Moto X : Price Tag is NOT Surprising

[Lanzeelus]

So the Moto X costs $199 on contract. And now, predictably, tons of people are going whine and scream and b@#!$ that the price they made up isn't real. Some people speculated an unrealistic price point and spread around like wildfire as if it was fact. It should have been obvious when the Droid Ultra with similar specs was released with a $199 price tag that the Moto X would be similar. But people just kept repeating this ridiculous $299 price tag, and now the internet is going to go ballistic because people refused to stop and think "Wait, we made this up."

Before you rage about the price some more, keep in mind NOBODY promised you this price, it was made up and demanded by people who seem to think all phones should be sold for little to no profit. If you are legitimately shocked and disappointed that this phone wasn't sold at a crazy low price, you have no one to blame but yourself for believing it, as the proof was there for a while.

Google's Motorola Unit to Spend Up to $500 Million Marketing 'Moto X' Phone - WSJ.com

Also, you are free to wait for the Nexus 5, since it will undoubtedly be better. Just remember, the Nexus 5 isn't even confirmed to EXIST. Before you start hyping the Nexus 5, remember what JUST HAPPENED with the Moto X. Let this be yet another lesson about what happens when you make crap up and treat it like fact.

 

[Clocks]

Re: Price Tag is NOT Surprising

Well we still don't know what moto/google will sell the phone for directly. It may be subsidized. The AT&T retail price is $575 for 16gb.

Also moto did imply a reasonable price some time ago. But I agree the internet went wild imaging some crazy low price points. I don't think $349 is an outrageously low price to predict. But to match the GS4/One/iPhone price point with mid-tier internals and justify it based on choosable backplates and assembled in texas? That wouldn't be the strategy I would have chosen. But then again I'm not in that industry so what do I know...

 

[Woosh]

Re: Price Tag is NOT Surprising

Well we still don't know what moto/google will sell the phone for directly. It may be subsidized. The AT&T retail price is $575 for 16gb.

Also moto did imply a reasonable price some time ago. But I agree the internet went wild imaging some crazy low price points. I don't think $349 is an outrageously low price to predict. But to match the GS4/One/iPhone price point with mid-tier internals and justify it based on choosable backplates and assembled in texas? That wouldn't be the strategy I would have chosen. But then again I'm not in that industry so what do I know...

While this is true....it's VERY disappointing we don't know anything yet. Maybe it'll go to play store someday but we still don't know the price and if we can customize it. WHY in the world is this custom available only on AT&T? Everyone says Samsung got so big because they offered it everywhere but Moto made the huge mistake of giving exclusiveness.

I'd be happy to go onto the site right now and give $575 off contract and have my phone in 4 days on the network I want it on. But it doesn't look like thats an option and thinking about last weeks announcement and how well they dealt with the n7 and chromecast launch. I have to wonder if Google has any input at all about whats going on at Moto.

 

[WickedRabbit]

Re: Price Tag is NOT Surprising

Regardless of whether or not this phone is good or bad in people's eyes, the more alarming trend for me (as a Verizon customers) is how much love AT&T seems to be getting in the smartphone world. It makes me wonder if Verizon is just simply rejecting things or whether AT&T is just being more aggressive. AT&T has definitely launched more phones this year and for several of them even had big advantages (64GB HTC One that also isn't likely to come to Verizon either) and now they get the customization options and 32GB Moto X. Granted, Verizon has the hideous Droid Maxx that's basically the same phone as the Moto X (and this could be why they didn't care about the Moto X), but I'm more concerned at the trend that I'm noticing this year of every phone going to AT&T and Verizon really getting nothing.

As someone who is sort of waiting for the HTC One (or the One Max) to hit Verizon, today's announcement just makes me more nervous that when the One does hit Verizon it will only be offered in 32GB and that the One Max may likely not hit Verizon at all.

 

[Photon4glover]

Re: Price Tag is NOT Surprising

Regardless of whether or not this phone is good or bad in people's eyes, the more alarming trend for me (as a Verizon customers) is how much love AT&T seems to be getting in the smartphone world. It makes me wonder if Verizon is just simply rejecting things or whether AT&T is just being more aggressive. AT&T has definitely launched more phones this year and for several of them even had big advantages (64GB HTC One that also isn't likely to come to Verizon either) and now they get the customization options and 32GB Moto X. Granted, Verizon has the hideous Droid Maxx that's basically the same phone as the Moto X (and this could be why they didn't care about the Moto X), but I'm more concerned at the trend that I'm noticing this year of every phone going to AT&T and Verizon really getting nothing.

As someone who is sort of waiting for the HTC One (or the One Max) to hit Verizon, today's announcement just makes me more nervous that when the One does hit Verizon it will only be offered in 32GB and that the One Max may likely not hit Verizon at all.

Hehe I have AT&T

 

[tech_head]

So the Moto X costs $199 on contract. And now, predictably, tons of people are going whine and scream and b@#!$ that the price they made up isn't real. Some people speculated an unrealistic price point and spread around like wildfire as if it was fact. It should have been obvious when the Droid Ultra with similar specs was released with a $199 price tag that the Moto X would be similar. But people just kept repeating this ridiculous $299 price tag, and now the internet is going to go ballistic because people refused to stop and think "Wait, we made this up."

Before you rage about the price some more, keep in mind NOBODY promised you this price, it was made up and demanded by people who seem to think all phones should be sold for little to no profit. If you are legitimately shocked and disappointed that this phone wasn't sold at a crazy low price, you have no one to blame but yourself for believing it, as the proof was there for a while.

Google's Motorola Unit to Spend Up to $500 Million Marketing 'Moto X' Phone - WSJ.com

Also, you are free to wait for the Nexus 5, since it will undoubtedly be better. Just remember, the Nexus 5 isn't even confirmed to EXIST. Before you start hyping the Nexus 5, remember what JUST HAPPENED with the Moto X. Let this be yet another lesson about what happens when you make crap up and treat it like fact.

People expected to see an off contract price that reflected the specs of the device. The N4 is $349 for the 16GB version and has specs that blow the X away.
So the problem is that this device has to compete with the likes of the HTC One, the S4, new iPhone (whatever that is), etc. If it costs the same with those specs, they have a problem.

It's not that the price is too high, per se; it's that it's too high when you factor in the competition.
People shop based on price and the value proposition of an item. I'm afraid people won't see the value in buying a mid range device, with premium money.
That's the problem that Motorola will need to face. They will also face the same issue with the Droid Ultra which is more or less identical except for the display.
The Droid Mini, Ultra and Maxx are essentially the same phone as the X. I was waiting to see the pricing.
The choice for a Verizon customer, is what package you want the phone in.

There WILL be a N5 or equivalent, just like there will be a next generation iPhone, iPad, iPad Mine, etc....
What is open for debate is when specs and how much?

At N4 pricing, I would have considered the X. At $500-600; I'll wait for someone to dump an HTC One in about 5 months on VZW.
I'll save a couple of hundred and move on. I got my Razr HD when Verizon was still selling them for almost $600 for $340 still in the box on Swappa.

On Verizon, having to give up unlimited for a subsidized device is a game changer.


Google-rola => EPIC FAIL! on this one.

 

[NoYankees44]

Lol anyone that actually thought the x would be at nexus price was smoking something i would like a bag of...

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T

 

[lets_go_android]

People expected to see an off contract price that reflected the specs of the device.
...
At N4 pricing, I would have considered the X. At $500-600; I'll wait for someone to dump an HTC One in about 5 months on VZW.
I'll save a couple of hundred and move on. I got my Razr HD when Verizon was still selling them for almost $600 for $340 still in the box on Swappa.
...

Same here. I don't care about what some article said or what rumors there were. All I know is that the N4 is similar to the Moto X but they priced the Moto X a couple hundreds higher. End of story.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

People expected to see an off contract price that reflected the specs of the device. The N4 is $349 for the 16GB version and has specs that blow the X away.
So the problem is that this device has to compete with the likes of the HTC One, the S4, new iPhone (whatever that is), etc. If it costs the same with those specs, they have a problem.

It's not that the price is too high, per se; it's that it's too high when you factor in the competition.
People shop based on price and the value proposition of an item. I'm afraid people won't see the value in buying a mid range device, with premium money.
That's the problem that Motorola will need to face. They will also face the same issue with the Droid Ultra which is more or less identical except for the display.
The Droid Mini, Ultra and Maxx are essentially the same phone as the X. I was waiting to see the pricing.
The choice for a Verizon customer, is what package you want the phone in.

There WILL be a N5 or equivalent, just like there will be a next generation iPhone, iPad, iPad Mine, etc....
What is open for debate is when specs and how much?

At N4 pricing, I would have considered the X. At $500-600; I'll wait for someone to dump an HTC One in about 5 months on VZW.
I'll save a couple of hundred and move on. I got my Razr HD when Verizon was still selling them for almost $600 for $340 still in the box on Swappa.

On Verizon, having to give up unlimited for a subsidized device is a game changer.


Google-rola => EPIC FAIL! on this one.

People won't see it as midrange if it's marketed, priced, and performs like a high end device.

Average consumers don't care about specs. Btw, explain to me how the N4 specs "blow it away". Quad-core? The X has "better" Krait 300 cores. It also has the same GPU, plus a lot of the "extra stuff" is off loaded to the other two dedicated processors, leaving the CPU to do the heavy work. Don't forget the N4 lacks those separate dedicated processors.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Clocks]

I don't think anyone would argue it's not fine at doing what it's designed to do for 99% of consumers, the same people that think all smart phones are $200 and you buy them at the carrier store. In that respect, and with the right marketing, it very well may have room. They certainly have Google's bank account to make a try at it.

But we're android people (and sometimes PC people) who have watched apple play that game for years, we see through the marketing and realize it's just a choice of a neon pink back plate on basically the tech equivalent of a software optimized GS3. A GS3 is still a nice phone (i like mine) but it's frustrating that Moto's big innovation is spend cash on ads marketing mid-tier hardware to get Joe-Consumer to buy it instead of "that galaxy phone or the silver metal one" instead of making any real splash and shaking up the industry.

 

[blazin247]

People won't see it as midrange if it's marketed, priced, and performs like a high end device.

Average consumers don't care about specs. Btw, explain to me how the N4 specs "blow it away". Quad-core? The X has "better" Krait 300 cores. It also has the same GPU, plus a lot of the "extra stuff" is off loaded to the other two dedicated processors, leaving the CPU to do the heavy work. Don't forget the N4 lacks those separate dedicated processors.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I think you picked a poorly worded line in his post to make an argument out of. A better way of saying it would be, "The Moto X is in direct competition, pricewise, with the S4 and One, which have vastly superior everything." I don't live and die by the specs of the phone. I like the Moto x specs, very much so. They've priced it at the competition however, which means that you HAVE to compare the specs and the Moto X has nothing on the competition in the premium tier.

 

[tekhna]

I think you picked a poorly worded line in his post to make an argument out of. A better way of saying it would be, "The Moto X is in direct competition, pricewise, with the S4 and One, which have vastly superior everything." I don't live and die by the specs of the phone. I like the Moto x specs, very much so. They've priced it at the competition however, which means that you HAVE to compare the specs and the Moto X has nothing on the competition in the premium tier.

This. Nokia got it. They priced their recent offerings at 100 on contract. This thing is a joke at 200 with a 2 year contract.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

I think you picked a poorly worded line in his post to make an argument out of. A better way of saying it would be, "The Moto X is in direct competition, pricewise, with the S4 and One, which have vastly superior everything." I don't live and die by the specs of the phone. I like the Moto x specs, very much so. They've priced it at the competition however, which means that you HAVE to compare the specs and the Moto X has nothing on the competition in the premium tier.

Me and you have to. People in a phone store will rely on the specs listed on the price tag (any idea what they choose to list?) and the sales person.

The thing that will stand out, though, is the display. But again, side by side people might not see a huge difference. Personally, camera and display are the two biggest features I look for. Not sure how representative of the general public I am, though.

I do get your point, though. Makes sense. For us geeks.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[tech_head]

People won't see it as midrange if it's marketed, priced, and performs like a high end device.

Average consumers don't care about specs. Btw, explain to me how the N4 specs "blow it away". Quad-core? The X has "better" Krait 300 cores. It also has the same GPU, plus a lot of the "extra stuff" is off loaded to the other two dedicated processors, leaving the CPU to do the heavy work. Don't forget the N4 lacks those separate dedicated processors.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Actually, it does blow it away.
The Nexus 4 has an S600 with 4 Krait 300 cores running at 1.5GHz. This is twice as many cores running a little slower. They are the same cores.
The X is dual core but with context CPU's to handle some dedicated tasks.
Mobile Processors | Qualcomm Snapdragon Processors
Snapdragon 600 Processors | Qualcomm

N4 win here.
The N4 uses an IPS display, win here vs AMOLED.
Resolution is about the same.

Here's the kicker..... Wait for it, wait for it..... The N4 is $349 off contract as long as you have a GSM carrier.
I don't care how you market it, it's a mid-range device and the price needs to reflect that.
Otherwise people can buy the competition. The Galaxy S4, LG Optimus G Pro and the HTC One are the top tier phones with S600 processors.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Actually, it does blow it away.
The Nexus 4 has an S600 with 4 Krait 300 cores running at 1.5GHz. This is twice as many cores running a little slower. They are the same cores.
The X is dual core but with context CPU's to handle some dedicated tasks.
Mobile Processors | Qualcomm Snapdragon Processors
Snapdragon 600 Processors | Qualcomm

N4 win here.
The N4 uses an IPS display, win here vs AMOLED.
Resolution is about the same.

Here's the kicker..... Wait for it, wait for it..... The N4 is $349 off contract as long as you have a GSM carrier.
I don't care how you market it, it's a mid-range device and the price needs to reflect that.
Otherwise people can buy the competition. The Galaxy S4, LG Optimus G Pro and the HTC One are the top tier phones with S600 processors.

Nope. N4 has S4 Pro with Krait 200 cores. S600 wasn't even out when the N4 was released.

I think some of us are missing the point. It's the end user experience that matters to 99% of people out there.

I've seen plenty of perfectly good phones, with no issues, returned because an app is slow. An app from the market. That isn't the fault of the phone at all. People are trivial.

Phones don't sell because of specs. Not to Joe Consumer.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[blazin247]

Me and you have to. People in a phone store will rely on the specs listed on the price tag (any idea what they choose to list?) and the sales person.

The thing that will stand out, though, is the display. But again, side by side people might not see a huge difference. Personally, camera and display are the two biggest features I look for. Not sure how representative of the general public I am, though.

I do get your point, though. Makes sense. For us geeks.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I agree that the average person isn't going to know the difference in things like the processor, PPI, AMOLED vs IPS, etc. I'm trying to imagine a scenario where someone would hold the X and the S4 or One side by side and, even knowing nothing about specs, choose the X over the latter two. The One is drop dead gorgeous, and the S4 has those gimmicky, but attention grabbing features as well as a huge lovely screen and MASSIVE brand recognition. They could've priced the X at sub-100 on contract, sub-400 off, and they would have appealed to both audiences while simultaneously staving off the comparisons to the premium handsets out there. Nobody wants to pay Porsche pricing for a Fusion- both are damn fine cars and capable of whatever I'll need, but if you're going to fleece the sheep I'm going to call you out on it Google.

 

[ultravisitor]

I think some of us are missing the point. It's the end user experience that matters to 99% of people out there.

And really, the end user experience should be what matters to 100% of people, if you ask me.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

I agree that the average person isn't going to know the difference in things like the processor, PPI, AMOLED vs IPS, etc. I'm trying to imagine a scenario where someone would hold the X and the S4 or One side by side and, even knowing nothing about specs, choose the X over the latter two. The One is drop dead gorgeous, and the S4 has those gimmicky, but attention grabbing features as well as a huge lovely screen and MASSIVE brand recognition. They could've priced the X at sub-100 on contract, sub-400 off, and they would have appealed to both audiences while simultaneously staving off the comparisons to the premium handsets out there. Nobody wants to pay Porsche pricing for a Fusion- both are damn fine cars and capable of whatever I'll need, but if you're going to fleece the sheep I'm going to call you out on it Google.

I can't agree or disagree until I hold one. Well, except for the stuff about the One and S4. But as for how the X compares side by side, no idea.

Phil said it was extremely comfortable to hold, fwiw.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[luke31]

Google promised low profit margins. This device is made in the USA. Hence there is a much higher labor cost than with Apple. Still, Motorola charges the equivalent of the iPhone for the 16gb. So I think, in a way, the promise of smaller profit margins has been realized, albeit in a unique way.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[tech_head]

Nope. N4 has S4 Pro with Krait 200 cores. S600 wasn't even out when the N4 was released.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Actually was mistaken but there is about a 20-30% difference in performance of the 200 vs the 300, in the real world.
They both use the Adreno 320 GPU. That being said, the Motorola X < N4, and given the price.
The Motorola X should be priced like the N4.

It WILL be compared to the Galaxy S4, LG Optimus G Pro and the HTC One.