A good editorial/rant on Motorola and the Xoom

[Dunbar]

Requiring a $20 contract to activate wifi after paying $800 for the Xoom is a slap in the face to consumers. Without wifi, the Xoom may as well be a brick. It's like buying a car and having the dealer lock the engine unless you subscribe to satellite radio. I was willing to pay $700, would probably have gone as high as $800, but the $20 contract is too much. Just price the friggin thing at $820. Don't treat your customers like idiots by making it seem like they have a choice about getting a contract. And what is the point of the contract anyway? Just to give Verizon an extra $20 from each purchase? Because I can't see any benefit to the consumer to having to pay for a service they don't want so they can use the product they do want. Most other products, like phones, give you a discount for signing up for a contract. This is the opposite.

Also, airing a commercial where your product could easily have been replaced by literally any other tablet on the market right now isn't a great way to showcase its unique abilities. "Buy this because it isn't the most successful product on the market! P.S., it's very expensive and we'll also require you to spend even more money to actually use its primary feature." Great marketing, Motorola.

 

[CarbonOak]

If Motorola really wants to fight the tablet crown with Apple, they need to offer the same amount of SKUs, at the same time, or at least within a month.

Few, if any, will look at the $800 Xoom and say, 'Cool, let me buy this.' Only hardcore Android users and early adopters will buy it.

If Motorola wants the Xoom mainstream, they need to have 16, 32, and 64 GB models (64 GB is a bit much IMO), both with wifi and wifi + 3G. Options are good. Consumers like choice, and especially choice in prices.

 

[Menno]

Requiring a $20 contract to activate wifi after paying $800 for the Xoom is a slap in the face to consumers. Without wifi, the Xoom may as well be a brick. It's like buying a car and having the dealer lock the engine unless you subscribe to satellite radio. I was willing to pay $700, would probably have gone as high as $800, but the $20 contract is too much. Just price the friggin thing at $820. Don't treat your customers like idiots by making it seem like they have a choice about getting a contract. And what is the point of the contract anyway? Just to give Verizon an extra $20 from each purchase? Because I can't see any benefit to the consumer to having to pay for a service they don't want so they can use the product they do want. Most other products, like phones, give you a discount for signing up for a contract. This is the opposite.

Also, airing a commercial where your product could easily have been replaced by literally any other tablet on the market right now isn't a great way to showcase its unique abilities. "Buy this because it isn't the most successful product on the market! P.S., it's very expensive and we'll also require you to spend even more money to actually use its primary feature." Great marketing, Motorola.

You're not signing a contract. It's a month to month agreement, and NO COMPANY gives you a discount on a phone for a month to month agreement.

On top of that, you WILL be able to activate this on wifi without signing for the one month, you just won't be able to buy one at best buy without signing up, just like no retailer will (typically) let you buy a phone without having some agreement (contract/month2month/prepaid) with that company. Look for other sites (amazon) to offer this without requiring a first month activation or anything like that.

As for the ad itself, it's a teaser ad. Just like the original iDon't ad. It's not meant to inform you about the product, it's meant to make you google. The inform part comes with later ads.

 

[cparker5]

As for the ad itself, it's a teaser ad. Just like the original iDon't ad. It's not meant to inform you about the product, it's meant to make you google. The inform part comes with later ads.

Not sure who it was meant to tease, it seemed like it fall on deaf ears.

 

[Menno]

Not sure who it was meant to tease, it seemed like it fall on deaf ears.

Because you're not the target market. You already knew about it. Tech sites are going to be unimpressed because it didn't give specs, a launch date, or pricing.

Remember, this is the FIRST time that most people have heard the terms "Xoom" or "Android Honeycomb." Heck, it's the first time most of them realized that there were tablets out there that arn't the iPad.

So what does an ad like this do? It sets the stage.

-Some curious people will google "motorola xoom" and see the more detailed videos about the device.
-If they don't search the name, they'll at least know it the next time a more informative ad pops up
-Motorola/Verizon can use the theme of this ad to build a series (see: DroidDoes) to create a familiar format.

You'll notice that this ad was devoid of ANY verizon branding. That lack is telling imo and a sign that we haven't seen the last segment of this ad concept.

 

[Dunbar]

You're not signing a contract. It's a month to month agreement, and NO COMPANY gives you a discount on a phone for a month to month agreement.

Actually you are signing a contract, namely a contract for one month of service. Or do you think all that is required to activate wifi is a gentleman's agreement? However, you are correct that no company gives you a discount for a month to month agreement. But last time I checked, no product like this one requires its purchasers to sign up for a month of service to use a product that absolutely does not need that service to function. So the point stands: the company is forcing customers to sign a contract for a service they don't want in order to make the product functional. So for many consumers, including myself, Motorola is simply forcing you to pay $20 with absolutely no benefit to the consumer. It is all negative for the customer, just one more way to bleed their wallets that have already taken a $800 hit. Just stop *****-footing around and change the price to $820.

On top of that, you WILL be able to activate this on wifi without signing for the one month, you just won't be able to buy one at best buy without signing up, just like no retailer will (typically) let you buy a phone without having some agreement (contract/month2month/prepaid) with that company. Look for other sites (amazon) to offer this without requiring a first month activation or anything like that.

Not a great comparison, because phones require a service to function as a phone, and you are absolutely getting a discount when you sign that contract. Where are you getting your information that Amazon or other retailers will actually be selling the Xoom without requiring a contract? I've only heard of Bestbuy and Verizon getting the Xoom. Or are you just making assumptions?

As for the ad itself, it's a teaser ad. Just like the original iDon't ad. It's not meant to inform you about the product, it's meant to make you google. The inform part comes with later ads.

I just didn't see anything in the ad that would make me want to google anything. Someone I was watching the game with thought the guy in the commercial was using an ipad.

 

[Menno]

It's not a contract if there is no way to "breach" the contract. Not only is this "agreement" wholly optional, but there is no commitment to it. You can cancel it THAT DAY and pay nothing. If you cancel within 3 days verizon doesn't even charge the activation fee. at most, you might get a small pro-rated bill that you'll be able to talk yourself out of since you never used the product over their data lines.

The Tab (also a tablet) had a "requirement" you activate it. The netbooks sold by carrier's also "required" activation before you could leave the store with it. Both devices function perfectly without activation. The tab required activation at best buy, it requires it at my store and most others I know, but I have a friend who works at another store that doesn't require it. It's not a software requirement, or a requirement from verizon, it's just good business sense on the part of the stores (if you want to know why, refer to my previous comments in this thread)

Yes, I am assuming, but I'm assuming based on factual history and 2+ years of working in the industry. You (and everyone else) are assuming based off of a SINGLE leaked ad for a product that has no official release date or pricing information yet.

Until we get official information, EVERYONE is speculating. I'm just making my assumptions based off of how things have always been instead of what-ifs that bear no similarity to reality.

And again, you're not the target. You already know about the device, you know more about the device than what the ad said. three people I was watching the game with asked me what the device was, I got several more texts, and a facebook message all asking me what it was. They were all intrigued enough by the ad to want to find out more about it (and none of them are tech people) and I'm sure that there are others. Could it be presented better? Most likely. But this is the FIRST ad that most people are seeing. Let's see what the second one shows us before we try and say the campaign is a failure.

 

[Dunbar]

It's not a contract if there is no way to "breach" the contract. Not only is this "agreement" wholly optional, but there is no commitment to it. You can cancel it THAT DAY and pay nothing. If you cancel within 3 days verizon doesn't even charge the activation fee. at most, you might get a small pro-rated bill that you'll be able to talk yourself out of since you never used the product over their data lines.

I give them $20 for a data plan. They don't provide that data plan. They breached the contract. I agree to pay $20 for their data plan. They provide the data plan. I don't pay the $20. I breached the contract. I don't know about your legal system, but in most an agreement to provide goods or services in exchange for consideration is a contract.

If Verizon would allow you to cancel that day, why even have the requirement? Better yet, why have any sort of requirement at all to use a device you already paid for? How is this anything but a shameless attempt to get more money from the consumers? I mean, even if it is possible to game the system, how can you justify having it in the first place? Even if I found a way to cancel and not pay, I still resent having to go through the effort.

The Tab (also a tablet) had a "requirement" you activate it. The netbooks sold by carrier's also "required" activation before you could leave the store with it. Both devices function perfectly without activation. The tab required activation at best buy, it requires it at my store and most others I know, but I have a friend who works at another store that doesn't require it. It's not a software requirement, or a requirement from verizon, it's just good business sense on the part of the stores (if you want to know why, refer to my previous comments in this thread)

I don't care if they want to activate it. Activate away. Just don't charge me for a service I don't want in order to do that, or "lock" my wifi or threaten to lock my wifi, if I don't.

Yes, I am assuming, but I'm assuming based on factual history and 2+ years of working in the industry. You (and everyone else) are assuming based off of a SINGLE leaked ad for a product that has no official release date or pricing information yet.

Until we get official information, EVERYONE is speculating. I'm just making my assumptions based off of how things have always been instead of what-ifs that bear no similarity to reality.

I always thought the point of these message boards was to speculate. But I am basing my objections on a document that does exist, rather than just assuming based on how things have been done in the past for a product type (i.e. tablets) that have only really started to be commercially viable over the past year.

The Best Buy ad may in fact be fake or incorrect. I hope it is. But since Motorola hasn't released anything this is the best we've got, and I'm reacting to it.

 

[Menno]

Ok... Let me say this again:

this is a requirement of BEST BUY, NOT VERIZON.

Ok, that's why verizon doesn't just make the plan optional. The plan IS optional, but to buy one from best buy it's not. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time. That's why the argument of "contract" is bogus.

And you're right, it's only been viable for the past year, and for the past year, every tablet has been treated the EXACT same way. Every android device has been treated the EXACT same way. Best buy documentation also said that activation was required on the Tab when it wasn't. So even if the ad wasn't a fake, it's validity is questionable at best.

The purpose of forums is to speculate, which is why you don't write someone off by say "but you're just assuming" like you did earlier.

I've seen internal docs for every other tablet release. They ALL say "this device does not require activation to work" in one way or another. Internal documents do not exist for this device yet, but there is absolutely no reason a PURE GOOGLE tablet would have a lock like this, and there's no reason Verizon would treat this tablet any differently than any other device in their lineup.

No devices require activation, heck you don't even need to give a phone number. But most stores do because of business reasons, not software or rules.

 

[cparker5]

Because you're not the target market. You already knew about it. Tech sites are going to be unimpressed because it didn't give specs, a launch date, or pricing.

To be fair, the deaf ears I was talking about was the SuperBowl party I was at. A couple commented on it asking what was that about, the response was "The new iPad".

 

[ckeegan003]

Actually you are signing a contract, namely a contract for one month of service.

How is it possibly a "contract", when you could literally walk out of Best Buy, pick up your phone, and cancel the data plan the second you walk out of the store?

Whatever, I don't really care, I'm still buying the Xoom. I really wish the author of that editorial would have just owned up, and concluded his rant with, "I'm just mad because I can't afford it."

 

[Stang68]

That guy wasted his breath on that article. Let's all wait to see official pricing and release date from Verizon.

 

[cparker5]

That guy wasted his breath on that article. Let's all wait to see official pricing and release date from Verizon.

LoL, you mean Motorola, right?

 

[qnet]

I just wish we could here something official. I'm tired of all the rumors and speculation. I may still get the Xoom but, I also don't like having to sign up for a Month to Month data plan.

I've been in business for 8 years and, if I were trying to compete with a Ipad, that's not how I would do it but, that's just me.

The one of many experiences I liked about getting my Ipad is, you could just walk in and, buy it. You didn't have to provide a lot personel information or, sign up for anything. If you buy a Ipad with 3G, you can create an account with AT & T and, activate it directly on the device. You could choose what data plan you wanted and cancel at any time, right on the device.

 

[Storm24]

As for the ad itself, it's a teaser ad. Just like the original iDon't ad. It's not meant to inform you about the product, it's meant to make you google. The inform part comes with later ads.

While I understand your logic with this teaser ad, this would seem to fly in the face of what you want to accomplish. I mean saying the device costs $800 would make most people not already privy to this device just turn the page and move on, not want to google it. Same with the activation part. Just sayin...

 

[Chris Kerrigan]

LoL, you mean Motorola, right?

I think he meant Verizon lol. It's Verizon's device, so ultimately they'll judge it's release and pricing (at least pricing for their stores, what Best Buy and others price it at is a different story).

 

[willray411]

Motorola is making a mistake, its not going to get the hype and product demand like it should. Hopefully the Xoom makes it through this fiasco.

I'm a die hard Android fan, early adopter, I really really dislike apple, nearly hate them. But I'm not paying more for an Android device then an Apple device. Its half the reason I laugh at sheeple in the first place.

Second, I really like Verizon, I swear by them because I always get great customer / cell phone service. But I'm not getting wrapped up in even a one month contract and paying for it just to use wifi, I might as well just set my own money on fire.

I bet this is how apple people feel when their new devices and prices are announced.

 

[Menno]

While I understand your logic with this teaser ad, this would seem to fly in the face of what you want to accomplish. I mean saying the device costs $800 would make most people not already privy to this device just turn the page and move on, not want to google it. Same with the activation part. Just sayin...

I'm not talking about the best buy ad. Best buy ads are the bane of carriers and cellphone makers.

I was referring to the superbowl ad, which didn't announce the price.

 

[cparker5]

I bet this is how apple people feel when their new devices and prices are announced.

Difference being, they would not denouce Apple like we have denounced this!

 

[cparker5]

This is why the Microsoft Zune failed, it was a better device then the iTouch etc, but they thought they could charge the same as Apple. Sorry people, but Apple is the standard and the household name in these devices. If you make your products more expensive then Apple's people will go with what they know.