Motorola in stores, especially when salesmen are forced to "um" and "uh" their way through any distinguishable - or at least marketable distinguishable features - that make the Moto X's screen superior.

    But when you consider Motorola again playing into exclusives and the classic US market faux pas, that's when you know they really dropped the ball. How is it that one of the largest companies in the world cannot at least roll out the Moto Maker for more than one carrier? The confusion and anger is already imminent: I can already see consumers rushing into Sprint and Verizon stores to "make" their X phone only to be told that's an AT&T exclusive. This is not 2006. The biggest selling point of your phone shouldn't be a carrier exclusive, for 3 months, 3 days, or any period of time. And Google has the resources to advertise the X phone on their own and really front the cost for most of everything - they didn't need AT&T for this. It's almost like Motorola turned a blind eye to one of the problems plaguing them for years: their never ending reliance on Verizon for "carrier exclusives." And on top of that, with Samsung succeeding on another level with jamming their phones onto every carrier possible with every feature and color possible, you would think Motorola would at least make this a no brainer. Or at least launch the Moto Maker on more than one carrier.

    I would buy the Moto X in a heartbeat - don't get me wrong. But this announcement was not subdued or less exciting because everything was leaked beforehand. It was less exciting because Motorola injected serious BUTS and ANDS into their announcements. Underwhelming and less exciting doesn't mean you're not going to purchase something, it merely means that there was potential for more.

    Of course I could be wrong - and there could be more constraints with money and manufacturing I don't even know exist - but in a tech world where marketing and messaging are just as big (if not bigger) than the products themselves, I think it's very difficult - and near impossible - to make the case that Motorola hit one out of the park.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
    1) How are you of the opinion that a 4.7" is too small for a display? You said a majority of Android flagship feature a larger display... Name them. Galaxy S4, Xperia Z (I believe), and... What else? Note II? Niche product. Galaxy Mega? Niche product. HTC One? 4.7".

    2) You cannot tell the differences in pixels between 1080 and 720 displays. Known fact, and Motorola knows that well. They opted for a lower resolution display for the power savings, not for cost.

    The phone is designed to be an ever present assistant by always listening and lasting all day. THAT is the purpose of this device: to be there for its user when called upon.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-03-2013 03:07 AM
  6. ultravisitor's Avatar
    I can already see consumers rushing into Sprint and Verizon stores to "make" their X phone only to be told that's an AT&T exclusive. This is not 2006. The biggest selling point of your phone shouldn't be a carrier exclusive, for 3 months, 3 days, or any period of time. And Google has the resources to advertise the X phone on their own and really front the cost for most of everything - they didn't need AT&T for this. It's almost like Motorola turned a blind eye to one of the problems plaguing them for years: their never ending reliance on Verizon for "carrier exclusives."
    I think the problem with Verizon is those stupid Droids. It would not surprise me in the least if Verizon didn't want their customers to have access to MotoMaker at launch because otherwise they'd have a big problem selling the Droids. I'm thinking MotoMaker isn't going to come to Verizon until Q4, which will give them a bigger window to sell the Droids and allow them to have something "new" to offer their customers for the holiday season. I wouldn't be surprised in the least--I'd almost be willing to put money down on that.
    ChuckG73 likes this.
    08-03-2013 04:44 AM
  7. mech1164's Avatar
    As the idea is, it seems the reason they didn't go with the S600 is because the Pro is a more battery efficient processor. The big question I have is why all the spec junkies are so wrapped up on the quad vs dual core issue.
    I'm more than happy with the development issues regarding the two DSPs to enable features that seem like they will actually benefit real world experience while also allowing for less battery usage. I think that these will reduce the reliance on the CPU... especially the contextual processing one.

    Still, as everyone with the knowledge knows that the GPU is most important in the UX for mobile devices. That's one reason why the iPhone is so smooth because of its prioritizing the graphical abilities in the phone.
    The reason why is we see past what Apple is doing. That's one of the reasons why we got Android in the first place. We know it's overpriced for the capabilities. I applaud Motorola for realizing the experience has to be top notch. What I criticize them for is taking their base for Apple iSheep. That we are not and we are not happy.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Roundpotato likes this.
    08-03-2013 07:54 AM
  8. Farish's Avatar
    I applaud Motorola for realizing the experience has to be top notch. What I criticize them for is taking their base for Apple iSheep. That we are not and we are not happy.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Apple is the highest profit company, why wouldn't they want to go after that base?
    08-03-2013 08:55 AM
  9. dpham00's Avatar
    Apple is the highest profit company, why wouldn't they want to go after that base?
    It is fine for them to go after iOS users, I just think that they are not doing a good job of it. At the end of the day, only time will tell though. They are advertising individual features, some of which can be akin to Samsung's new features (while different, imo, they can be a bit gimmicky


    Also, they emphasize color options, but when someone goes to the store...they can't get it right away, and even then only available on att. I think that this is gonna create some backlash from those set on customizing their phone

    Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II
    08-03-2013 09:17 AM
  10. tdizzel's Avatar
    I think the problem with Verizon is those stupid Droids. It would not surprise me in the least if Verizon didn't want their customers to have access to MotoMaker at launch because otherwise they'd have a big problem selling the Droids. I'm thinking MotoMaker isn't going to come to Verizon until Q4, which will give them a bigger window to sell the Droids and allow them to have something "new" to offer their customers for the holiday season. I wouldn't be surprised in the least--I'd almost be willing to put money down on that.
    That argument might work if it weren't for the T-Mobile, Sprint and US Cellular factor. If its not on Verizon because they opted out because of the Droids then what excuse is there for the other carriers not having it?
    08-03-2013 10:01 AM
  11. Farish's Avatar
    That argument might work if it weren't for the T-Mobile, Sprint and US Cellular factor. If its not on Verizon because they opted out because of the Droids then what excuse is there for the other carriers not having it?
    T-Mobile wont be carrying Moto X in its stores or on their website. You have to order from Motorola direct. That really leaves Sprint, so the only guess I could make is this is a test run on something like this and whichever carrier offered the best kickback got to do the testing.
    08-03-2013 11:40 AM
  12. roadkizzle's Avatar
    The reason why is we see past what Apple is doing. That's one of the reasons why we got Android in the first place. We know it's overpriced for the capabilities. I applaud Motorola for realizing the experience has to be top notch. What I criticize them for is taking their base for Apple iSheep. That we are not and we are not happy.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    What are you talking about? People don't hate Apple's iPhones because they are smooth.

    People hate them because they are extremely restricted in their capabilities, and Apple refuses to admit that they can ever make anything that is not ideal for their customers, shown in their refusal to allow alternate keyboards and the like.

    Motorola is not restricting the capabilities of these phones or sacrificing anything other than a couple of numbers on a sheet of paper. Why does it matter so much that they chose to give their users better battery life at the cost of something that adds virtually nothing such as the jump from 2 to 4 processors. They spent the time and resources to create the low energy processors which will add much more to the phones capabilities than the two additional CPU cores will for many years.
    Lanzeelus likes this.
    08-03-2013 01:29 PM
  13. Farish's Avatar
    Here is the magical question of the day.

    How many applications that are multi-threaded outside of games, that use more than 2 cores?
    08-03-2013 01:59 PM
  14. matt0715's Avatar
    Check out this forum I just posted. There's a link to a very interesting article that has a tidbit of the moto x in it. http://forums.androidcentral.com/sho...d.php?t=302681

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-03-2013 02:02 PM
  15. ultravisitor's Avatar
    Check out this forum I just posted. There's a link to a very interesting article that has a tidbit of the moto x in it. http://forums.androidcentral.com/sho...d.php?t=302681
    Dianne Hackborn basically said she was surprised that wasn't a piece written by The Onion.

    https://plus.google.com/105051985738...ts/LnnmHRnZh79

    AppleInsider's obsession with Android is... remarkable.

    Normally I wouldn't post links to these kinds of articles and give them more traffic... but, dammit, AppleInsider gives me some good entertainment close to once a week. This is kind-if like linking to The Onion, really.
    08-03-2013 02:05 PM
  16. matt0715's Avatar
    Sure, but I can't help but ponder. Really, how much money does Google make of android? With the release of GE and nexus phones, obviously they are trying to make money by selling their OS themselves, but that's only gone so far.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-03-2013 02:08 PM
  17. still1's Avatar
    People complaining about processor. Do you guys even know what natural language processor and contextual processor do??

    Contextual processor: The contextual computing processor handles the sensors, display and touch interaction,
    but it also appears to function as the primary processor when the phone is in standby mode,
    including showing status and notification information on the display.

    Natural Language Processor: The natural language processor deals with audio, noise estimation
    and noise cancellation;

    phones like N4 would use 2 cores for all of the android related task and apps use the same cores too.
    The other 2 cores is useless unless some customized Apps/Android use it.

    Contextual processor is used in half of what you do with smartphone leaving the other 2 processor cores to apps.

    I dont know if people understand this but this is an optimized quad core processor.
    08-03-2013 04:18 PM
  18. gone down south's Avatar
    Sure, but I can't help but ponder. Really, how much money does Google make of android? With the release of GE and nexus phones, obviously they are trying to make money by selling their OS themselves, but that's only gone so far.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Google gives Android away for free.


    Sent from my Nexus 4 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-03-2013 04:27 PM
  19. matt0715's Avatar
    Google gives Android away for free.


    Sent from my Nexus 4 using AC Forums mobile app
    Exactly. Thats the problem. The reason why apple makes so much money is because their OS isn't open source. Everything that involves their OS, they get money for.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-03-2013 04:31 PM
  20. still1's Avatar
    Exactly. Thats the problem. The reason why apple makes so much money is because their OS isn't open source. Everything that involves their OS, they get money for.

    Posted via Android Central App
    why does it matter how much Google makes out of Android? do you want google to charge money for Android so that the price of Android devices go up???

    Google makes money differently. Google makes money from the android device they sell indirectly from ads. when you use Google NOW/MAPS to search, do you see ads??
    That one click probably is >$1 for Google. Dont forget ads on apps and people using search on desktop because they are tied to android. thats equivalent to $50 over the period of 1 year(just a rough guess)

    if google charge money(lets say $15 for license) they would have only sold about 50 million phones

    calculate the total compared to 900 million devices sold. with more than 500 active Android devices out there
    08-03-2013 04:42 PM
  21. Farish's Avatar
    Exactly. Thats the problem. The reason why apple makes so much money is because their OS isn't open source. Everything that involves their OS, they get money for.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Apple went almost bankrupt at one point.

    The reason why Google gives away Android is the revenue and market lock into their services search and mobile advertising in the long run will make up for it.


    If Google wasn't making Billions maybe you would have a good point.

    Apple makes more money they are a hardware company and their iPhone was first to market in this current revolution.

    The GE editions are ways for Google to give more options to the consumer. Google isn't trying to sell these at a market, I am sure to encourage HTC and Samsung to do this, they get all the profit minus operating costs for the play store.
    08-03-2013 04:51 PM
  22. matt0715's Avatar
    why does it matter how much Google makes out of Android? do you want google to charge money for Android so that the price of Android devices go up???

    Google makes money differently. Google makes money from the android device they sell indirectly from ads. when you use Google NOW/MAPS to search, do you see ads??
    That one click probably is >$1 for Google. Dont forget ads on apps and people using search on desktop because they are tied to android. thats equivalent to $50 over the period of 1 year(just a rough guess)

    if google charge money(lets say $15 for license) they would have only sold about 50 million phones

    calculate the total compared to 900 million devices sold. with more than 500 active Android devices out there
    I'm not saying that they need to make money off of it, and many including me are happy that android is open source. It was just an interesting article that gave me a lot to think about. Do I think Google will give up Android? Heck no. Do I think Google is going to start doing more proprietary stuff to make money? Yes and its already starting with chromecast and the chromebooks.

    Oh and BTW, sorry for starting an off-topic discussion. :P

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-03-2013 05:22 PM
  23. still1's Avatar
    I'm not saying that they need to make money off of it, and many including me are happy that android is open source. It was just an interesting article that gave me a lot to think about. Do I think Google will give up Android? Heck no. Do I think Google is going to start doing more proprietary stuff to make money? Yes and its already starting with chromecast and the chromebooks.

    Oh and BTW, sorry for starting an off-topic discussion. :P

    Posted via Android Central App
    "Yes and its already starting with chromecast and the chromebooks." let me clear you a little bit. chromebook is open source.
    Its called Chromium OS. read here Chromium OS - The Chromium Projects

    Chromecast is not open source. I think they are doing it for a reason. to protect intellectual property,copyright etc,etc

    proprietary stuff should be there but not like Apple(100% proprietary) and not like Microsoft(99.5% proprietary)
    but google makes 99% opensource and 1% proprietary. do you see the difference?? Its Huge!!
    08-03-2013 06:24 PM
  24. matt0715's Avatar
    "Yes and its already starting with chromecast and the chromebooks." let me clear you a little bit. chromebook is open source.
    Its called Chromium OS. read here Chromium OS - The Chromium Projects

    Chromecast is not open source. I think they are doing it for a reason. to protect intellectual property,copyright etc,etc

    proprietary stuff should be there but not like Apple(100% proprietary) and not like Microsoft(99.5% proprietary)
    but google makes 99% opensource and 1% proprietary. do you see the difference?? Its Huge!!
    Sorry. Didn't realize that chrome os was open source. But still, I think Google is going to go more proprietary.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-03-2013 07:37 PM
  25. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Sorry. Didn't realize that chrome os was open source. But still, I think Google is going to go more proprietary.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Only with GAPPS

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    08-03-2013 07:50 PM
78 1234

Similar Threads

  1. VZ Moto X Pre-Order live at Best Buy
    By NovaSS369 in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-02-2013, 07:45 PM
  2. Can I transfer all my paid apps on 2012 N7 to new N7?
    By chihhsic in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2012)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 10:17 PM
  3. Moto X up for preorder through Best Buy
    By psychoD33x in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 08:27 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 04:23 PM
  5. can't access interent while at work
    By freedda in forum Chrome OS
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 04:00 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD