Can Moto X save Motorola? Yes!!

[dpham00]

Honestly, I think it may have been about either power management or space more so than cost. The problem with comparing to the Nexus lines is that Google subsidizes those, whereas they do not for other Android devices. The margin you're seeing on the Nexus is probably going all or mostly to ASUS. A more accurate comparison would be to the GPe devices, which are $599 and $649 for approximately the same manufacturing cost.

I am certainly not disagreeing with you there. Just that, based on the rumors, people were expecting Nexus type pricing. And if they had sold it for $100ish on contract, i am assuming that they would still be making a profit, and more in line with mid-range devices. Or sell it off-contract around $400, i am sure that they will make a profit on the Play Store since they are cutting out carrier profits.


Really though, if money is an issue, and you didn't mind doing a bit of work, you can get the s4 new off contract for $450 after gc's and etf from best buy.

The Verizon note 2 was $400 off contract, and the DNA was $300 off contract, based on similar methods/deals previously.

Although, admittedly, not many people are willing to do these methods. I just wanted to point out that it is possible, for those determined.

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II

 

[osubeavs728]

Just that, based on the rumors, people were expecting Nexus type pricing.

You know that sounds ridiculous right?

 

[dpham00]

You know that sounds ridiculous right?

It might sound ridiculous, but I am assuming that if the rumors were out that it was $200 on contract, that there wouldn't be this backlash now.

It also goes to show how useless rumors are.

But let's also remember that the gnex was $300 on contract with Verizon when released, and when it went to the play store a few months later, it was $400

Similarly, the tmobile nexus 4 was $200 on contract or $300 from the play store.

So perhaps the Moto X will be released at a lower price after a few months

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II

 

[Aquila]

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.

 

[osubeavs728]

It also goes to show how useless rumors are.

Never have there been words more true spoken. But it seems many people seem to easily and voluntarily forget this.

Il, according to rumors the world was supposed to end last year... But look, here we are debating cell phones. Safe and sound.

 

[dpham00]

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/iphone-kills-carrier-profits/

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II

 

[Aquila]

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]

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

 

[spawndoodling]

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

 

[TheLibertarian]

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

 

[ultravisitor]

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.

 

[mech1164]

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

 

[Farish]

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?

 

[dpham00]

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

 

[tdizzel]

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?

 

[Farish]

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.

 

[roadkizzle]

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.

 

[Farish]

Here is the magical question of the day.

How many applications that are multi-threaded outside of games, that use more than 2 cores?

 

[matt0715]

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/showthread.php?t=302681

Posted via Android Central App

 

[ultravisitor]

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/showthread.php?t=302681

Dianne Hackborn basically said she was surprised that wasn't a piece written by The Onion.

https://plus.google.com/105051985738280261832/posts/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.