Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 265 posts

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#41

Post by eli »

kombine wrote: post #38

My Lenovo P780 was only $80 more expensive, but its battery has the highest capacity on the market, 4000 mAh. The phone holds the charge for >2 days of quite intensive use. I had Samsung Galaxy Note before this one, but now don't understand why anyone would choose top end phones from the brands like Samsung or Apple, if half of the cost of a phone goes to profit their shareholders.

If battery capacity is your main issue, you can do better with an aftermarket one. I got a 4500 mAh for my Galaxy S3 for $30! Of course, it requires a new case because it's enormous...

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#42

Post by cmelbye »

CJefferson wrote: post #39
pedrocr wrote: post #4

>It's tempting to think of the Moto G as some kind of "Nexus Jr.," a cheaper way to buy into the clean UI and quick software updates that Google's reference phones have always received. However, Google is making no promises about versions of Android beyond version 4.4, and speculating about whether Android 4.5 or 5.0 or whatever will roll out to the Moto phones as quickly as KitKat is a pointless exercise. Again shoo…

Guessing (possibly incorrectly), one reason they might not want to promise upgrades is in case the hardware simply can't handle it.

Probably true, but they're still shooting themselves in the foot. Apple is still supporting a device from 2010 with software updates.

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#43

Post by btian »

kombine wrote: post #38

My Lenovo P780 was only $80 more expensive, but its battery has the highest capacity on the market, 4000 mAh. The phone holds the charge for >2 days of quite intensive use. I had Samsung Galaxy Note before this one, but now don't understand why anyone would choose top end phones from the brands like Samsung or Apple, if half of the cost of a phone goes to profit their shareholders.

Does your phone support LTE? Does it run a modern version of Android? Does it have a modern SoC? Does it sync with my Fitbit? Is it widely available in the US? Can I get after sales support?

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#44

Post by mgkimsal »

pedrocr wrote: post #15
stusmall wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? The quick software updates is a selling point to devs but not so much to consumers. We aren't their target market. It seems like a good place to cut costs since you don't have the huge reaccuring engineering costs and there is much more freedom on part selection

Google is interested in building Android as a platform. Having 80% of your install base stuck 4 versions behind[1] is a crappy way of doing it. Even after they've moved more and more of the platform into the Play frameworks you're still leaving users without a bunch of improvements to the core platform, not to mention security fixes. iOS is miles ahead on this front exactly because it controls the hardware. That Goog…

and they could/should have done this 4 years ago, minus the hardware, simply by tightening the licensing model. you want to say you're "android" and use our software? You have conform to these minimums.

most people could predict from a mile away that when there's no restrictions on it, the carriers and manufacturers will generally race to the bottom in terms of quality and support. ESPECIALLY when the google name is tangentially attached to something, why would they bother making a good hardware model or updating it regularly? laypeople - who they are targeting - will blame google before they blame a handset maker or carrier.

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#45

Post by benhamner »

kombine wrote: post #38

My Lenovo P780 was only $80 more expensive, but its battery has the highest capacity on the market, 4000 mAh. The phone holds the charge for >2 days of quite intensive use. I had Samsung Galaxy Note before this one, but now don't understand why anyone would choose top end phones from the brands like Samsung or Apple, if half of the cost of a phone goes to profit their shareholders.

>don't understand why anyone would choose top end phones from the brands like Samsung or Apple, if half of the cost of a phone goes to profit their shareholders.

When consumers spend money to buy products, where the money goes (whether it's costs of production or shareholder profit) almost never factors into the purchase decision.

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#46

Post by ido »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #30
Macha wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Mac market share compared to PC market share shows which is far more dominant.

A sustainable business with larger profit margins is usually better to have than one with smaller profit margins. Also, a business with clients who have deeper pockets is better than a business dealing with those who have less disposable income.

Apple vs Amazon models, both have their pros and cons.

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#47

Post by kombine »

btian wrote: post #43
kombine wrote: post #38

My Lenovo P780 was only $80 more expensive, but its battery has the highest capacity on the market, 4000 mAh. The phone holds the charge for >2 days of quite intensive use. I had Samsung Galaxy Note before this one, but now don't understand why anyone would choose top end phones from the brands like Samsung or Apple, if half of the cost of a phone goes to profit their shareholders.

Does your phone support LTE? Does it run a modern version of Android? Does it have a modern SoC? Does it sync with my Fitbit? Is it widely available in the US? Can I get after sales support?

Does your phone support LTE?

I don't know if it does, but I live in Europe so that is not an issue for me.

Does it run a modern version of Android?

4.2.1

Does it have a modern SoC

It has more than enough horsepowers for what I do on a smartphone. It's quad-core, as for details - I never bothered.

Is it widely available in the US? Can I get after sales support?

Again, I don't know much about US, but I would imagine that a big company like Lenovo would be present there in one form or another.

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#48

Post by kombine »

eli wrote: post #41
kombine wrote: post #38

My Lenovo P780 was only $80 more expensive, but its battery has the highest capacity on the market, 4000 mAh. The phone holds the charge for >2 days of quite intensive use. I had Samsung Galaxy Note before this one, but now don't understand why anyone would choose top end phones from the brands like Samsung or Apple, if half of the cost of a phone goes to profit their shareholders.

If battery capacity is your main issue, you can do better with an aftermarket one. I got a 4500 mAh for my Galaxy S3 for $30! Of course, it requires a new case because it's enormous...

It wasn't my main issue, until I got it. I was very restricted with my Samsung before, because I would always end up with dead battery during just a one day of intensive usage. As for the size, it's absolutely manageable, maybe a little thicker than most of the 5" phones.

Re: Google’s $179 Moto G puts every single cheap Android phone to shame

#49

Post by btian »

benhamner wrote: post #45
kombine wrote: post #38

My Lenovo P780 was only $80 more expensive, but its battery has the highest capacity on the market, 4000 mAh. The phone holds the charge for >2 days of quite intensive use. I had Samsung Galaxy Note before this one, but now don't understand why anyone would choose top end phones from the brands like Samsung or Apple, if half of the cost of a phone goes to profit their shareholders.

>don't understand why anyone would choose top end phones from the brands like Samsung or Apple, if half of the cost of a phone goes to profit their shareholders. When consumers spend money to buy products, where the money goes (whether it's costs of production or shareholder profit) almost never factors into the purchase decision.

Rightfully so. For instance, a new manufacturer comes in, and has high costs due to inefficiencies and lack of economies of scale, how does that help me in making decisions?

While low prices can make purchase more compelling, the lack of profits never does.

Post reply on HN