09-03-2014 07:14 PM
63 123
tools
  1. Ry's Avatar
    Like I said, the 16GB was the highest $ model. Although, it did exist. Why can't we just all agree that 32GB should be the min storage in a phone without microSD? Geez...
    I have a 16GB Moto X. It's been fine for me. 8GB should be the min on a 720 phone.

    Posted via Android Central App (Moto X)
    08-18-2014 08:59 AM
  2. Clocks's Avatar
    More is always better, but I still have 17.38GB free on my dev edition even though I have a few GB of dashcam videos (I dedicate 2gb if space to save the most recent recordings).

    The only time I could see myself running into space issues is if I went on vacation and took a ton of videos. But I would bring a laptop anyways to back that stuff up on.
    Ry likes this.
    08-18-2014 09:03 AM
  3. BBSeattle's Avatar
    Forum members are not the majority of smartphone consumers.
    The criteria in which we (smartphone enthusiast/forum member) decide to purchase phones is foreign to the average consumer.
    I would venture to say that ease of use, aesthetics, size, etc. are more along the lines of the characteristics that determine the average consumers buying decision.
    Ry likes this.
    08-18-2014 10:29 AM
  4. ultravisitor's Avatar
    Why can't we just all agree that 32GB should be the min storage in a phone without microSD? Geez...
    Because not everyone feels that way.
    Ry and tdizzel like this.
    08-18-2014 01:10 PM
  5. unstoppablekem's Avatar
    Because not everyone feels that way.

    Never said that the company's decision in making it 16GB is bad, just saying why would you as a consumer want less storage if you are paying the same price?
    08-18-2014 02:32 PM
  6. PFKMan23's Avatar
    Never said that the company's decision in making it 16GB is bad, just saying why would you as a consumer want less storage if you are paying the same price?
    Just like with the iphone, I want it, but don't think it's realistic. Why would any company just give way money that they could make? I believe that 16 GB will be the base model, but I hope that microSD expansion and larger storage will be options from the outset.
    08-18-2014 03:28 PM
  7. unstoppablekem's Avatar
    Just like with the iphone, I want it, but don't think it's realistic. Why would any company just give way money that they could make? I personally beleive that 16 GB will be the base model, but I hope that microSD expansion and larger storage will be options from the outset.

    Because it isn't that much of a $ difference for the manufacturer to make the base model 32GB. My 2010 920 has 32GB, and it launched at $99...
    08-18-2014 03:29 PM
  8. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I have a 16GB Moto X. It's been fine for me. 8GB should be the min on a 720 phone.

    Posted via Android Central App (Moto X)
    Are you saying that it being a 720p device makes it mid-range and therefor doesn't need to have more then 8GB of storage because of that? Or is the Ry-to-human translation broken again?
    08-18-2014 03:40 PM
  9. unstoppablekem's Avatar
    Are you saying that it being a 720p device makes it mid-range and therefor doesn't need to have more then 8GB of storage because of that? Or is the Ry-to-human translation broken again?

    If a phone that launched in 2012 that was considered high end was launched in 2014 with the same specs, yes, it is mid-range. And yeah, the Ry-to-human translation is broken again. :P
    08-18-2014 03:42 PM
  10. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    If a phone that launched in 2012 that was considered high end was launched in 2014 with the same specs, yes, it is mid-range. And yeah, the Ry-to-human translation is broken again. :P
    I diagree with anybody that thinks the Moto X was midrange at any point in its life cycle.

    16gb is fine for a minimum IMO. Afterall, they're still the volume leader in sales. Not because 32GB isn't available, but because OEM's care about profit margin.

    Sent from my K00C using Tapatalk
    Aquila and UJ95x like this.
    08-18-2014 04:01 PM
  11. Ry's Avatar
    Are you saying that it being a 720p device makes it mid-range and therefor doesn't need to have more then 8GB of storage because of that? Or is the Ry-to-human translation broken again?
    My Moto G is 720 and it starts at 8GB.
    08-18-2014 04:04 PM
  12. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    My Moto G is 720 and it starts at 8GB.
    Yeah but we're not talking about the Moto G+1.

    Sent from my K00C using Tapatalk
    unstoppablekem likes this.
    08-18-2014 04:06 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    And yeah, the Ry-to-human translation is broken again. :P
    I'm not sure it was ever fixed.... lol, it was just observed as far as I know.
    Ry and Kevin OQuinn like this.
    08-18-2014 04:23 PM
  14. unstoppablekem's Avatar
    I diagree with anybody that thinks the Moto X was midrange at any point in its life cycle.

    16gb is fine for a minimum IMO. Afterall, they're still the volume leader in sales. Not because 32GB isn't available, but because OEM's care about profit margin.

    Sent from my K00C using Tapatalk

    Never said it was mid ranged. I'm just saying 32GB isn't that much money for the manufacturer to put in their base model, so FLAGSHIP phones in 2014 (not 2012 or 2013) should have 32GB minimum. I heard it is very cheap for the manufacturer to do that, even though they charge $100 for a storage upgrade.
    08-18-2014 05:08 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    Never said it was mid ranged. I'm just saying 32GB isn't that much money for the manufacturer to put in their base model, so FLAGSHIP phones in 2014 (not 2012 or 2013) should have 32GB minimum. I heard it is very cheap for the manufacturer to do that, even though they charge $100 for a storage upgrade.
    These numbers are old and they vary by OEM and I'm estimating based on memory, so find your own sources - all that said, IIRC it's like $8 for an 8GB, $12 for 16GB, $18 for 32GB or something to that effect. When the OEM charges $50 more per stage (Google, Moto, etc), I kinda get it because their volume discount is probably less and they're not selling as many (obviously same issue) so the cost per device on the line is spread over higher due to sunk and fixed costs spread over fewer devices - there's a recoup. $100 more per stage is just obnoxious IMO, but if people will pay it then okay have fun.
    08-18-2014 05:33 PM
  16. Ry's Avatar
    Never said it was mid ranged. I'm just saying 32GB isn't that much money for the manufacturer to put in their base model, so FLAGSHIP phones in 2014 (not 2012 or 2013) should have 32GB minimum. I heard it is very cheap for the manufacturer to do that, even though they charge $100 for a storage upgrade.
    Should doesn't mean they have to.

    If 32GB is the high-end spec, and the HTC One M8, LG G3, and Galaxy S5 all start with 16GB, these 2014 flagships must be mid-range.

    That new 16GB Moto X+1? Mid-range.

    That new 16GB Nexus 6? Mid-range.

    That new 16GB Note 4? Mid-range.

    It isn't that much money to do 32GB instead. But that eats into an OEMs profits.

    As a phone maker (who's goal should be to MAKE MONEY): which route would you go?
    1. Charge $500 for a 16GB phone that costs you $200 in parts only AND $600 for the same phone except 32GB instead that cost you $205 in parts only
    2. Charge $500 for a 32GB phone that costs you $205 in parts only
    08-18-2014 05:34 PM
  17. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    These numbers are old and they vary by OEM and I'm estimating based on memory, so find your own sources - all that said, IIRC it's like $8 for an 8GB, $12 for 16GB, $18 for 32GB or something to that effect. When the OEM charges $50 more per stage (Google, Moto, etc), I kinda get it because their volume discount is probably less and they're not selling as many (obviously same issue) so the cost per device on the line is spread over higher due to sunk and fixed costs spread over fewer devices - there's a recoup. $100 more per stage is just obnoxious IMO, but if people will pay it then okay have fun.
    Raw cost of parts is not the whole story either. Any hardware change adds money in other areas as well. They do need to be tested an validated, even if it doesn't take an insane amount of time to do it. That will add cost. The people cutting the deals with suppliers need to get paid. Having the extra assembly line also needs to get paid for.

    It bothers me that people think the only cost involved is the actual wafer of memory.
    08-18-2014 06:21 PM
  18. tdizzel's Avatar
    It boggles my mind every time someone says that 32GB should be the minimum. Just because you can't manage with less storage than that doesn't mean that others can't. 32GB should be an option, since its obvious that some people want that, but its ludicrous to say it should be the minimum. I don't need and don't even want a phone with 32GB. I much rather the money spent on extra storage went to extra battery instead, The minimum should be whatever the lowest amount that people who are going to buy the phone will buy it with. Period. anything else should be an option.
    Ry likes this.
    08-18-2014 06:22 PM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    Raw cost of parts is not the whole story either. Any hardware change adds money in other areas as well. They do need to be tested an validated, even if it doesn't take an insane amount of time to do it. That will add cost. The people cutting the deals with suppliers need to get paid. Having the extra assembly line also needs to get paid for.

    It bothers me that people think the only cost involved is the actual wafer of memory.
    I was trying to imply that in the sunk and fixed costs but you said it better.
    08-18-2014 07:05 PM
  20. unstoppablekem's Avatar
    These numbers are old and they vary by OEM and I'm estimating based on memory, so find your own sources - all that said, IIRC it's like $8 for an 8GB, $12 for 16GB, $18 for 32GB or something to that effect. When the OEM charges $50 more per stage (Google, Moto, etc), I kinda get it because their volume discount is probably less and they're not selling as many (obviously same issue) so the cost per device on the line is spread over higher due to sunk and fixed costs spread over fewer devices - there's a recoup. $100 more per stage is just obnoxious IMO, but if people will pay it then okay have fun.

    I know they have to make profit, but they don't need to rip people off.
    cellomj likes this.
    08-18-2014 07:25 PM
  21. unstoppablekem's Avatar
    It boggles my mind every time someone says that 32GB should be the minimum. Just because you can't manage with less storage than that doesn't mean that others can't. 32GB should be an option, since its obvious that some people want that, but its ludicrous to say it should be the minimum. I don't need and don't even want a phone with 32GB. I much rather the money spent on extra storage went to extra battery instead, The minimum should be whatever the lowest amount that people who are going to buy the phone will buy it with. Period. anything else should be an option.

    What happens when Apple will make 32GB the minimum requirement for their newest high end phone? Will it be okay then? Or you still on denial that the company shouldn't lose $4 in being nicer to the consumer.
    08-18-2014 07:25 PM
  22. tdizzel's Avatar
    What happens when Apple will make 32GB the minimum requirement for their newest high end phone? Will it be okay then? Or you still on denial that the company shouldn't lose $4 in being nicer to the consumer.
    I have never and will never own an iPhone so I don't care what apple does. And the big difference between iOS and Android is that Android is about choice, iOS is about control, so as long as I'm on Android I expect to have choice, not be dictated what I want in a phone. And I'm not in denial. I'm barely using half of the 16GB available on my Ultra. I don't need 32. But like I said, if you can't work with less than 32, then it should be an option for you. But I don't want it.
    08-18-2014 07:47 PM
  23. unstoppablekem's Avatar
    Anyways, this seems as a huge debate rather than answering my first question to you guys. D:
    Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk
    08-18-2014 07:51 PM
  24. Ry's Avatar
    Anyways, this seems as a huge debate rather than answering my first question to you guys. D:
    Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk
    Because 16GB is still an acceptable starting point, even in 2014.

    Posted via Android Central App (Moto X)
    08-18-2014 07:55 PM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    Anyways, this seems as a huge debate rather than answering my first question to you guys. D:
    Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk
    Listen to my facial expression. I'd be shocked if 32 wasn't an option via Moto Maker on day 1.
    08-18-2014 07:57 PM
63 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-07-2014, 06:22 PM
  2. Picked up A Moto G for $59.99 at Target...
    By StinkyPete211 in forum Moto G
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-21-2014, 06:50 PM
  3. Moto X Won't Charge
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-19-2014, 09:52 AM
  4. Otg support in motoe
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-17-2014, 01:28 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-16-2014, 11:12 AM

Tags for this Thread

LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD