Does anyone have any solid info on the off contract price ? I need to make a decision today either wait for this if its priced like the n4 or get the htc one for Tmo for 400 . I'm phone less at the moment and it is killing me
Off contract price?
- Thread starter miicho85
- Start date
Alas, no my man, it will be just under $600. Although motorola was bought by google, it is google owning a regular phone company and that phone companies job is to make a profit just like every phone company out there. Best Buy already has their no-contract price up, but they usually put their off contract price at least $100 more than carriers do, so their $699 price means carriers will have it for $599ish.
Motorola - Moto X Mobile Phone - Black (Sprint) - Sprint - XT1056
If they sell it at 600 dollars they will miss a great opportunity to gain market share IMO I've been phone less for a week and I'm desperate I might pull the trigger on the htc one then converted to google edition I hate sense
Ah, here's one more article: AT&T confirms $575/625 16GB/32.
AT&T Moto X will run you $575 without a contract, $629 for the 32 GB version
That being said, T-mo will have their own thing going on and no one knows the price of that one yet, but you can expect it will be similar in price as other carriers.
Joe the Insider
Trusted Member
- Feb 19, 2011
- 1,573
- 212
- 0
In our systems, it's priced at $549/$599. Obviously these things aren't always right.
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2
That wouldn't surprise me. what carrier? thanks.
and uh, any educated guesses at a release date.
oh, bimbo moment, AT&T obviously. lol
Last edited:
Joe the Insider
Trusted Member
- Feb 19, 2011
- 1,573
- 212
- 0
Joe the Insider
Trusted Member
- Feb 19, 2011
- 1,573
- 212
- 0
According to our systems, it seems that way. Once again, nothing is set in stone.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
tnt118
Well-known member
- Nov 24, 2010
- 157
- 4
- 0
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.
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.
Joe the Insider
Trusted Member
- Feb 19, 2011
- 1,573
- 212
- 0
SteelGator
Well-known member
- Dec 1, 2011
- 1,220
- 5
- 0
Actually I agree with the original poster. Pricing the Moto X at $100 would send a message at odds with where Motorola wants to position this phone in the market place. They are using price to help frame where the X sits in the market place. That is Marketing 101.
It would also make it the price of phones that don't match it. Droid mini, htc mini, sammy mini, those will be $99, and the moto is not in their league. but i agree, if it were $149, i would be curious as to why so low. $179 i wouldn't be so suspect.
If VZW offers the 32GB option at launch that would solve my only gripe. Don't let me down Joe!
SteelGator
Well-known member
- Dec 1, 2011
- 1,220
- 5
- 0
That is true enough, but it is likely the did a price sensitivity analysis. That is how many can they sell at various price points. Since we have become accustomed to paying $200 for a phone, I doubt they found that they would sell 15% more units at that price.
The other fact is you can always reduce price, but if it becomes the 'hot' phone, they would find it hard to increase the price. The PR would be a nightmare. $200 is just a safe price. Folks that want it cheaper likely only need to wait a few months and they will have that opportunity.
From reading these forums you would believe price is based off either the cost of goods sold (COGS) or a nefarious plot by the carriers. In fact, there is a robust science behind pricing anything.
benhmadison
Well-known member
- Mar 30, 2011
- 812
- 0
- 0
If you have the opportunity to get the HTC one for 400 of contract I would jump on that.
Sent from my Google Play Edition HTC ONE.
When people buy off contract phones, pardon for not knowing this, but who do you use as a carrier? Boost and those types?
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
-
No Google Home Notifications on Samsung Z Fold 7
- Started by chanders7
- Replies: 2
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram