Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

This phone looks like a game changer to me, because it has the specs of a high-end smartphone but is priced like a crappy low-end one.

The cost of an unlocked unit is $300 to $600 LESS than that of other devices with comparable specs, so mobile carriers should be able to offer the Moto G to the masses for hundreds of dollars less than any iPhone or high-end Android device by Samsung, LG, etc.

Mobile carriers could offer the Moto G profitably at a negative price -- for example, zero money upfront plus an instant $300 coupon rebate if one commits to a two-year plan. Or they could offer it with much cheaper monthly bills than economically possible with other comparable phones -- for example, 25% off one's monthly bill if one commits to a two-year plan.

Edits: added context and examples.

View on HN

It seems capable, but calling it "high end" is quite... generous. No LTE, 1.2 GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 8GB storage - they made some obvious compromises to hit this price point.

I think it's probably a smart play for Moto/Goog to target this space, but "high end" it ain't.

Note that the iPhone 5s also has 1GB of RAM and has a similar CPU speed (1.3GHz). I feel you on the LTE portion, but much of the targeted market has no opportunity to use LTE. Maybe they could have a Moto G+ that costs $50-75 more and includes LTE.

LTE is available in Africa. look into the mobile industry in Africa in some ways we have leap frogged . theres an entire generation of tweens whos access to the net is via mobile.

I Will never forget my visit to canada in 2009. I get there, purcuase a prepaid sim card, and data does not work. go back to the store, and I am told you have to have a contract for data. wtf? LTE/3g all cost the same here both on prepaid and and contract. As long as you have coverage.

Did you mean to reply to tsunamifury?

Yep. Damn mobile client. Anyone got a good recommendation for android HN client?

But the iPhone 5s has a much more capable CPU, you can't compare both based purely on clock speeds. Each Cortex-A7 should be slower clock for clock than an Cortex-A9, so it should put the single threaded CPU performance between the iphone 4s and the iPhone 5, although it can maybe outperfom an iphone 5 in highly threaded tasks.

Apple still sells the 4s, which has half the RAM and a slower CPU. And I wouldn't call the 4s a low-end phone.

Basically, the days when a <$200 Android was painful to use (click, wait for the UI to figure out what you just did) are past.

i just recently tried an Android device with a 1Ghz Dual Core, 800x480 4inch screen and Android 4.1 and it was quite painful to use. Not very responsive, scrolling lagged on the browser or content heavy apps like facebook/instagram to the point that it was really annoying. Seems to be more of an Android problem though, as a similarly priced and specced Windows Phone didn't have these problems.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you were downvoted for this comment.

High-end Android is way past those specs.

For instance, my HTC One has a 1080p screen vs 720p, twice the RAM, four times the storage, and a 1.7Ghz quad with twice as much on-die cache as the 1.2GHz Quad in this thing.

Specs lie. The HTC One does have a super high-res screen though!

http://www.macworld.com/article/2049270/benchmarks-iphone-5s...

That's literally Apples and oranges.

>That's literally Apples and oranges.

Yes literally, my orange phone rings off the hook cause I'm so popular.

>and has a similar CPU speed (1.3GHz)

It just has a similar clock speed. Not similar performance.

It's basically the same thing as a Nexus 4 was. Modern hardware, priced under the competition, but no LTE out of the box. Some people were able to enable the LTE on some bands on that, so we'll see if this is a similar crippledware device that hackers can unlock.

If this is high-end what is the HTC One I bought 6 months ago?

Especially considering Moto G won't be out until 2014, about 10 months after HTC One's release.

Of course ultra-high-end!

>Mobile carriers could offer the Moto G profitably at a negative price

Doubt US carriers are going to let that happen, I haven't seen many negative prices except on feature phones.

Only Tmobile seems to be willing to let the consumer take advantage of lower handset prices. Also, wonder how much Motorola makes(or loses) per Moto G at these prices.

Anyway I hope the Moto G does better than the Moto X. Even with the massive hype and the continuing ad blitz on TV(I see around 3 to 4 Moto X ads in about 2 hours TV viewing) about customization and the always-on voice features, it doesn't seem to be selling well[1].

Starting from the 500K sales figure in the 3rd quarter and generously adding, say, a million more in Q4, the rumored ad budget of $500M [2] would mean Google is spending ~$333 per handset in advertisements.

That would probably add more to the already heavy Motorola losses[3] and Google shareholders would soon be questioning the merits of subsidizing Motorola's losses.

[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/11/motorola-plans-low-co...

[2] http://androidandme.com/2013/07/news/wsj-google-to-promote-m...

[3] http://mobilenewsblog.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sc...

> Also, wonder how much Motorola makes(or loses) per Moto G at these prices.

Motorola claims it doesn't sell them at a loss but hasn't said more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/technology/motorola-to-off...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com