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

151–160 of 265 posts

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

#151

Post by thaumasiotes »

mortehu wrote: post #138
skelsey wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I used switching to that t-mobile plan as an opportunity to set up google voice. At least now I can cover future number changes.

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

#152

Post by aphexairlines »

skelsey wrote: post #84
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #2

Google is making a big play on smartphone for everyone model. Now if they could get carriers to agree to cheaper data model, their hand would be really strong. To some extent this favors T-Mobile and other no-discount/cheaper plans carriers.

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

Unlimited 2G data. LTE is limited to 5GB per month. I've hit their throttle before, and while it's nice that you don't go dark, it's not for normal use.

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

#153

Post by rayiner »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #73
mpg33 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

macs are also a premium price compared to PC's....not sure how comparably this is

True, which is why Apple commands a relatively small share of the PC market and why the entire Mac desktop/laptop and OS X business is only about 12% Apple's total revenue (last I checked last year anyways). The Moto G is $179 and is, honestly, quite a bit of phone. Compare that to the iPhone 5c which is $549, over 3 times the price. Macs are about as much of a premium over PCs (comparing entry level hardware costs,…

Macs are a small part of Apple's revenues, but Apple is and has for awhile been pretty much the only company making substantial profits on laptops and PCs. Similarly, pretty much only Samsung makes big profits on Android, and Galaxy S4 is just as expensive as iPhone. They also have the advantage of vertical integration in manufacture.

Finally, Google doesn't make any money on Android. Key difference from Microsoft and Windows.

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

#154

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> For example, the shuffle seemed more aimed at people who wanted something easy and light to clip on while exercising.

Speaking for myself, the shuffle is definitely aimed at my use case (I actually used a zen stone). I want to control my in-car music by hooking up a player with a purely tactile interface. Using my phone means every time I want to interfere with the player, I have to look at the screen... a huge step backwards in usability.

The zen stone had an adavantage that an ipod shuffle might or might not also have... no one ever broke into my car to steal it (although it was taken when they broke into my car to steal my backpack).

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

#155

Post by thaumasiotes »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #106
superuser2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhones are not intended to be purchased for $649 except by the very impatient (or people who break/lose their uninsured phones). If you wait your 2 years, it's $100 or $200 on-contract. Of course it's different in emerging markets where contracts aren't the norm, but smartphone prices in the US are pretty damn close in terms of 2-year TCO.

I don't understand why people in America are so keen to pay for expensive monthly plans. I pay $5-$10 dollars per month on average for my cellphone on prepay. It doesn't make sense all to buy a phone on plan.

Your problem is that you believe sensible plans are offered in the American market at all. Look at all the love people express for t-mobile's $30 / month plan. That's because it is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else you can get.

In China, I pay about US$15 every 3-4 months for a level of texting and voice talk that would easily cost $30 / month by itself in the US. (I don't have a data plan.)

I've tried going prepaid (also t-mobile) in the US. The economics worked out as long as I never expected to use my phone at all; if I expected anything, it was a money loss. And even while I expected nothing, I had to keep paying $10 / month so that all my paid credit wouldn't suddenly expire.

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

#156

Post by cbr »

mgkimsal wrote: post #44
pedrocr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Four years ago Android was well behind iOS, RIM was still around, OEMs were still considering having their own smartphone OSes, and Google had minimal leverage. There's a good chance the OEMs would have refused to go with an Android with a tighter licensing model.

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

#157

Post by pkulak »

aphexairlines wrote: post #152
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.

Unlimited 2G data. LTE is limited to 5GB per month. I've hit their throttle before, and while it's nice that you don't go dark, it's not for normal use.

Not many people can use 5GB of data in a month. I'd say "normal" use is nowhere near 5GB.

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

#158

Post by wvenable »

glesica wrote: post #72
superuser2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhones are not intended to be purchased for $649 except by the very impatient (or people who break/lose their uninsured phones). If you wait your 2 years, it's $100 or $200 on-contract. Of course it's different in emerging markets where contracts aren't the norm, but smartphone prices in the US are pretty damn close in terms of 2-year TCO.

I, and quite a few people I know (admittedly perhaps not average consumers) refuse to sign contracts partly because the phones are so expensive to replace, and breaking the phone doesn't get you out of the contract. That means you need insurance, which adds to the cost. I would rather fully own my device, have the flexibility to switch carriers, and be able to downgrade my plan if my phone breaks or my needs change.

The biggest problem with that is most carriers don't give you a discount if you own your own phone. So you can either pay $50 a month and get your handset for $200 or pay $50 and get your handset for $600. Which one makes more financial sense?

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

#159

Post by lostlogin »

derekp7 wrote: post #40
winterswift wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of wonder if that's because a lot of updates are rolled out poorly to older devices. On my previous two phones, I've ended up running CyanogenMod or another third-party ROM, even at the same base Android version at the stock OTA updates, because many times even the RC versions run better than what's getting pushed by the carrier. Verizon customer here though, so I don't know if other networks are better about…

Part of it is just change. One day, I needed to pull up the map on my Nexus phone -- and it had a completely different interface to it. I had to sit in a parking lot for an extra 15 minutes to get it to do what I wanted. Now I've got KitKat, and the phone dialer has changed -- I have to hit an extra button to get all my contacts, and I don't like the "premium" spots being automatically populated (there are only 3 lar…

Depending on what flashlight app that is, crashing might actually improve it. http://m.fastcompany.com/3023042/fast-feed/this-popular-flas...

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

#160

Post by pavs »

skelsey wrote: post #91
kombine wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

This is one reason I'm always surprised people buy anything other than a Nexus device. You have a new phone, and it's running an OS that's already a year old.

Is nexus devices available in every country? Can you walk to a store and buy a nexus phone? Do Nexus phones have SD card (very important for me)?
Post reply on HN