Moto X : Price Tag is NOT Surprising

[Kevin OQuinn]

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.

I wish we could specifically test CPU load. I want to know how much of a difference those dedicated processors are going to make.

If the difference it's enough it'll narrow the gap of theoretical performance. Realistically, though, any modern mid to high end SoC is capable of delivering a flawless experience as long as the software is up to par.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Aquila]

Realistically, though, any modern mid to high end SoC is capable of delivering a flawless experience as long as the software is up to par.

Thanks!

 

[ottscay]

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.

Well actually it's hard to imagine many people choosing the S4 over the One (not knowing any specs), yet the S4 is massively outselling the One. All reports say that the X feels every bit as fast and responsive as those two, so there goes that issue. The screen is probably not as good, but the differences are probably minimal for most people and it comes packaged in a phone size that a lot of people prefer. Throw in marketing that emphasizes a more simple and useful experience and vastly improved battery life (if that pans out) and if the hand feel is as good as early reports indicate I'd be surprised if many average customers don't actually see this exactly the opposite as you do.

 

[Aquila]

There are too many threads out there to not end up repeating oneself, but here's my question/statement: Phone is the price of a phone... am I missing something? It has a lesser resolution on screen than the 1080p devices, but stronger hardware otherwise and arguably (on quantity of) much better software. What exactly are people upset about? That it's not the best phone of their dreams for $5? It's the price of a phone because it is being marketed as >= user experience to the other devices in it's niche.

These midrange comments are bunk without any real world experience. I know the iPhone is behind Android by a long ways on hardware and features, but do you consider the iPhone midrange? The spec sheet isn't the end of the discussion and for most people, they won't know what the specs mean, let alone seek them out.

When two people in say, Nebraska see the Galaxy S4, the HTC One and the Moto X side by side, which will they walk with? If it's based on nothing but features and playing with the devices, I'd argue that they walk away with the one they can talk to, that's assembled in the USA and can be made to look like whatever they want. It is not going to outsell the S4 in general, but the argument that it is a junk device makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Kayone73]

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.

Think like a business man, when doing the big relaunch it makes sense to lower costs w a mid range phone release and market it up, versus investing everything in a top tier phone and have it fail. If the MotoX takes and runs away, that will create the financial base for Moto to be really ambitious.

And if they choose not to follow that plan then they deserve to fold, plain & simple.


Sent from my HTC One Sinless ver 2.7 Google Edition rom

 

[osubeavs728]

"Assembled in USA" People should have seen that and known instantly that this phone was not going to have Nexus 4 pricing. I'm all for supporting US jobs, but there is a major difference in wages here vs overseas. That cost had to be passed on to someone!

 

[jephanie]

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.

I'm in the same boat as you and couldn't agree more. The Droid Maxx looks pretty ugly and only comes in black (the red would have at least made it look a little better/flashier) so if I'm going to pay up for what appears to be nearly identical devices (except for external appearance and battery size), I'll most likely wait for the MotoMaker to finally become available on Verizon and get a better looking device (than the Droid line).

But, yeah, AT&T is definitely more aggressive. I, for one, would have preferred the S4 Active over the S4 for all of its intended purposes. And now they have the jump on the customization options for the Moto X. And you can use the Nexus 4 on their network. And they had the One out lickity split, though the major thing that scares me about the HTC One is that HTC is a dying company and chances of the One getting updates is about equal to that of Steve Jobs showing up to announce the next iPhone.

 

[WickedRabbit]

Re: Price Tag is NOT Surprising

And they had the One out lickity split, though the major thing that scares me about the HTC One is that HTC is a dying company and chances of the One getting updates is about equal to that of Steve Jobs showing up to announce the next iPhone.

I lol'd cause I pretty much feel the same way. I really do feel that the HTC One is the best Android phone I've ever used, but I'm not going to lie when I say that HTC has arguably the worst upgrade program in the history of Android and that makes me nervous about buying one of their phones again. Getting anything other than the OS that your phone came with is a possibility, but you won't get it until the next OS is released (perfect example, US still isn't on 4.2 and 4.3 is now announced and there was no good reason to even launch the One with 4.1 given that 4.2 had already been out for months - it shows how slow their testing phase is). Getting MORE than one OS upgrade on an HTC is a practically not happening. Realistically, HTC One owners shouldn't ever expect 4.3 if you go by their history. 4.2 will be it. They have limited resources and will spend the little money they have left releasing a newer phone NEXT YEAR with 4.3 (yes, I will say it right now: any HTC phone coming out even later this year I bet still only has 4.2 and not 4.3) rather than testing 4.3 on current devices. Perhaps at best 4.3 hits the HTC One end of next year when Android is on KLP v.2 or something.

 

[JHBThree]

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.

The X8 in the X, despite only having a dual core AP, blows the nexus 4 away.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[robertopod1968]

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.

And the N4 has no LTE, bad camera and subpar battery life.

 

[Paisley]

The Nexus was subsidized, right? Should all phones then be subsidized or they're over-priced? Google bought motorola and have worked them them on this device but the want it to be it's own stand alone phone company. The cost to produce this device is more than the iPhone, i don't get why everyone's up in arms that it's not cheap. If you don't like unsubsized phones wait for the next Nexus or wait for another phone that performs as fast as the fastest phones on the market, that debut at $350/400. This argument that the 2 hardware phones deserve a 199/635 and the X should be $99/400 is crazy. Sammy has the hardware, moto has the more innovative smarter phone that is just as fast. It's a phone for people who are choosing among some of the best phones on the market. People who want to look at a 1080P and say MAN, THAT"S SHARP will buy the htc. But I wonder why so many here think there is more value objectively in a 1080P screen than the ability to peek your notifcations/check time without waking your phone. Phones working smarter and more efficiently have a very high value. Function has value, that's why people will pay $199. For some it's important to have more cores and an ultra sharp 5" screen, for others it is the ability to have a more efficient phone. When sammy makes a normal sized phone that takes a digital assistant to the next level let us all know, but they haven't. Their $99 phone is a midrange mini phone doesn't perform anywhere near the X. If you want an unsubsized phone for $350 get that one. lol.

 

[Paisley]

And i am still waiting to hear about an unsubsized phone that is as fast and efficient as the moto X that is $129. No phablets please. Anyone know of any? I can tell you a fact that Sprint's never carried one. very curious where these phones are.

 

[ChuckG73]

Dennis Woodside said they were going to close the gap from the 600 dollar smart phone to the 60 dollar cell phone. That is why I expected the price of the Moto X to be somewhere in the middle like 500-400 off of contract. How can I justify paying 649 (if that is what the 32 GB version costs) for the Moto X on Verizon when I can get the Motorola Droid Maxx for 699? Then there is the article on AC saying that Motorola is selling the X to AT&T for 350 dollars....that is just creating swirl and muddying the water.

 

[Paisley]

Dennis Woodside said they were going to close the gap from the 600 dollar smart phone to the 60 dollar cell phone. That is why I expected the price of the Moto X to be somewhere in the middle like 500-400 off of contract. How can I justify paying 649 (if that is what the 32 GB version costs) for the Moto X on Verizon when I can get the Motorola Droid Maxx for 699? Then there is the article on AC saying that Motorola is selling the X to AT&T for 350 dollars....that is just creating swirl and muddying the water.

Assigning cost to value has nothing to do with what someone said. The only justification for buying something is it?s value.

That being said, if the Maxx really is $99, i would get on that s--t pronto. (not me, i mean you). How much is it off contract? is it really $659? And for that matter, why would someone buy an s4 or htc mini for $99 when they can have a Maxx?

 

[ChuckG73]

Assigning cost to value has nothing to do with what someone said. The only justification for buying something is it?s value.

That being said, if the Maxx really is $99, i would get on that s--t pronto. (not me, i mean you). How much is it off contract?

You confuse me. Dennis is heading up Motorola, when he says they are going to close the gap....typically it means release a product at a price point between the two said numbers.

 

[JungleLarry]

When the f--- did we start talking about $99? What's happening right now?

 

[Paisley]

You confuse me. Dennis is heading up Motorola, when he says they are going to close the gap....typically it means release a product at a price point between the two said numbers.

Sorry, i merged 2 things. . Cuz other than the Maxx, if it does turn out to be $200, all the phones seem normally priced, and all the phones without contract seem to be normally priced.

But you see people up in arms over the cost as relates to the phone (which is what i mistakenly addressed since it was talked about so much)

 

[ChuckG73]

Sorry, i merged 2 things. . Cuz other than the Maxx, if it does turn out to be $200, all the phones seem normally priced, and all the phones without contract seem to be normally priced.

But you see people up in arms over the cost as relates to the phone (which is what i mistakenly addressed since it was talked about so much)

I am interested only in buying the X off contract.

Moto Maxx is 299 on contract and 699 off of contract. I do not know what the X will cost off contract but was hoping somewhere below the 600 dollar mark.

 

[JHBThree]

Dennis Woodside said they were going to close the gap from the 600 dollar smart phone to the 60 dollar cell phone. That is why I expected the price of the Moto X to be somewhere in the middle like 500-400 off of contract. How can I justify paying 649 (if that is what the 32 GB version costs) for the Moto X on Verizon when I can get the Motorola Droid Maxx for 699? Then there is the article on AC saying that Motorola is selling the X to AT&T for 350 dollars....that is just creating swirl and muddying the water.

No its not. Woodside's comments were about emerging markets. The article on AC is about the devices cost to att, which is spelled out in the article. Has nothing to do with consumer-facing pricing.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Paisley]

I am interested only in buying the X off contract.

Moto Maxx is 299 on contract and 699 off of contract. I do not know what the X will cost off contract but was hoping somewhere below the 600 dollar mark.

Droid maxx or razr maxx? did it just come out and is 299?