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

131–140 of 265 posts

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

#131

Post by skelsey »

mortehu wrote: post #115
skelsey wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to. You can get an unlimited data + 100 minute no contract plan from t-mobile for $30/month.

Where's that? I can only find $50, $60 and $70 plans: http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/individual.html

Go here: http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/sim-card. Check your device, and once you know which SIM type you need, click the "Add to Cart" under "Phone".

I literally just did this, so the timing of this post is nice. Even more nice is that they are waiving the $10 SIM card fee right now.

You buy the actual plan after you get the SIM and activate it. I don't know what they charge for activation, if at all.

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

#133

Post by skelsey »

aarkling wrote: post #123
skelsey wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to. You can get an unlimited data + 100 minute no contract plan from t-mobile for $30/month.

It's not 4G though... If you want 4G, it's at least $50, $60 or more for more data.

http://imgur.com/Ttp553B

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

#134

Post by Theodores »

interpol_p wrote: post #97
mmahemoff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple used to cover all bases. There was iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, all the way up to the biggest iPod. So in the early 2000s, people at every level of the MP3 player market could be part of Apple's universe (which led to more PC sales and further MP3 sales and upgrading). They've still not done this with phones, so they've left a giant hole for Android to fill, which in turn makes the platform more attractive to devel…

Apple wasn't really covering all price ranges with those products — they were covering all use-cases. For example, the shuffle seemed more aimed at people who wanted something easy and light to clip on while exercising. The nano seemed to cross-over slightly with that market, and also attract people who wanted something tiny but full-featured. (I.e., it was the size that differentiated it, not price.) I don't think m…

If you are buying for someone else - a child - then you might buy a low end shuffle because you are cheapskate.

As for use cases, phones are all for adults, or rather every age group. Apple and others have not brought out products that are for kids or old age folk, as in specifically for them, e.g. with restrictions on in app purchases and porn where some 'mothership' device can be asked to yay or nay an action. Also, there 'should' be a phone for old folks that is full featured yet only presents a simple dialler on the home screen.

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

#136

Post by notdrunkatall »

nicholassmith wrote: post #80

It looks great, but as I've mentioned here before, I have some concerns about the cost. It's a great short term boon to consumers getting a device of this high quality at this price point, but the margins have to be razor thing on it, so how do they make money for R&D? What about Company X? What do they do, slice prices to match to keep market share or hope they retain a profit share? If they slash where do they get…

You worry too much. Google can afford to blow some cash on a long-term strategy. They'll be fine.

Company X will either sink or swim. If they sink, Company Y will take their place once Google's long-term plan reaches maturity and the value of their phones begins stagnating.

It's a cliche that so many people hate to hear, but the market will sort it out.

Consumer electronics is one of the least regulated sectors worldwide, yet it has been advancing by leaps and bounds for some three decades, and the diversity of companies large and small in the consumer electronics space has never been greater than it is today.

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

#137

Post by notdrunkatall »

berkut wrote: post #71
martinald wrote: post #3

This is getting really interesting. Between this, the Nexus 5 and the various Lumia's a $649 iPhone is starting to look very, very expensive. Smartphones at the moment seem to have got 'good enough'.

This. I've just bought a Lumia 520 as a play phone / replacement while I send my HTC One back to be repaired (due to it continually rebooting / crashing - I'm otherwise generally very happy with it). I had an iPhone 3GS and 4S as well before the HTC One, so I've tried the three main platforms. Windows Phone is actually very nice for the basics of webbrowsing, sending texts, calling, etc. It has its faults (limited ap…

Wow, $70 for that phone? I've been using an old Nokia E71 with a straight talk plan for a couple of years now because I didn't want to spend a few hundred on a phone. Looks like it might be time for an upgrade. How's the browser on it?

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

#138

Post by mortehu »

skelsey wrote: post #131
mortehu wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's that? I can only find $50, $60 and $70 plans: http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans/individual.html

Go here: http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/sim-card . Check your device, and once you know which SIM type you need, click the "Add to Cart" under "Phone". I literally just did this, so the timing of this post is nice. Even more nice is that they are waiving the $10 SIM card fee right now. You buy the actual plan after you get the SIM and activate it. I don't know what they charge for activation, if at all.

So it's not available to current T-Mobile customers unless you want to change your number, then?

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

#139

Post by katemcintyre »

justin66 wrote: post #5

If Google's plan is to leave the high-end of smartphones to its Android "partners" and stake out the low end with Motorola, that seems pretty smart. Its partners get to keep the high-margin hardware business that Google doesn't need anyway, Google puts a floor on how bad the low-end phones can be and still make it to market. And yeah, Google isn't in the position of competing with companies that it needs.

> And yeah, Google isn't in the position of competing with companies that it needs.

Why not? Motorola's Moto X is pretty high end and Google is spending $500M on just advertising it this year[1], beating Samsung's and Apple's ad spending. In watching a couple of hours of primetime TV in the US, I usually see 3 to 4 Moto X ads, and almost the same number of Windows 8/Surface ads. However, sales seem to be quite sluggish[2].

Motorola can't be making all that much money on Moto G and it seems to be Google's loss leader just like Microsoft's Lumia 520/521 at $69 to $99 unlocked(Surprised the article didn't mention it at all or compare it against the Moto G, it's a surprisingly fast phone for that price). Meanwhile Motorola's losses continue to grow every quarter and continue to be a drag on Google's earnings [3] . I guess the pressure is on Motorola to deliver, but even if this phone sells well, I doubt it's going to help them unless they're going to make money from ads and/or Google Play sales on those phones.

[1] http://9to5google.com/2013/07/11/moto-x-would-be-most-heavil...

[2] http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-motorola...

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

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

#140

Post by natch »

justin66 wrote: post #5

If Google's plan is to leave the high-end of smartphones to its Android "partners" and stake out the low end with Motorola, that seems pretty smart. Its partners get to keep the high-margin hardware business that Google doesn't need anyway, Google puts a floor on how bad the low-end phones can be and still make it to market. And yeah, Google isn't in the position of competing with companies that it needs.

I love this "puts a floor on how bad the low-end phones can be" -- YES that's the really great thing about this. Very good for consumers, and competition, and the mobile ecosystem, and keeps pressure on Apple and everyone else involved to keep cranking up the awesome.
Post reply on HN