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

241–250 of 265 posts

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

#241

Post by dublinben »

ForHackernews wrote: post #228
rokhayakebe wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's play is to bypass the carrier altogether, which they will do as soon they get broadband in many homes and use their own souped up wifi routers to create a network that will allow you to be forever internet-connected. And when you are not, they will roam.

That's what Republic Wireless does now, and they just launched with the Moto X at a surprisingly low price: https://republicwireless.com/

Be careful with Republic Wireless. They are completely anti-rooting, require customized proprietary software to use their service, and you're out of luck if you want to cancel the service after 30 days.

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

#242

Post by fixxer »

glesica wrote: post #69
cabbeer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The divide between "High end" and "Low end" devices is beginning to blur. The improvements to high end devices are providing diminishing returns, while all the "essentials" have trickled down to low end devices.

This is actually why I've got a Moto G on order. This will be my first smart phone. Before I heard about the Moto G I always assumed my first smart phone would be a Nexus device, because I refuse to sign a carrier contract and I would rather have a dumb phone than carry around something that cost $600 in my pocket every day. But with the Moto G, I get a cheap-ish device with all the features that actually matter to m…

I'm in exactly the same position; ordered mine yesterday.

I also think this is a smart strategy for Google to take against AT&T. $180 makes T-Mobile's $70 deal very accessible.

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

#243

Post by amaks »

girvo wrote: post #173
Touche wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Lumia phones are not fast. Fast scrolling, sure, but apps take 3-4 seconds to open and don't stay in memory very long.

It's user interface is responsive, but it's not a powerful handset. That's the best way of describing them, and to be honest for a lot of first-smartphone buyers, that's more than good enough in my experience.

And the reason is that UI is written in native code (read C++) using internal native APIs while 3rd party apps written in managed code (using different APIs. Of course it takes more time to launch managed apps. This is clearly a disparity between 1st party and 3rd party apps.

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

#244

Post by tjbiddle »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #136
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 world…

Exactly. Google can afford a long-term strategy - but, as much as I support Google, competition is healthy for any market.

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

#245

Post by downer90 »

userbinator wrote: post #161
yc-kjh wrote: post #147

Battery NOT User-Removable. Phone NOT User-Buyable.

To me this was a huge WTF? If they went to the trouble of making the back easily detachable, why did they deliberately do that? Almost feels like they're trolling the user: "Ha! Fooled you!" Even more so when they officially refer to it as the "battery door" in the documentation! https://motorola-global-en-roe.custhelp.com/app/answers/prod...

Seriously. I take major issue with devices that you can't cut the power to.

As far as I'm concerned, that renders it as an eavesdropping apparatus.

If I can't remove the battery, I'll never know when the microphone is truly off. I'll never know whether it's logging GPS geolocation data or not.

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

#246

Post by TrainedMonkey »

virtuallynathan wrote: post #216
rokhayakebe wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's play is to bypass the carrier altogether, which they will do as soon they get broadband in many homes and use their own souped up wifi routers to create a network that will allow you to be forever internet-connected. And when you are not, they will roam.

I think this is Google's long term plan, and its a pretty great one. You will literally be connected anywhere on the globe with Google Fiber based HetNet wireless, and wifi beamed down on the rest of the earth from Balloons.

I am not sure balloons are viable. For short term disaster sure, but long term is too much maintenance. Besides worsening hurricane/wind trend is likely to continue. I think they might just deploy network of cube sats, and figure out low power satellite uplink if they are really shooting for global connectivity.

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

#247

Post by foobarqux »

vidarh wrote: post #88
glogla wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That, or he has non-branded phone straight from china. You can find quite some interesting things on dealextreme or similar site, if you're feeling adventurous.

Well, unknown-in-the-West brand. It's a Star phone bought off Amazon Marketplace. Could have gotten it even cheaper straight from China, but didn't feel quite adventurous enough to order direct and not have a local distributor to deal with at that point. My next phone probably will be.

What are the good Asian mobile phone brands?

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

#248

Post by nl »

fidotron wrote: post #239
DCKing wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm profoundly uncomfortable with essentially condemning those that can't afford it to having to surrender their rights to privacy." You appear to be implying that you can get extra privacy by buying a more expensive phone. However, the Moto G does not actually seem to be any more or any less invading of privacy compared to any other Android phone out there (and arguably not moreso even compared to Windows Phones an…

OK, I admit it's not a perfect viewpoint, but I don't think any is! The problem here is these things should be private by default, with the option to break from that, since installing things like Cyanogenmod have external dependencies (like PCs) that cost money and people may not have access to. Features such as weather forecast widgets should not break if you choose not to share your location with Google, and right…

Features such as weather forecast widgets should not break if you choose not to share your location with Google, and right now many will.

I (and I think most people) like their weather forecast to show where they actually are?

Using geo-location makes it simpler for users, which I think is a good thing, isn't it?

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

#249

Post by craigyk »

jedc wrote: post #78
hayksaakian wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem here, is that they make SO MUCH MONEY that offering a (truely) low end model, or making any drastic changes is a great risk to their bottom line

And remembering the lessons of "The Innovators Dilemma", this strikes me as a potentially dangerous place for Apple to be in. (A company should always try to disrupt their own industry... instead of others doing it for them.)

You took the wrong lesson home. Disruption isn't "low-cost" same product category. Disruption is totally new product category that obviates old category. Between iPods -> iPhones, Macs -> iPads, I'm not worried about Apple being scared to take these leaps as long as they get to own the profit margins.

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

#250

Post by chetanahuja »

lostlogin wrote: post #164
thaumasiotes wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

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?

US telecom market is mostly a duopoly (AT&T + Verizon) with sprint and Tmobile fighting at the margins. Combine with a profoundly uneducated user-base (when it comes to phone technologies) makes the job of the numerous MVNO's (straight-talk/simple-mobile etc.) much harder. Most people I know, even many who work in the tech industry, don't quite understand the concept of buying a device and a carrier plan as separate things.

This situation is not helped by the fact that the carriers have steadfastly refused to standardize on wireless technologies. Even the two GSM carriers (AT&T and T-mobile) have never agreed on the same set of frequencies for data... so eg., AT&T HS(D)P(+) devices (e.g. Galaxy Nexus, iPhone 4) didn't quite work on T-mobile and vice-versa. The regulatory agency (FCC) has basically been either helpless or complicit and maintaining the status quo.

Things might get a bit more competitive with LTE (with more standardized hardware etc.) but there doesn't seem to be any incentives for the big carriers to stop this effective collusion to start a price war. T-mobile seems to be breaking ranks in some ways but I haven't really seen a pricing strategy designed to pull the crowds yet even from them.

Post reply on HN