I started thinking today about the price... something a lot of folks think should be a touch lower "given the specs" (he says, with a slight roll of the eyes). I start to wonder if there isn't a tactical reason to overprice the phone slightly. Stay with me...
They obviously wouldn't/couldn't go a Nexus route of $300 off contract, that wasn't the goal of this phone. The phone performs on par with other flagship phones. Which is the better marketing push?
1) Position it as a top of the line equivalent that's $50 cheaper than the alternatives, or 2) simply position it as a top of the line device.
I don't know that 1 makes the best selling point, especially since it can be nullified somewhat easily. I'm also reminded of the many marketing stories where a higher price increases the perception of something's worth. If they've made a phone that goes toe-to-toe with other flagships, could presenting it as a "cheaper alternative" undermine that very perception? Will some folks balk, not knowing the details, at not buying "the best"? Price something too cheap, and folks with believe (rightly or wrongly) that it is not good quality. Since Motorola already has a potentially confusing situation explaining how and why they get the performance they do, it might be smarter not to muddy those waters.
Not quite as relevant, but I also love the story about when Wendy's tried removing the triple hamburger from their menu. Apparently it wasn't a great seller and they didn't mind nixing it. It had an unintended consequence though: folks bought significantly fewer double hamburgers. People tend to make choices based on where an item is on the spectrum of available choices, as much as on the merits of the item itself. Wendy's put the triple back on the menu.
Selfishly, I'd love for the phone to be cheaper. Realistically, I don't mind that it isn't.