Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

181–190 of 265 posts

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

#181

I don't get it. If you're using a smart phone for all the things that smart phones do (audio, photo albums, video), 16GB just isn't enough. Even my 32GB iPhone requires active file management to avoid hitting the limit.

I have not had a phone with over 32GB for the past 2 years and yet I've never had to perform "active file management" or delete any media from my phone. I consume all my music through Grooveshark and Play Music and watch videos on Netflix or YouTube.

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

#182

I don't get it. If you're using a smart phone for all the things that smart phones do (audio, photo albums, video), 16GB just isn't enough. Even my 32GB iPhone requires active file management to avoid hitting the limit.

I think the target demographic isn't a heavy media consumer, so going with lower storage keeps the price down. Also, cloud.

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

#183

I don't get it. If you're using a smart phone for all the things that smart phones do (audio, photo albums, video), 16GB just isn't enough. Even my 32GB iPhone requires active file management to avoid hitting the limit.

I have not had a phone with over 32GB for the past 2 years and yet I've never had to perform "active file management" or delete any media from my phone. I consume all my music through Grooveshark and Play Music and watch videos on Netflix or YouTube.

Do you only use your phone at home or when you have Wi-Fi access? (Do you live in South Korea?) Most US cellular data plans don't allow very much streaming audio, let alone video, before you hit a cap. Certainly not a month's worth.

Source: I've easily hit my cap when I mistakenly turned off Wi-Fi.

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

#184
post #85
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That price point is now full of phones with 1920x1080 5" screens; 1280x720 is very much "last year". The camera specs are beaten roundly by my year old $200 phone. The physical design is almost identical to said year old phone (which is to say it looks pretty much like the Galaxy SIII). I think you missed the fact that that's the non-contract no subsidy price... Your $200 dollar phone was probably 500 or 600 off con…

You are jumping to (wrong) conclusions. My $200 phone was without contract. . Here's a few examples of current Chinese phones in the Moto G's price range or below: 2GB RAM, Quad Core MTK CPU, 5" screen, 12.8 megapixel camera down to $121: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Full-1-1-i9500-MTK6589-S4-Pho... MTK based Galaxy S4 clone for http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Mtk6589t-S4-1-1-Perfect-Galax... Note 3 clone for ~$190:…

The issue is that you don't get any support with this phones, while with Moto G they will just replace your device with a new one If something happens. To many average customers this factor is enough to deter them from buying phones you mentioned.

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of capitalism working better in China the the US is strong. What failed in the US? Under or over regulated? Or is it the lobbyists thing?

The market for phone voice service isn't exactly the entirety of each country. "What failed in the US", if we want to compare only the situation in the US with that in China, could easily be that people in the US have so much more money that phone service prices are nine times higher.

But this isn't China only. Even Europe is much cheaper then US. And eastern Europe is as cheap as China

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

#186
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Archos developer here, glad that you like the app :)

Any plans for Chromecasting/AirPlay support? I know it's not that simple but would not mind paying $4.99 if the paid version supported it. Thanks!

Looking into it. I understand there might be legal issues around Airplay and that Google did something to Chromecast to disallow "unofficial" use cases :(

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

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not had a phone with over 32GB for the past 2 years and yet I've never had to perform "active file management" or delete any media from my phone. I consume all my music through Grooveshark and Play Music and watch videos on Netflix or YouTube.

Do you only use your phone at home or when you have Wi-Fi access? (Do you live in South Korea?) Most US cellular data plans don't allow very much streaming audio, let alone video, before you hit a cap. Certainly not a month's worth. Source: I've easily hit my cap when I mistakenly turned off Wi-Fi.

Smart music services (such as Play) will use this radical new technology called caching so that you don't have to stream everything you listen to if you have things you listen to more often.

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

#188
post #15
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…

Point in case: I have a Galaxy Nexus that is fewer than two years old that won't receive any future releases because it's old enough they don't want to bother with.... not that it isn't capable... they just don't want to bother updating devices that are older than X (where X = less than the average contract length in the US).

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

#189
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

5Gb on a handset without tethering isn't "normal" use, even with LTE...

It depends. 1.5 hours of facetime will use ~1gb, and streaming 1 hour of music every day will run at 1gb over the month. Add browsing during commute and you're getting close. It's probably not "normal" in the sense of average, but for the heavy consumer, they will have to moderate their usage.

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

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a middle ground here though. The iPhone 4 is legitimately pretty shitty on iOS7, but the 4S runs the newest OS just fine. I've tested some pretty demanding apps on 4S/iOS7 and the thing barely breaks a sweat. And that's a 2 year-old phone. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least one major update out of new hardware, even low-end.

That's fine. the 4s, the oldest model phone that actually continues to work with their software updates, came out 80% through 2011. That's a little different than saying apple still supports phones that came out in 2010.

The Galaxy Nexus was launched in the US 2 years ago today. It was sold until about 1 year ago, by Google. They are refusing KitKat for it due to it being obsolete.

A (barely more than) one-year-old NEXUS phone is obsolete......

Post reply on HN