backtop


Print 25 comment(s) - last by blzd.. on Jun 11 at 10:35 PM

Motorola introduces a 64GB variant of the Moto X

Motorola really wants people to see that its flagship Moto X smartphone is worth your time and attention. While the device won’t win any spec wars, its $349/$399 (16GB/32GB) price off-contract should be enough to entice those looking for a good bargain.
 
Since the Moto X doesn’t come with a microSD slot, those requiring even more space have been left to look for other options; that is until now. Over the weekend, Motorola added a new 64GB model to the Moto X family with a price tag of $449.
 
For comparison, an off-contract 16GB Samsung Galaxy S5 will cost you $649 on AT&T, while the off-contract 32GB HTC One (M8) costs $669.
 
The off-contract Moto X is available for use on a number of U.S. carriers including AT&T, Republic Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and Verizon Wireless.

 
It was recently reported that Motorola will close its Moto X facility later this year due to poor sales. The facility at one time had 3,800 workers, but now just makes do with 700. Motorola’s new owner, Lenovo, will move production of the Moto X (and future Motorola smartphones) to China and other countries with low-cost labor.

Source: Motorola



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Makes no sense
By Motoman on 6/9/2014 10:45:32 AM , Rating: 0
...why would they refuse to put a memory card slot on the Moto X, when the $129 Moto E has it?

This has forever been one of the big dipsh1t factors of the iPhone - a "premium" phone lacking in a memory card slot. Why does Moto insist on following suit?

Granted, the Moto G doesn't have a memory card slot either...but it's a $99 phone. Which realistically still doesn't make sense, as even the phones that get given away for "free" have memory card slots. But it makes a lot more sense to forego the slot on a $99 phone than a $449 phone.




RE: Makes no sense
By DanNeely on 6/9/2014 10:51:57 AM , Rating: 1
Blame Google. Google's been hostile to SD slots for years and has made using them increasingly difficult in stock android for years. The surprising bit is that Moto was able to convince Google that the 4GB of internal flash they used to hit the price point was so miserly that an SD slot was needed.


RE: Makes no sense
By teldar on 6/9/2014 5:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know that I agree with that. Google makes it hard to put applications and application data on the SD card. There are plenty of tablets out there with SD cards and numerous phones as well. I think the biggest difference is that companies want to try to force people to pay $100 for $12 worth of memory if they want more space and they want the flagship phone.


RE: Makes no sense
By Gunbuster on 6/10/2014 3:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Because you cant set artificial price points for internal storage if you put an SD slot on the phone! People just go buy a $35 64GB microSD.


RE: Makes no sense
By quiksilvr on 6/11/2014 9:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
And therein lies the problem. Sure you can get a Class 10 microSDHC card which is great for photos and videos, but certain intensive applications that require much faster internal memory may not be able to operate well on a microSDHC card.

If you actually shop for microSDHC cards that have similar speeds to internal storage, be prepared to dig into your wallet because those are not cheap:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008RJU3T4/

Although I agree the $100 jump from 16GB to 32GB is excessive and it should be at MOST $50, seeing a $100 jump from 16/32GB to 64GB isn't exactly outrageous considering the internal memory you are getting.


RE: Makes no sense
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 12:05:40 PM , Rating: 1
I've heard this argument before, and it's mostly bunk.

In a lot of cases, the mSD card is as fast or faster than the internal memory. Most phones have marginal I/O performance.

Claiming you'll notice a difference in real world use is just false.


RE: Makes no sense
By quiksilvr on 6/11/2014 5:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
I wholeheartedly agree that you should never just take someone's word for it. So here is my source:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7235/moto-x-review/9


RE: Makes no sense
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2014 7:19:02 PM , Rating: 1
That's the ONE phone on the planet with great I/O courtesy of a innovative file system NO other OEM on the planet is using in smartphones.

Not to call you a cherry picker, buuuuut....


RE: Makes no sense
By blzd on 6/11/2014 10:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Makes no sense
By techxx on 6/9/2014 10:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps as a low range device and to lower cost, it was cheaper to add expandable storage than cram 16GB+ in it? The Moto E is also newer and perhaps they weren't expecting large demand for an SD card when the Moto X was designed. You should know, "moto man". ;o


RE: Makes no sense
By Motoman on 6/9/2014 11:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
LOL that's funny. Actually hadn't occurred to me until now :p

But I can't believe the "perhaps they weren't expecting large demand for an SD card when the Moto X was designed" bit.

SD card slots have been a normal expectation on smart phones essentially from the beginning. I haven't counted, but I am sure that the *vast* majority of smartphones on the US market have SD card slots. The very few that don't stand out like sore thumbs...iPhone, Moto X, Moto G.

There's no way they could simply expect that people no longer want a feature that's been in use for so long, and is clearly so popular. I have to think they're just aping Apple. Which is never a good idea, no matter what else is going on.


RE: Makes no sense
By Ragin on 6/9/2014 12:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
The trouble with SD cards is security and simplicity. They could format the SD cards with EXT4 and the security problem would be taken care of since they could control permissions much more carefully then, however the SD card would then not be readable/write-able on Windows which would be a major problem.

The other issue is simplicity, since they are removable they present a challenge to keeping track of files on them and what to best use them for. I think most manufacturers have figured out that they are great for pictures and video but do you allow apps to be installed to them possibly compromising performance? What if an installed app keeps it's data on the SD card and the card is removed? Not having the SD card removes these issues but manufacturers haven't kept up with memory size increases which is frustrating.

Either way I think the best option is to just include it, since it's better to not alienate power users. Just make sure the minimum storage on the device is 32gb, 16gb doesn't cut it anymore even with SD card space.


RE: Makes no sense
By Nutzo on 6/9/2014 1:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I haven't counted, but I am sure that the *vast* majority of smartphones on the US market have SD card slots.


And you woudl be wrong.

iPhones don't have SD slots, neither do Google Nexus phones, and a number of other high end Android phones.

If a phone came with 32GB or 64GB of internal memory for a reasonable price (considering I can buy a fast 32GB SD card for < $25), then I'd be less inclined to need a SD slot.


RE: Makes no sense
By Motoman on 6/9/2014 3:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
You honestly think there are *more* models of smartphones on the market without SD slots than with SD slots?

Off the top of my head, I can only think of the 2 Moto models I mentioned and iPhones. Leaving probably hundreds of other models that *do* have SD slots.


RE: Makes no sense
By tonyswash on 6/9/2014 1:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I haven't counted, but I am sure that the *vast* majority of smartphones on the US market have SD card slots


Unlikely - the iPhone has 41% of the US smartphone market so even if every single non-iPhone sold in the US had SD card slots then that would still only be 60% of the market.


RE: Makes no sense
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 12:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
All that, yes, but what makes even less sense is why now? OK, so the MotoX at released was expected to be priced to sell, it wasnt. It was the same price as a high end phone with it's mid range specs. Sales wise it was a flop. Now, the following year, prior to the next round of releases, why on earth would anyone buy a 64gb model? At this point its even lower end than it was at release, why buy a high end amount of memory on a low-mid phone?


RE: Makes no sense
By ritualm on 6/9/2014 3:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
It makes less sense once you consider that the successor of MotoX is at most half a year away. Rumor mill is rife with X+1 prototypes in the wild atm.

Frankly I'm not sure what Motorola Mobility is trying to accomplish here, other than clearing out existing MotoX inventories before X+1 hits the floor.


RE: Makes no sense
By retrospooty on 6/9/2014 5:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
I would guess its a lot closer than 6 months. That would be December... But still lets say I am a heavy enough user to need 64gb RAM. As a heavy user in mid 2014, why get a MotoX vs. say an S5, One M8 or LG G3 or Xperia Z2? It just doesnt make sense to me at this time after launch-time sales were already flat. Who is the target market?


RE: Makes no sense
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2014 8:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Frankly I'm not sure what Motorola Mobility is trying to accomplish here


Crazy thought, I mean I'm just spitballing here, but I think maybe they're trying to sell phones.


RE: Makes no sense
By eek2121 on 6/9/2014 11:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer: I don't like you much, however that was priceless! :)


RE: Makes no sense
By retrospooty on 6/10/2014 8:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... OK, funny, but the train of thought here was wondering why Moto did this now, 10 months after it's initial launch. #'s wise the product launch was kind of a flop. Now, 10 months later, it is ever further behind the tech curve and they are adding a high end memory option? It just seems odd to me.


RE: Makes no sense
By esteinbr on 6/9/2014 3:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've always chalked this up to low end phones coming with so little storage they have no choice but to offer an SD slot and that the SD slot is cheaper to add than increasing the flash to the next larger size and/or offering multiple sizes. It probably also helps that low end phones aren't as stuck in the make it thin as possible mindset that high end phones are so a little extra space for a slot isn't as hard to deal with.

As others have noted SD cards can also be problematic for security and consistency reasons. They have also evolved over the years too. Early android phones almost always came with an SD card slot and usually had a card in them (my t-mobile g2 had an 8gb card). That early reliance on SD cards is why even a Moto x that doesn't have an actual SD card has a "virtual" sd card with a mount point for an sd card that points to internal storage. Heck you look at something like a nook HD and it has a SD Card directory that is on the internal flash and a SD card EX/ that is the actual SD card slot.


RE: Makes no sense
By StormyKnight on 6/9/2014 5:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I don't see the allure of SD-cards in phones anymore. With so many cloud-based backup options out there, you really don't need removable memory (IMHO). I would prefer that the phones had large amounts of storage built in. 16GB phones should be the lower tier. Flagship phones should start at 64GB standard. If you are a real hardcore audio/video person, 128GB storage would and should be for you.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki