Do you think the Moto X (2014) price matches the value?

[Aquila]

I still remember the day the Moto X was released and I went into an AT&T store to hold one. I nearly gasped because it felt so perfect in my hand.

Sadly, I don't think I'll ever have that same feeling again about a new phone for a very long time--if ever at all.

I'm hoping this one somehow rings that bell too. Waiting to make that call for a couple weeks.

 

[Woosh]

I still remember the day the Moto X was released and I went into an AT&T store to hold one. I nearly gasped because it felt so perfect in my hand.

Sadly, I don't think I'll ever have that same feeling again about a new phone for a very long time--if ever at all.

You never know. Perfect feel is really subjective based on your hand size. It's hard to think they will keep growing and growing until the galaxy mega is considered small.

I really hope moving forward we get to the point where they go the route that Sony and Moto is going in making two size phones. Maybe then with more competition in the smaller space we can get back to phones that don't need a crane to operate.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[someguy01234]

Debatable. Those manufacturing costs don't include R&D, marketing, packaging, software development, etc. plus every company needs to make a profit.

I can see why it's so expensive to develop Touchwiz considering it's so bloated and slow. And then spending a big portion of the budget on marketing to make people believe it's good.

 

[robjulo]

They are not playing to different consumers. They compete head to head in just about every review. If I'm looking for a higher end Android phone that isn't an oversized phablet, I'm going to look at the Moto X, the LG G3, the GS5, the HTC One and the Nexus 5. As you stated, the Note is a different type of product but the others are competing for the same dollar, along with the iPhone.

The Moto X 2013 was initially priced $100 too high, as is this phone. There were many, many posts about it. Motorola quickly corrected that mistake last year, we will see if they do this year.

They compete in the same regions and roughly the same price range, but they're playing to different groups of consumers. The LG G3 is playing the Spec Wars game while the Moto X is playing the understated simplicity game. I'd put Samsung & LG in one category with Apple, Moto and possibly HTC in another. Different goals with the devices and thus different consumer bases. For example, there are very few people looking to upgrade this fall that are considering both the iPhone 6 and Galaxy Note 4 as their top two choices. There may be some, but those devices are so different and speaking to different consumers that it is difficult to think of them as competitors to each other.

 

[Aquila]

They are not playing to different consumers. They compete head to head in just about every review. If I'm looking for a higher end Android phone that isn't an oversized phablet, I'm going to look at the Moto X, the LG G3, the GS5, the HTC One and the Nexus 5. As you stated, the Note is a different type of product but the others are competing for the same dollar, along with the iPhone.

The Moto X 2013 was initially priced $100 too high, as is this phone. There were many, many posts about it. Motorola quickly corrected that mistake last year, we will see if they do this year.

I'm okay with disagreeing IMO they're totally different design philosophies.

 

[Woosh]

They are not playing to different consumers. They compete head to head in just about every review. If I'm looking for a higher end Android phone that isn't an oversized phablet, I'm going to look at the Moto X, the LG G3, the GS5, the HTC One and the Nexus 5. As you stated, the Note is a different type of product but the others are competing for the same dollar, along with the iPhone.

The Moto X 2013 was initially priced $100 too high, as is this phone. There were many, many posts about it. Motorola quickly corrected that mistake last year, we will see if they do this year.

Why is the note a different market and yet the G3 not? The G3 is 5.5 screen vs a 5.7 and they're very close in size. The note series is still a high end phone, if you're in the market for one then I'd imagine its still one to consider.

Why is it that you think the 2013 moto X was worth $499 and yet this one is not?

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Eli_C]

I think it is priced right and priced where I thought it would be. Much better then 2013 which was a blunder.

It would be a better value if it had 32GB storage and/or 3GB ram.

It would sell like crazy if they outclassed all of the other cameras out there instead of a ho-hum camera.

 

[Citizen Coyote]

The Moto X 2013 was initially priced $100 too high, as is this phone. There were many, many posts about it. Motorola quickly corrected that mistake last year, we will see if they do this year.

How is the Moto X 2013 "priced right" at $499, but the Moto X 2014 (which is a more powerful device) too expensive at that price point? How can you justfiy Moto charging $399 for a phone with superior specs at launch? Because Google did it with the Nexus 5? Because Chinese brands trying to expand their markets do it? I'm honestly curious to hear your reasoning.

 

[someguy01234]

How is the Moto X 2013 "priced right" at $499, but the Moto X 2014 (which is a more powerful device) too expensive at that price point? How can you justfiy Moto charging $399 for a phone with superior specs at launch? Because Google did it with the Nexus 5? Because Chinese brands trying to expand their markets do it? I'm honestly curious to hear your reasoning.

I think if a phone have stock Android people automatically demand it should be $100 to $200 cheaper than other phones.

 

[PFKMan23]

I think if a phone have stock Android people automatically demand it should be $100 to $200 cheaper than other phones.

Which is foolish because most enthusiasts complain about skinned android. But I stand my belief that phones like the Oneplus one and the Nexus 5 have skewd market perception.

 

[robjulo]

Huh? You need to re-read my post. I never once said the 2013 Moto X was priced right. In fact I said the opposite. I said there were many complaints (which I agree with) that it was priced too high. Motorola corrected that problem.

How is the Moto X 2013 "priced right" at $499, but the Moto X 2014 (which is a more powerful device) too expensive at that price point? How can you justfiy Moto charging $399 for a phone with superior specs at launch? Because Google did it with the Nexus 5? Because Chinese brands trying to expand their markets do it? I'm honestly curious to hear your reasoning.

 

[Woosh]

Huh? You need to re-read my post. I never once said the 2013 Moto X was priced right. In fact I said the opposite. I said there were many complaints (which I agree with) that it was priced too high. Motorola corrected that problem.

I asked the same question that he did, You said "The Moto X 2013 was initially priced $100 too high, as is this phone"...So since the Moto X 2013 was originally priced at $599 that would have made it a good value at $499 by your logic.

 

[Citizen Coyote]

I think if a phone have stock Android people automatically demand it should be $100 to $200 cheaper than other phones.

Which is foolish because most enthusiasts complain about skinned android. But I stand my belief that phones like the Oneplus one and the Nexus 5 have skewd market perception.

I fully agree. But there's just no pleasing some people.

 

[Citizen Coyote]

Huh? You need to re-read my post. I never once said the 2013 Moto X was priced right. In fact I said the opposite. I said there were many complaints (which I agree with) that it was priced too high. Motorola corrected that problem.

What Woosh said. I did reread your post and stand by my own question. Maybe you thought the original X was initially priced lower than what it really was?

(And for what it's worth I agree the original X probably was too expensive initially, given its competition at the time.)