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

[robjulo]

No, it's not worth it and your initial number of $150 more is incorrect. The LG G3 is $579 for a 32gig model. The Moto X is $499 for the 16gig model and is likely to push to $549 for the 32.

The difference is more like $30 rather than $150.

IMO, it is priced $100 too high.

 

[delrey1900]

No, it's not worth it and your initial number of $150 more is incorrect. The LG G3 is $579 for a 32gig model. The Moto X is $499 for the 16gig model and is likely to push to $549 for the 32.

The difference is more like $30 rather than $150.

IMO, it is priced $100 too high.

OK, and the g3 only has the camera going for it. The screen resolution has no benefit and the phone does 'lag' from time to time. My OG X doesn't lag with an old school snapdragon. Specs mean nothing if the phone doesn't provide a good experience. The first X proved that.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[b_slow1]

The customization, leather, wood and other colors. There are no other phones in the market that does this. Also the shape, it will be very comfortable to hold, more than the original X just from the way it look. Also the touchless control, moto display and camera wiggle (all hardware features). Water resistant nano coating. Good build quality, which I am sure is better than S5 and G3. There are lots of hardware features here, not just specs.

Also almost all Touchwiz tricks are useless gimmicks. The first thing I do when I get my hand on another person Samsung is turn off all Touchwiz features and install Google Now Launcher.

People want to pay for specs. To most, that is the primary objective. They want a phone that won't be "obsolete", never mind the fact that they still upgrade their phones every year anyway.

You are right though, I should have included the customizable look of the Moto X as a feature. That is important. However, the Touchless Controls, Drive Assist, Notifications, and the Camera thing are SOFTWARE features, and the types of things that I said give Moto X its value. Hardware-wise, 16GB storage is standard. 1080p display was standard last year. 5.2" screen is fairly standard. Snapdragon 801 is fairly standard. And on top of that, no stereo speakers, no removable battery, no SD card slot, and no FM radio.

Also, I can't really speak to the build quality... All of these phones are about in the same range. HTC One and iPhone are probably at the top of the list though.

I don't want you get the impression that I hate Moto X though. I have the original, and I love it. But I bought it for the software and for the overall experience. The Gen 2 Moto X is no different. There is no category spec-wise where the Moto X comes out on top. That's OK by me, but for people who want to pay for top-notch hardware, some might think the Moto X is overpriced.

 

[livetoride4666]

People want to pay for specs. To most, that is the primary objective. They want a phone that won't be "obsolete", never mind the fact that they still upgrade their phones every year anyway.

You are right though, I should have included the customizable look of the Moto X as a feature. That is important. However, the Touchless Controls, Drive Assist, Notifications, and the Camera thing are SOFTWARE features, and the types of things that I said give Moto X its value. Hardware-wise, 16GB storage is standard. 1080p display was standard last year. 5.2" screen is fairly standard. Snapdragon 801 is fairly standard. And on top of that, no stereo speakers, no removable battery, no SD card slot, and no FM radio.

Also, I can't really speak to the build quality... All of these phones are about in the same range. HTC One and iPhone are probably at the top of the list though.

I don't want you get the impression that I hate Moto X though. I have the original, and I love it. But I bought it for the software and for the overall experience. The Gen 2 Moto X is no different. There is no category spec-wise where the Moto X comes out on top. That's OK by me, but for people who want to pay for top-notch hardware, some might think the Moto X is overpriced.

If it was 600-700 then yes it would be overpriced. I still don't know how people could say it's overpriced at $499.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Aquila]

Anyone believing the Moto X 2014 is overpriced surely must be also making the claim that every other flagship device is as well. After all, most are not as or are barely as good and yet are considerably more expensive. The exception being the G3, which is not only a different market - and I'm undecided if it's a rockstar of a device or not (a lot of members here love the G3, a few really hate it).

 

[mountainman15]

are right though, I should have included the customizable look of the Moto X as a feature. That is important. However, the Touchless Controls, Drive Assist, Notifications, and the Camera thing are SOFTWARE features, and the types of things that I said give Moto X its value.

Touchless controls and active notifications are supported by custom hardware to ensure that these features work well without consuming a lot of power...they are more that simply software features.

I don't want you get the impression that I hate Moto X though. I have the original, and I love it. But I bought it for the software and for the overall experience. The Gen 2 Moto X is no different. There is no category spec-wise where the Moto X comes out on top. That's OK by me, but for people who want to pay for top-notch hardware, some might think the Moto X is overpriced.

The New Moto X hardware is virtually identical to the other flagships this year. Same processor, same amount of RAM (with exception of G3), similar screen size/quality, and solid build quality. It may not top the other flagships with specs, but it is certainly matches them and will most likely perform better than all of them. I don't see how people would think that the Moto X doesn't have top-notch hardware.

 

[b_slow1]

If it was 600-700 then yes it would be overpriced. I still don't know how people could say it's overpriced at $499.

I agree.

Anyone believing the Moto X 2014 is overpriced surely must be also making the claim that every other flagship device is as well. After all, most are not as or are barely as good and yet are considerably more expensive. The exception being the G3, which is not only a different market - and I'm undecided if it's a rockstar of a device or not (a lot of members here love the G3, a few really hate it).

I would hope that when people talk about a particular phone being "overpriced" that they are speaking in relative terms. In absolute terms, ALL of these phones are really too expensive.

The best way to determine whether or not a phone is overpriced (if your ONLY concern is hardware; software is hard to quantify), is to compare sale price to manufacturing costs. As an example, the 2013 Moto X was sold for $499 when it first came out, but the phone only cost $226 to manufacture and assemble. The 2013 Galaxy S4 sold for $639 at launch, and cost $244 to manufacture. So we're all being screwed, a little bit.

 

[Aquila]

I agree.


I would hope that when people talk about a particular phone being "overpriced" that they are speaking in relative terms. In absolute terms, ALL of these phones are really too expensive.

The best way to determine whether or not a phone is overpriced (if your ONLY concern is hardware; software is hard to quantify), is to compare sale price to manufacturing costs. As an example, the 2013 Moto X was sold for $499 when it first came out, but the phone only cost $226 to manufacture and assemble. The 2013 Galaxy S4 sold for $639 at launch, and cost $244 to manufacture. So we're all being screwed, a little bit.

Moto X 13 was $599, so we're not too far off on those two devices - $18 more on the BOM vs $40 on the shelf. There are a lot of costs that are not included in the BOM and the BOM as it stands represents a maximum charge per device as it is usually evaluated by a third party with direct pricing from component manufacturers - not including trade agreements and/or bulk discounts, etc. It's really tough to use this as a measurement, because one could throw in the OnePlus One and Nexus and the scaling is off. We're evaluating assumed profit margins and not value - which is up to consumers. If the Moto X sells far fewer than what Moto is expecting to sell, it is possible it's over priced - however it also could be due to lack of knowledge, supply chain limitations, etc.

I assume the question asked here is whether or not the price is fair relative to other devices - and for that, in my opinion, it is undercutting the market. It's better than (IMO) the M8 and S5 and significantly less expensive than both. If the S5 was $500, I'd pay $500-600 for a Moto X or refuse to by the S5 because it's overpriced relative to the Moto X. Using that device as a gauge, any price <= S5 price + $100 is fair.

 

[ultravisitor]

What I want to know is, why do people think this? Highend flag ship phones are generally $650. Nexus and OnePlus are exceptions, somehow people put the Moto X in the same category, I believe this is due in part to the public not well educated on the extra Motorola features included and think it's just a phone with bare stock Android.

Also: people want nice things but don't want to pay for them.

 

[BizzyGeek]

If the phone had a bigger battery and 32 GB base storage with 64 GB option for $50 more, I'd be willing to pay the initial asking price. But I'm betting that Moto probably won't get enough traction to hit their sales targets for a number of reasons, so I'll bank on being able to get this $100 cheaper by Black Friday promotion time. My original X is only a couple months old after a warranty replacement, so I personally feel like the current price would include an early adopter premium that I just don't want to pay. If I needed a new phone right, now I might feel differently but I really don't think this initial pricing will hold that long.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[robjulo]

The G3 is in exactly the same market as the Moto X.

Anyone believing the Moto X 2014 is overpriced surely must be also making the claim that every other flagship device is as well. After all, most are not as or are barely as good and yet are considerably more expensive. The exception being the G3, which is not only a different market - and I'm undecided if it's a rockstar of a device or not (a lot of members here love the G3, a few really hate it).

 

[Aquila]

The G3 is in exactly the same market as the Moto X.

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.

 

[KarlDag]

I agree.


I would hope that when people talk about a particular phone being "overpriced" that they are speaking in relative terms. In absolute terms, ALL of these phones are really too expensive.

The best way to determine whether or not a phone is overpriced (if your ONLY concern is hardware; software is hard to quantify), is to compare sale price to manufacturing costs. As an example, the 2013 Moto X was sold for $499 when it first came out, but the phone only cost $226 to manufacture and assemble. The 2013 Galaxy S4 sold for $639 at launch, and cost $244 to manufacture. So we're all being screwed, a little bit.

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

 

[Scratchyjam]

No I think the price is okay, not amazing, but okay. However, if there was a 2,900 mAh battery in it as rumoured, I'd be saying it's a great price for the phone.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[delrey1900]

Would everyone please drop the battery size complaint. Let's wait till we see some reviews and actually use the phones ourselves to make valid complaint/compliment. I'm getting tired of reading about assumption.

 

[anon(464338)]

It's priced UNDER most phones that have inferior build quality except for the HTC. This design and these specs trounce the first moto x and is cheaper at launch. Honestly we all know that no matter what the thing is, some people will always have a problem because let's face it, they are unable to get one..

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Puzzlegal]

...
By comparison, Motorola doesn't deliver anything in the Moto X hardware that is "special"....

The customization, leather, wood and other colors. ...

this. It's a pretty phone that will feel nice the hand.

I was sold in the Moto X when I held one the shop. This will feel almost as nice.

People want to pay for specs....

people who post on this sort of site do. But iPhones are very popular despite having mid-range specs. They look and feel nice, and they have a simple, easy-to-learn interface. That's exactly what this phone offers.

 

[BizzyGeek]

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.

The fact that these two phones offer slightly different value propositions does not mean they're competing in different markets. Honestly I don't think they're even addressing different sub segments. There are probably a few customers for whom the two phones don't compete, but I'd guess that most people thinking about buying one of them will at least consider the other one.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[meyerweb#CB]

By comparison, Motorola doesn't deliver anything in the Moto X hardware that is "special". But I personally feel that it's software is where the value is. It can do things that other phones can't do. So I guess that's what you're paying for, but maybe people don't like paying for software without being able to justify the purchase with powerful hardware. And Moto's hardware is Average across the board.

I was seriously interested in the Moto X until I saw the battery capacity and lack of SD card. Unless energy usage is dramatically better than every other device that has used that SOC, it's going to be a weakness. And lack of SD is pretty much a deal breaker for me.

If those things aren't issues for someone else, the price seem reasonable.

 

[ultravisitor]

I was sold in the Moto X when I held one the shop.

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.