Moto X and Marketting

[briankariu]

Ok, Am really pissed with Moto. For all the reasons stated a thousand times already on all the blogs and forums today, but here's a recap:
-Mid range specs. (This android, specs matter, when was the last time you bought an android phone without checking out the specs?)
-High off contract price possibly. How do you put it against the HTC one at the same price point?
-Battery life. How does Moto make a 10.4mm thick phone and not stick a 4000mah battery in there? What's making it sooo fat then? Wireless charging? Removable back plate? SD card slot? Hell, the droid maxx is 8.4mm and packs a 3500mah battery.

And am getting very cautious of the people who keep insisting that the moto x is a good phone for the price. The 500 million marketing budget could already be hard at work

 

[TheTitan1530]

I completely agree with you. The moto x really doesnt bring anything special to the table. I mean I guess you could say that you could customize it but then again we have cases which kinda do the same thing. I sort of understand the thickness because they wanted to have a curved back since they did a study and found that most people prefer curved backs but then again the htc butterfly S also has a curved back but it also has a monster 3000 mah battery. If the phone has something like a snapdragon 800 with 3gb of ram then that would seperate it or if it has a removable back then that would also seperate it from other phones as really only samsung features removable back cover and now motorola would also feature it

Posted via Android Central App

 

[anon5664829]

GET OVER GOD DAMN BLOODY SPECS

Thank you.

 

[Aquila]

-Mid range specs. (This android, specs matter, when was the last time you bought an android phone without checking out the specs?)

This is patently false, perpetuated by people who don't understand the specs. There IS a lesser number of cores, but despite this it's performing well in the league of the other flagships. There are less pixels on the screen. There is also a (alleged) better camera, much better software and much better battery life (also alleged).

High off contract price possibly. How do you put it against the HTC one at the same price point?

They have very similar costs to build (obviously spent in different areas) and neither is being subsidized by Google.

What's making it sooo fat then?

Different arrangement of components. The One and X have mostly the same components, arranged differently. The One has an area of 9,370.68mm and a volume of 87,147.32mm, while the X has an area of 8,443.29mm and a volume of 87,810.22mm. It is fatter because it is more compact on the length and width to fit an almost identical volume.

And am getting very cautious of the people who keep insisting that the moto x is a good phone for the price.

It is, depending on what you find important. It just takes some contextual understanding of what the various parts mean as a whole. If a quad core processor and 1080p screen, a removable battery or SD card, or specific feature of another device are what you want, then this isn't it. If you want great battery life, the no-touch controls, a blazing fast interface in a compact design and a close to stock experience, this could be it.

It is priced the same as other phones because it is a phone. It just has a different philosophical approach to what makes the experience great for the user. A different strokes sort of thing. Really, if I get a device that runs circles around the S4 and it is powered by extraterrestrial celery, I don't really care as long as I'm getting the superior experience. Specs do matter, but they do have diminishing rates of return as well and optimization goes a looooong way further than throwing hardware at something does.

The arguments made against the Moto X would seem to classify the iPhone and the Nexus devices as mid-range as well. If it were dual core and slow, it'd be mid-range. The user's experience has to trump anything that's on paper, so the argument right now isn't about which is better, it is about giving the experience a shot to see what is actually better for you as a potential user.

 

[briankariu]

The arguments made against the Moto X would seem to classify the iPhone and the Nexus devices as mid-range as well. If it were dual core and slow, it'd be mid-range. The user's experience has to trump anything that's on paper, so the argument right now isn't about which is better, it is about giving the experience a shot to see what is actually better for you as a potential user.

Hmmmn. Marketing money at work here anyone?

Ok first, the cost of building a 720p phone, dual core proc is not the same as say something as the HTC one. And they are being sold at the same price, so someone is trying to milk us. And that crap about being built in USA wont cut it. For God's sake, the plant has only 2200 employees.
And you do fail to see my argument. Moto is asking for premium prices from a device that does not have premium internals. The price should fit the phone. Would you buy a ford focus for the price of an SLS AMG Mercedes? Nope.

And yeah I can do the math too. The droid razr maxx has a volume of 83,215mm3, compared to the Moto x's rather chunky 87,810.22. So what magic and wizardry did they use to fit a bigger battery in the droid razr maxx, but the wizard seems to have gone on leave the day they were designing the moto X...

 

[Aquila]

Ok first, the cost of building a 720p phone, dual core proc is not the same as say something as the HTC one.

Goldman Sachs: Motorola Moto X price could be $299; device costs $225 to produce

Plastic-Backed Galaxy S4 More Costly To Build Than iPhone 5 | Redmond Pie

The processor in the One and S4 costs $20. The iPhone is $205 in parts, the S4 is $237, the Moto X is right in the middle at $225. I couldn't find the One in 5 seconds, but I'd say it's a fair guess that it's in the $200-$250 range as well.

This isn't the marketing, this is thinking and trying to understand the decision making process and design intent of the device.

 

[briankariu]

So they want me to fork over $375 more? Seriously. For $350-400, I would have gladly given them my money. For 600$, am better off waiting for the nexus 5 and buying 2, yes 2 of them.

 

[Aquila]

For 600$, am better off waiting for the nexus 5 and buying 2, yes 2 of them.

This statement, assuming the next Nexus follows the trends of the previous ones, is one I 100% agree with.

 

[rico college]

This statement, assuming the next Nexus follows the trends of the previous ones, is one I 100% agree with.

Or he could just buy 3 galaxy s3', almost the same specs.

 

[briankariu]

Or he could just buy 3 galaxy s3', almost the same specs.

Or you can get an unlocked oppo find 5 and pay for tmobile service for 5 months with the change.
Lool!!! Sooo many options!

 

[osubeavs728]

Or you could not get so worked up over a cell phone...

 

[ultravisitor]

And am getting very cautious of the people who keep insisting that the moto x is a good phone for the price. The 500 million marketing budget could already be hard at work

Why is everyone supposed to have the same priorities as you?

 

[TechTinker]

-Mid range specs. (This android, specs matter, when was the last time you bought an android phone without checking out the specs?)
-High off contract price possibly. How do you put it against the HTC one at the same price point?

Ok yes I always do check the specs, but ok. Yes it only has dual-core. But its 2 krait 300's which is the same as in one and s4 but only 4 of them. Its using the S4 Pro because it has better batery management. It also shares the same GPU, plus the two extra cores to relieve strain on the dual core processor. I don't mind that it's only 720p, because guess what. IT'S A PHONE, not a televison. It entirley a high-end phone just not the way you're thinking, spec wars get nowhere. The S4 lags but it's high end.
The thinkness and smaller battery, they were focusing on outside first then inside, best I got there.
I personally love the fact that it's built in the U.S, not a cheap *** china factory. Pride. Not the supporters are not being paid, were just not thick like you lot. You can hate it all you want, I don't care. But really it's not worth to keep putting down.

 

[Lanzeelus]

So they want me to fork over $375 more? Seriously. For $350-400, I would have gladly given them my money. For 600$, am better off waiting for the nexus 5 and buying 2, yes 2 of them.

Well how clever of you to ignore the point he was making. The Moto X costs similar money to make as the Samsung Galaxy S 4, the HTC One, and the iPhone 5. THAT'S why it's priced similar. THEY all charge you $350-400 more AS WELL. Ask THEM why they charge you so much for their phone?

Maybe because what they sell you is MORE than a sum of the parts? What about the labor to put the parts together? The countless HUNDREDS of hours spent in R&D, and the tons of money poured into that? What about the time spent plotting and devising the design, or the sleepless hours optimizing software, creating drivers, kernels, testing, scrapping work and trying again when the testing fails, and in Moto and Apple's case, developing a custom in-house system to power it all. And what about the money spent on advertising, making sure people actually care about the device, so that it actually sells? And how about the profit? What good is pouring this money into developing something if it doesn't generate profit? You think that just because raw materials cost maybe $225 that's what you're entitled to pay for it? If the material cost is so damn cheap, why don't you just buy the materials and make the phone yourself?

"OH! But the Nexus 4 is only $299!"

...on the Google Play Store. How much did it cost outside of Google Play? I know T-Mobile charged $199 on-contract, and $599 unsubsidized. What about LG, and their LG Optimus G that had the same exact specifications? How much did that cost? Sure as hell not $300 unlocked. Only Google sold the phone that cheap, because Google and only Google can benefit from taking a loss on selling hardware.

"But Motorola's a Google company, why can't Google just give them the money?"

Because Motorola already owes Google $12.5 BILLION. That's $12,500,000,000. With eight zeros. Motorola needs to become PROFITABLE. It needs to MAKE money, or that $12.5 billion becomes wasted money, which is a HUGE deal. Not to mention, Google had to make promises before it was even allowed to make this purchase. Motorola has to be treated with the same rights and get the same treatment as any other Android handset maker. If they break that promise, they can and will get anally raped by TONS of antitrust lawsuits.

The problem here is that a select few feel entitled, for whatever reason, to cheap hardware, because Google was able to do it for one phone. Guess what. The Nexus 4 was an exception, not the rule, and it came with plenty of limitations to achieve that exception. So go ahead, buy two Nexus 4's buy TEN. Melt 'em down, combine 'em into one big superultramegafantabulous Nexus 4. That won't change the fact that it's 100% useless if you're like the majority of the U.S and you're on a contract with one of the 3 biggest carriers.

Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Use LTE. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Last 24 hours with reasonable usage. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Take good photos. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Wake up to the sound of your voice. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Give you detailed notifications with the screen off. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Survive tough drops. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Have more than 16 GB of storage. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Offer customizable hardware and accessories...

 

[Farish]

I know based on past price history that people expect the Nexus 5 to be as cheap as the Nexus 4.

What are people going to do if when the Nexus 5 gets release, it is released at the same or near price price point as the other carrier phones 199/599?

Maybe history wont repeat itself. Can you imagine the complaints and insanity of it all, if Google or its partners change their mind and treat the Nexus 5 pricing like a traditional smartphone?

 

[anon5664829]

Well how clever of you to ignore the point he was making. The Moto X costs similar money to make as the Samsung Galaxy S 4, the HTC One, and the iPhone 5. THAT'S why it's priced similar. THEY all charge you $350-400 more AS WELL. Ask THEM why they charge you so much for their phone?

Maybe because what they sell you is MORE than a sum of the parts? What about the labor to put the parts together? The countless HUNDREDS of hours spent in R&D, and the tons of money poured into that? What about the time spent plotting and devising the design, or the sleepless hours optimizing software, creating drivers, kernels, testing, scrapping work and trying again when the testing fails, and in Moto and Apple's case, developing a custom in-house system to power it all. And what about the money spent on advertising, making sure people actually care about the device, so that it actually sells? And how about the profit? What good is pouring this money into developing something if it doesn't generate profit? You think that just because raw materials cost maybe $225 that's what you're entitled to pay for it? If the material cost is so damn cheap, why don't you just buy the materials and make the phone yourself?

"OH! But the Nexus 4 is only $299!"

...on the Google Play Store. How much did it cost outside of Google Play? I know T-Mobile charged $199 on-contract, and $599 unsubsidized. What about LG, and their LG Optimus G that had the same exact specifications? How much did that cost? Sure as hell not $300 unlocked. Only Google sold the phone that cheap, because Google and only Google can benefit from taking a loss on selling hardware.

"But Motorola's a Google company, why can't Google just give them the money?"

Because Motorola already owes Google $12.5 BILLION. That's $12,500,000,000. With eight zeros. Motorola needs to become PROFITABLE. It needs to MAKE money, or that $12.5 billion becomes wasted money, which is a HUGE deal. Not to mention, Google had to make promises before it was even allowed to make this purchase. Motorola has to be treated with the same rights and get the same treatment as any other Android handset maker. If they break that promise, they can and will get anally raped by TONS of antitrust lawsuits.

The problem here is that a select few feel entitled, for whatever reason, to cheap hardware, because Google was able to do it for one phone. Guess what. The Nexus 4 was an exception, not the rule, and it came with plenty of limitations to achieve that exception. So go ahead, buy two Nexus 4's buy TEN. Melt 'em down, combine 'em into one big superultramegafantabulous Nexus 4. That won't change the fact that it's 100% useless if you're like the majority of the U.S and you're on a contract with one of the 3 biggest carriers.

Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Use LTE. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Last 24 hours with reasonable usage. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Take good photos. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Wake up to the sound of your voice. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Give you detailed notifications with the screen off. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Survive tough drops. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Have more than 16 GB of storage. Know what else the Nexus 4 can't do? Offer customizable hardware and accessories...

I..I love you!