or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Piper Jaffray: New Moto X won't draw consumers from iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Piper Jaffray: New Moto X won't draw consumers from iPhone - Page 2

post #41 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyBartender View Post

It'll be fun to mess with other's voice activated phones >:-)

If done right, voice fingerprinting should work as well as fingerprint unlocking. Remember, most biometric sensors have been defeated by simple mechanisms (Mythbusters did an episode on it), but eventually the tech got better.

post #42 of 107
I will never understand these silly two-hander Hummer phones. This fashion needs to go ahead and fade. Imagine your local IT guy with an Otterbox on this thing trying to jam it into his pocket... It reminds me of how ergonomic Motorola cell phones were in 1990.
post #43 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

Mobile phone eavesdropping NSA + Google personal data collection + 'always listening' Google phone...

Sounds good. What could go wrong with that?

I'm sure a few people are simply salivating at the thought.
post #44 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I dont like the sound of that...  I see how it can allow some features, but at what price?

 

The phone is just locally listening for a wakeup phrase.  It's not being stored or transmitted.

 

 

First they have to install (or trick you into installing) a listening app.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Good luck digging out of that $12.5 billion Moto-hole, Google.

 

More like $9.5 billion, since Moto came with (and still has) $3 billion in cash reserves.

 

Also, Google gets billions in tax write-offs.

 

Some tax analysts think that the net cost to Google could be as low as $1.5 billion.

post #45 of 107
Does it recognize the owner's voice? For instance, what's stopping me from getting someone's phone to set an alarm for 3 am or some other mischievous thing? I know if I personally knew someone with this phone, I would have have some fun with them. If the phone gets any major adoption, I could just go out on the street and shout, "ok google now, text my mom and call her fat."
post #46 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

yup, as several above note, Moto is competing with SS with the same approach - adding UI gimmicks to android to "differentiate" the X and the S4 from other commodity droid phones. so they are both going after the same market - the gimmick lovers. and don't forget customization! there is no doubt those folks are already droid users anyway. so Google is finally trying to deal with the fact it does all the hard android work but Samsung is making all the android profit. Fight!

 

Apple has tried a few gimmicks too over the years, yes. but more than ever now it focuses on system-wide and ecosystem-wide new features that are really useful. and i expect even more to be unveiled this Fall with iOS 7/Mavericks etc. for great example, the anticipated fingerprint reader home button on the next generation of iPhone/iPad will likely be integrated with iCloud Keychain too (which also supports credit cards as well as passwords, and perhaps Passbook as well). what a powerful universal tool that would be! something every one of us would really want to use - a lot.

 

but i'm sure the Verge and all the other gadget head tech sites will give the Moto X a 9.0 score, just like the new Nexus tablet. new gimmicks always turn them on.

 

 

Always on Google Now with excellent battery life isn't a gimmick, it is a system-wide useful feature, one of the most common things people want to do is perform searches, and now it can be done without holding down a button like Siri "Star Trek style".  Siri is actually a gimmick in comparison. It's so slow and cumbersome. Moreover, the X does voice print analysis, and so it unlocks the phone by fingerprinting your voice instead of having to measure your finger. It can also unlock via environment (bluetooth in-car detection), and unlock via NFC token. (proximity to wearable) This will only get better over time.

 

Moreover, the concept of powering only part of the pixels of the screen to constantly show time and recent notifications based on the contextual CPU sensing that it is visible is much more useful than the constant need to turn on the phone's screen. It actually does what people hope wearable watches do, which is to present information at a glance rather than requiring you to "unlock" something.

 

Apple is going for the past, biometric sensors, including fingerprint scanners, have long been used on corporate laptops, AuthenTec has been doing this for years.  The future is not having to touch your device at all to get the most useful information. If I have to press the Home button to see what time it is or get the weather, you have failed.

 

The camera gesture Moto X has is a gimmick IMHO, it could be done better. But Touchless Control, Active Display, and Clear Pixel camera aren't gimmicks.

 

Samsung's crap is gimmicky in comparison. 

post #47 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

The irony in that Analysts comment is that from all hands-on reviews I've read, the Moto Xs screen is considered either really bad, or mediocre, (Josh Topolsky from theVerge called it "stunningly bad") while the iPhone 5 still has what is considered one of the best screens on the market. Nothing else about the physical design of this phone is noteworthy. The only noteworthy thing in software is that the mic is always on. Whether most people want this is debatable (I know I don't). Oh, and a camera activation gesture that seems to hardly work. 

 

Yet, this phone will put "pressure" on Apple in terms of design. Right. 

You are definitely right about the Moto X screen.  It looks like a bargain basement AMOLED screen, similar in quality of older Samsung Galaxy screens. From a qualitative perspective, even the Galaxy S4 screen trounces this.

post #48 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoTown View Post

Does it recognize the owner's voice? For instance, what's stopping me from getting someone's phone to set an alarm for 3 am or some other mischievous thing? I know if I personally knew someone with this phone, I would have have some fun with them. If the phone gets any major adoption, I could just go out on the street and shout, "ok google now, text my mom and call her fat."

 

Yes, you have to train it to recognize your voice in the setup process. It's probably not perfect and will improve over time, I'd expect some failures. The same thing happened in fingerprint scanning, most of them have been easily spoofed.

post #49 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Some tax analysts think that the net cost to Google could be as low as $1.5 billion.

Why $1.5 Billion? Why not zero? Heck, why not go all the way? With some strange math someone might be able to calculate that Google even get Motolora for free *plus* a billion from it. LOL.

post #50 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Why $1.5 Billion? Why not zero? Heck, why not go all the way? With some strange math someone might be able to calculate that Google even get Motolora for free *plus* a billion from it. LOL.

They spent $12.5 billion, Motorola had $3 billion in cash and they proceeded to sell the set-top box division for $2.0 billion plus 15% of Arris. Discounting the valuation of Arris holdings, that puts the acquisition costs @ $7 billion. Google considers the patents worth about $5 billion, so that leaves about $2 billion in overlay. 

 

However, keep in mind, Motorola is a diverse company. The company has a long history of innovation, like Bell Labs and PARC, and even if they fell on hard times, there is value there. Xerox screwed up royalty with the IP they had created at PARC (inventing Smalltalk, GUI, Ethernet, PostScript and LaserPrinters, etc) Xerox now looks like a lost cause, but good stuff is still being done at PARC. If someone bought Xerox and all they ended up with is PARC, it would still be a good deal.

 

They laughed at Google when they acquired YouTube for $1.6 billion in 2006. Marc Cuban said "only a moron would purchase YouTube". For the next several years, YouTube lost money and it looked like Cuban was right, but who's laughing now?

 

Moto X was, according to press reports, started 1 year ago. That's a fairly fast product cycle. If I were an Android partner, and looking at Google's history of making good strategic bets (Android another acquisition, AdMob, getting into the ad market early on mobile, etc), I'd be worried about Motorola+Google.

post #51 of 107

I would take what analysts say with a grain of salt. They aren't trend setters. They're trend followers. Analyst estimates for Apple exposed this in the worst way. When the stock was on the way up to $700, it was all unicorns and rainbows. Apple was the darling of Wall Street and it was about to blast off into orbit. You had analysts playing the "who can come up with the highest price target" game. When the stock capitulated, the analyst community was all of a sudden locked into a heated race to the bottom. They did a 180 on Apple and put out story after story about how Apple had no gas in the tank. They were out of ideas and Android was going to bury them. At least no one said Apple was going bankrupt. That wasn't actually possible until a few months ago, because Apple had no debt. 

 

The point is that sell-side analysts are armchair CEOs who think they can run any company better than the sitting CEO. IMO, the C-level execs and other employees of a company can judge the potential of a product far better than a sell-side analyst. And CEOs aren't idiots. They're not paid massive salaries to make products that have no hope of selling. Until I see otherwise, I'm willing to trust that when a company decides to put out a product, the management has done its due diligence on the product, including industry/competitor analysis to judge selling potential. 

post #52 of 107
You're c
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

They spent $12.5 billion, Motorola had $3 billion in cash and they proceeded to sell the set-top box division for $2.0 billion plus 15% of Arris. Discounting the valuation of Arris holdings, that puts the acquisition costs @ $7 billion. Google considers the patents worth about $5 billion, so that leaves about $2 billion in overlay. 

However, keep in mind, Motorola is a diverse company. The company has a long history of innovation, like Bell Labs and PARC, and even if they fell on hard times, there is value there. Xerox screwed up royalty with the IP they had created at PARC (inventing Smalltalk, GUI, Ethernet, PostScript and LaserPrinters, etc) Xerox now looks like a lost cause, but good stuff is still being done at PARC. If someone bought Xerox and all they ended up with is PARC, it would still be a good deal.

They laughed at Google when they acquired YouTube for $1.6 billion in 2006. Marc Cuban said "only a moron would purchase YouTube". For the next several years, YouTube lost money and it looked like Cuban was right, but who's laughing now?

Moto X was, according to press reports, started 1 year ago. That's a fairly fast product cycle. If I were an Android partner, and looking at Google's history of making good strategic bets (Android another acquisition, AdMob, getting into the ad market early on mobile, etc), I'd be worried about Motorola+Google.

You're conveniently forgetting all the quarterly losses from Motorola operations over the past year plus. In total I believe that's another 2 billion in cost to Google.
post #53 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

They spent $12.5 billion, Motorola had $3 billion in cash and they proceeded to sell the set-top box division for $2.0 billion plus 15% of Arris. Discounting the valuation of Arris holdings, that puts the acquisition costs @ $7 billion. Google considers the patents worth about $5 billion, so that leaves about $2 billion in overlay. 

 

Again. Why not value patents at $7 Billion then Google had got Moto for free. Whatever the math used, however you want to pat Google's back, the cold hard fact is that Google rushed to make a decision and shelled out almost $10 B. (after minus Moto cash) for a company that's leaking money every quarter.


Edited by matrix07 - 8/2/13 at 12:11am
post #54 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I was intrigued enough by this to go* to an Android fan site and see their take on it.

Judge for yourself: http://bit.ly/143mPWb lol.gif



* For the first time ever, in my life. Had to take a shower afterwards......
Google telegraphed as much a few months ago. Apparently any "Google" devices from Moto are still a few months off.

I always wondered how you got their talking points so promptly.
post #55 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Again. Why not value patents at $7 Billion then Google had got Moto for free. Whatever the math used, however you want to pat Google's back, the cold hard fact is that Google rushed to make a decision and shelled out almost $10 B. (after minus Moto cash) for a company that's leaking money every quarter.

 

Point is, YouTube was leaking money every quarter too. Someone once calculated that it would have taken YouTube something like 10 years to recoup its purchase price plus losses, and in fact, some people think YouTube is still unprofitable depending on accounting, but what value do you place on owning the world's most watched video site?

 

Google is in this for the long haul, like Amazon, and short term profit and loss don't drive strategic decisions. I think it is one of the failings of Apple that they hyperfocus on margins. They make paultry few acquisitions, and aren't spending anywhere near the amount of their $100+B warchest on basic R&D that they should be spending. I'm not talking about figuring out how to make the iPhone 7's screen 1mm smaller, I'm talking about *basic* R&D for stuff unrelated to near term products.

 

You look at IBM, HP, AT&T, Sun, Google, even Microsoft, these are companies that fund basic research labs, some even unrelated to developing a product at all, whose main result is often just academic papers. Apple's main results of R&D tend to be lots of patents. Apple spent $3 billion on R&D in 2012. Google spent $6 billion. Microsoft spent almost $10 billion on R&D in 2012. IBM spent $6.4 billion in 2012. Even HP Labs spends $3 billion.  This buys stuff like next-generation storage advancements, silicon processes, image censors. Apple by contrast effectively outsources their R&D to Korea and Japan. Who's inventing the next generation of flexible displays? Of printable flexible circuits? Not Apple, Apple will be forced to license those.

 

Maybe Motorola will turn out to be a bust for Google, but I give them credit for trying, and for having a chance at rescuing what was once a great American  company. You know, the company that *invented the cellphone*. That created the communication systems used by NASA. That built (the failed) Iridium satellite phone network. That created the original RAZR design. That built the CPU, you know, that Steve Jobs used for the Macintosh. 

 

Everything that Google is trying to do, from self driving cars, to stratospheric internet balloons, to building the world's largest neural network for language understanding, or Google Glass, at least they are trying to do something crazy and new. HP is trying to commercial memristors and self-assembling nanostructures. IBM is working on practical quantum computers. All of this stuff might fall on its face. But as the Apple commercial says, here's to the crazy ones.

 

With Apple's huge warchest of money, they could be doing a lot more amazing things than putting 5 year old fingerprint scanner technology into the home button.

post #56 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

You're c
You're conveniently forgetting all the quarterly losses from Motorola operations over the past year plus. In total I believe that's another 2 billion in cost to Google.

They only bought the Mobility Unit, they didn't buy the entire company.

post #57 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

Point is, YouTube was leaking money every quarter too. Someone once calculated that it would have taken YouTube something like 10 years to recoup its purchase price plus losses, and in fact, some people think YouTube is still unprofitable depending on accounting, but what value do you place on owning the world's most watched video site?

 

Google is in this for the long haul, like Amazon, and short term profit and loss don't drive strategic decisions. I think it is one of the failings of Apple that they hyperfocus on margins. They make paultry few acquisitions, and aren't spending anywhere near the amount of their $100+B warchest on basic R&D that they should be spending. I'm not talking about figuring out how to make the iPhone 7's screen 1mm smaller, I'm talking about *basic* R&D for stuff unrelated to near term products.

 

You look at IBM, HP, AT&T, Sun, Google, even Microsoft, these are companies that fund basic research labs, some even unrelated to developing a product at all, whose main result is often just academic papers. Apple's main results of R&D tend to be lots of patents. Apple spent $3 billion on R&D in 2012. Google spent $6 billion. Microsoft spent almost $10 billion on R&D in 2012. IBM spent $6.4 billion in 2012. Even HP Labs spends $3 billion.  This buys stuff like next-generation storage advancements, silicon processes, image censors. Apple by contrast effectively outsources their R&D to Korea and Japan. Who's inventing the next generation of flexible displays? Of printable flexible circuits? Not Apple, Apple will be forced to license those.

 

Maybe Motorola will turn out to be a bust for Google, but I give them credit for trying, and for having a chance at rescuing what was once a great American  company. You know, the company that *invented the cellphone*. That created the communication systems used by NASA. That built (the failed) Iridium satellite phone network. That created the original RAZR design. That built the CPU, you know, that Steve Jobs used for the Macintosh. 

 

Everything that Google is trying to do, from self driving cars, to stratospheric internet balloons, to building the world's largest neural network for language understanding, or Google Glass, at least they are trying to do something crazy and new. HP is trying to commercial memristors and self-assembling nanostructures. IBM is working on practical quantum computers. All of this stuff might fall on its face. But as the Apple commercial says, here's to the crazy ones.

 

With Apple's huge warchest of money, they could be doing a lot more amazing things than putting 5 year old fingerprint scanner technology into the home button.

If the 5 year old fingerprint technology is updated and it works, then what's the problem?  If Corporate, Government, etc. customers want it, then guess what? That's a big market to not neglect.  Oh, and for a brand new Android phone to come with an old OS is kind of pathetic. I would think that they would at least use 4.3 since that's the latest OS.  THe biggest problem with Android.  They just can't get all of the OEM devices up to the latest OS.  Dysfunctional platform.

 

A research lab is only good if what comes out of it is actually successful and the company that owns the research lab knows what to do with the technology.  Companies need to manage their research properly so they aren't going into a direction that doesn't make sense for the companies future plans.  Google is dumb for dumping money into the self driving car.  The car companies have been doing their own research as well as Universities.  Heck, there's one University that has a self driving car running off an iPad, so Apple would probably be better off dumping R&D money elsewhere than something that others are doing using their technology.  Self driving cars isn't going to be approved where we can walk in a showroom and buy a car anytime in the distant future.  It's a LONG ways away.  Look at how long it took for cars to have 4 wheel disc brakes with AntiLock.  A LONG time. It's quite a bit more expensive to do self driving cars with all of the equipment they need to add for steering, braking, acceleration.

post #58 of 107

Someone has to fund these things, even if they are far off, especially if the government isn't doing it. "Trying to go in a direction" of future company plans is actually how companies fail to innovate because it's incrementalism. The greatest breakthroughs in the world have come through serendipity, when researchers were funded to do whatever they wanted, who would most likely fail, and quite surprisingly, something they discovered turned out to have a practical application. Avoiding failure and risk leads to stagnation.

 

The way you talk reminds me of all of those utterly stupid Republicans who want to cut science funding by picking on stuff like "Why do we need to study Bear DNA? What use is it!?"

 

If it often unpredictable to know when and where a breakthrough will occur, or even what use it would be. ARPA couldn't have forseen today's internet. CERN didn't forsee the modern Web. When computers were invented for breaking WW2 cryptography and computing artillery tables, no one ever thought they'd have practical application for personal use.  When Bell Labs invented the transistor, they weren't trying to make computers. Number theory and Abstract Algebra were once thought to have *zero* practical application until modern cryptography.

 

IBM T.J. Watson Research, for example, ran completely independently of IBM product divisions. They did basic research on elementary chemistry and physics. Scanning Tunnelling and Atomic Force Microscopes were not invented to make things, yet, they potentially applicable to nanotechnology.

 

As for car companies doing their own self driving car research, every single one I've seen from both manufacturers and universities has paled in comparison to what Google has achieved in terms of distance traveled, achievable speeds, types of environment, etc. 

 

The reality here is if you don't spend money on basic R&D, and merely pick it up for profitable application later when it is mature, you are in essence, a parasite that is not contributing back. Apple needs to invest more in basic science and stop doing everything purely in the service of known plans and profits. They need to take chances and give grants to people with insane ideas. Apple really isn't a technology company in some regards, they are a consumer electronics company, who buys technology developed by other companies, and packages it in a nice design that is acceptable by consumer.  

 

I almost feel the government should tax away a big chunk of their $100+b billion cash stockpile and give it to universities, rather than letting it go to waste sitting in foreign bank accounts or used in stock buy backs.

post #59 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Someone has to fund these things, even if they are far off, especially if the government isn't doing it. "Trying to go in a direction" of future company plans is actually how companies fail to innovate because it's incrementalism. The greatest breakthroughs in the world have come through serendipity, when researchers were funded to do whatever they wanted, who would most likely fail, and quite surprisingly, something they discovered turned out to have a practical application. Avoiding failure and risk leads to stagnation.

 

The way you talk reminds me of all of those utterly stupid Republicans who want to cut science funding by picking on stuff like "Why do we need to study Bear DNA? What use is it!?"

 

If it often unpredictable to know when and where a breakthrough will occur, or even what use it would be. ARPA couldn't have forseen today's internet. CERN didn't forsee the modern Web. When computers were invented for breaking WW2 cryptography and computing artillery tables, no one ever thought they'd have practical application for personal use.  When Bell Labs invented the transistor, they weren't trying to make computers. Number theory and Abstract Algebra were once thought to have *zero* practical application until modern cryptography.

 

IBM T.J. Watson Research, for example, ran completely independently of IBM product divisions. They did basic research on elementary chemistry and physics. Scanning Tunnelling and Atomic Force Microscopes were not invented to make things, yet, they potentially applicable to nanotechnology.

 

As for car companies doing their own self driving car research, every single one I've seen from both manufacturers and universities has paled in comparison to what Google has achieved in terms of distance traveled, achievable speeds, types of environment, etc. 

 

The reality here is if you don't spend money on basic R&D, and merely pick it up for profitable application later when it is mature, you are in essence, a parasite that is not contributing back. Apple needs to invest more in basic science and stop doing everything purely in the service of known plans and profits. They need to take chances and give grants to people with insane ideas. Apple really isn't a technology company in some regards, they are a consumer electronics company, who buys technology developed by other companies, and packages it in a nice design that is acceptable by consumer.  

 

I almost feel the government should tax away a big chunk of their $100+b billion cash stockpile and give it to universities, rather than letting it go to waste sitting in foreign bank accounts or used in stock buy backs.

Apple develops a lot of things that you may not be aware of.  They have a LOT of patents and they are trying to find ways to improve their product, if they need a technology that a small company has that is relevant to the direction they are going in, they'll buy a small company and not always publicize it.  Apple typically doesn't do large acquisitions since most of the time it takes too long to recoup the money and they don't always have what Apple actually needs.  Apple is just trying to make a better product and not trying to come up with a new replacement for silicon technology for processors because they know that isn't their core competency.  Yeah, Apple has been more consumer oriented, but they also allow third parties to come up with ways to utilize their products to come up with new ways to use the products they sell.  Apple chose not to develop Thunderbolt, but they had the idea for it, and went to Intel since that's Intel's core competency. since they had success with USB.  That was smart on Apple's part.  They adopted the technology first and they get the most support from the third party crowd.

 

Yeah, Bell Labs invented the transistor, but they didn't perfect it and also come up with the integrated circuit, that was done by other people stemming from the original inventor.  Bell Labs didn't even THINK of silicon originally with the original transistor.  That was done much later.

 

It's all identifying what a company's core competency is, what direction they want to go and figuring out how to best utilize their cash and partnerships to come up with the best solution.  Even though Apple isn't known for making LCD or Plasma displays, they have several patents using LCD panels to improve them for their needs and then they work with the panel suppliers to mfg the panels to their specs.  I'm sure they are doing the same thing with IGZO since Sharp had the expertise to develop IGZO.

 

It's all about managing the resources that makes sense. 

 

Apple is speeding ahead with SSD technology and they are integrating faster SSD than the PC crowd and we're seeing that with the MBAir and then the rest of the product line.

 

There isn't much more that Apple can do other than pick the processors they want to use, but that new cooling method with the MacPro is quite ingenious.  It may not be as important as some other technology, but for the product they are designing, a lot of thought went into it.  Doing away with internal hard drives was also smart. Who the heck wants to deal with constantly screwing around opening up boxes transferring hard drives or data from one machine to another when you just plug in an external RAID and just replace the main CPU/GPU ever so often. In the long run, it's actually a much more practical way of designing a desktop computer.


Apple has been playing around with at least 5 or more materials to use for cases.  They've played around with the Liquid Metal technology, aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber, polycarb and I'm sure they are still trying to think of what makes the most sense for future products.  Just trying to figure out a case material is a costly venture and Apple is not normally known for being a company that focuses on materials for a case.

post #60 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... Chief among these is a constant listening mode, ....

Is there a way to switch it off safely.

Thinking of NSA and Google this sounds really creepy.

That's an absolut no go for me!

post #61 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

Is there a way to switch it off safely.

Thinking of NSA and Google this sounds really creepy.

That's an absolut no go for me!

It's a no go for me too because it's Google. But listening mode actually is nice. I love to have it for my iPhone. I don't like Google but bravo to them for pushing this forward. SJ love to talke about computer talking to us and understand us instead of us needing to understand them. Well, Google makes another big step forward here.

And battery life is nice too. You got listening mode and 24 hours battery life. Great job. But the screen is sub-par and Apple wouldn't sacrifice that whatever the reason.

post #62 of 107
I don't know. They might get me. But will see what apple has to offer. Balls on apples court.
post #63 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

It's a no go for me too because it's Google. But listening mode actually is nice. I love to have it for my iPhone. I don't like Google but bravo to them for pushing this forward. SJ love to talke about computer talking to us and understand us instead of us needing to understand them. Well, Google makes another big step forward here.
And battery life is nice too. You got listening mode and 24 hours battery life. Great job. But the screen is sub-par and Apple wouldn't sacrifice that whatever the reason.
Has anyone tested out that battery claim? And I'm assuming that's just talk time?
post #64 of 107
I think it is very interesting how this new Android phone comes in many colors. I'm sure they did this out of their own inspiration and not in anticipation of rumored new iPhones coming in many colors...

1oyvey.gif
Edited by eckergus - 8/2/13 at 5:31am
post #65 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by eckergus View Post

I think it is very interesting how this new Android phone comes in many colors. I'm sure they did this out of their own inspiration and not in anticipation of rumored new iPhones coming in many colors... just my 2 cents.

It's not something you do on the spur of the moment. It does take at least a tiny bit of planning. 1wink.gif FWIW color options have been rumored for both iOS and Android smartphones for some time now. Soli and I discussed it last year, fully expecting it to have already been offered by one or the other.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Has anyone tested out that battery claim?

Good point. Ha. Ha.
post #67 of 107
So taking five-plus years to research and develop the iPod, iPhone and iPad is not considered basic research? Taking time to research and develop cutting-edge machines that automate the processes of building devices is not considered basic research? The entire Liquid Metal effort is not considered basic research for the long term? iCar is not considered basic research for the long term? The internal design of the upcoming Mac Pro is not considered basic research? The biometric technology being researched and developed as you wrote your comment is not considered basic research for the long term? Researching how to develop quality handheld, desktop and server devices is not considered basic research? Embedded display sensors for multi-touch is not considered basic research? Camera technology and voice technology are not considered basic research for the long term? Mineral combinations for constructing devices are not considered basic research? Microprocessor technology and battery technology are not considered basic technology for the long term? Flexible displays, flexible batteries, flexible devices are not considered basic research for the long term? Researching how to develop OLED technology that compensates for aging diodes is not considered basic research for the long term?
post #68 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's not something you do on the spur of the moment. It does take at least a tiny bit of planning. 1wink.gif FWIW color options have been rumored for both iOS and Android smartphones for some time now. Soli and I discussed it last year, fully expecting it to have already been offered by one or the other.
Exactly. This is as silly as those who think a retina mini is just a response to the Nexus 7. Apple has probably been working on a retina mini since before the first mini came out.
post #69 of 107
Is there anything else you can say to the new phone besides "OK, Google Now" in order to wake it up? I basically really like the packaging of this new phone, but I'm simply not up for this kind of dorky marketing in public. Or private.

Also, I have to say the Samsung Galaxy S3 is the first phone I've had that didn't give me a headache while I was on a long call. And so I've come to the conclusion that exceptionally low SAR ratings really do make a difference. At least for Verizon, the new Moto delivers similar performance EXCEPT in the 1900MHz band that is significant in my market and several other major Verizon markets. I'm going to stick with the lowest possible head SAR across the board, and for now, that continues to mean Samsung.
Edited by photoeditor - 8/2/13 at 6:13am
post #70 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoeditor View Post

Is there anything else you can say to the new phone besides "OK, Google Now" in order to wake it up? I basically really like the packaging of this new phone, but I'm simply not up for this kind of dorky marketing in public. Or private.

From what I've read about it no. The good news is that it reportedly "learns" to recognize only your voice and not others.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #71 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

So taking five-plus years to research and develop the iPod, iPhone and iPad is not considered basic research? Taking time to research and develop cutting-edge machines that automate the processes of building devices is not considered basic research? The entire Liquid Metal effort is not considered basic research for the long term? iCar is not considered basic research for the long term? The internal design of the upcoming Mac Pro is not considered basic research? The biometric technology being researched and developed as you wrote your comment is not considered basic research for the long term? Researching how to develop quality handheld, desktop and server devices is not considered basic research? Embedded display sensors for multi-touch is not considered basic research? Camera technology and voice technology are not considered basic research for the long term? Mineral combinations for constructing devices are not considered basic research? Microprocessor technology and battery technology are not considered basic technology for the long term? Flexible displays, flexible batteries, flexible devices are not considered basic research for the long term? Researching how to develop OLED technology that compensates for aging diodes is not considered basic research for the long term?

 

Indeed. So far Apple has an outstanding record of focusing on the right tech coming out of R&D. The 3d maps and Siri are external techs, if Apple thinks something is worth it, they will move in and buy them.

 

They didnt invent mp3 players, but they are the one who did it right, same goes for smartphones and tablets.  Look at how everyone is cloning the MBA now with ultrabooks. The way I see it the entire industry in taking Apple products, clone them and then do incremental upgrades while undercutting on price. 

 

Now everyone is waiting on Apple next move, and you can bet the farm everyone will clone them again, while saying they didnt invent anything, again.

post #72 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by eckergus View Post

I think it is very interesting how this new Android phone comes in many colors. I'm sure they did this out of their own inspiration and not in anticipation of rumored new iPhones coming in many colors...

1oyvey.gif

If one of the features of Apple's new phone was allowing users to pick out colors the tech media would make a mockery of it and call it gimmicky.

What really annoys me is all the media talk about if this will hurt iPhone but I don't see those same analysts wondering if it will hurt other Android OEM's. If Apple should be worried, shouldn't Samsung, HTC, LG and Sony be worried too?
post #73 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by eckergus View Post

I think it is very interesting how this new Android phone comes in many colors. I'm sure they did this out of their own inspiration and not in anticipation of rumored new iPhones coming in many colors... 1oyvey.gif

 

Oh good grief. Apple did not invent colored phones.

 

 

What I think is cool, is that one of the Moto X case options will be various types and shades of wood.  (Or as Motorola put it, "We've got wood!") 

 

 

 

According to Mashable, Motorola listens to suggestions on its Facebook page.  Colors like "Fifty Shades" (of grey) and so forth, have been submitted.

 

The Moto X website indicates that you'll be able to create your own phone from 2,000 combinations, plus accessories, and it'll be custom built and shipped within four days.


Edited by KDarling - 8/2/13 at 6:34am
post #74 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


If one of the features of Apple's new phone was allowing users to pick out colors the tech media would make a mockery of it and call it gimmicky.

What really annoys me is all the media talk about if this will hurt iPhone but I don't see those same analysts wondering if it will hurt other Android OEM's. If Apple should be worried, shouldn't Samsung, HTC, LG and Sony be worried too?

 

There is a say that when you are down to colors, innovation is dead. But for old models, its genius imo, it all depends on context. If high end still used whatever best shells they can make and used models are using cheaper color options, it all makes sense to me.  Awesome move.

post #75 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

What I think is cool, is that one of the Moto X case options will be various types and shades of wood.  (Or as Motorola put it, "We've got wood!") 

 

 

That will go well with this:

 

post #76 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

That will go well with this:

 

Cute!  Did you also mock all the wood cases have been sold for years for iPhones?

 

(That really was a nice matching photo find in a short time. Kudos for that!)

post #77 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Always on Google Now with excellent battery life isn't a gimmick, it is a system-wide useful feature, one of the most common things people want to do is perform searches, and now it can be done without holding down a button like Siri "Star Trek style".  Siri is actually a gimmick in comparison. It's so slow and cumbersome. Moreover, the X does voice print analysis, and so it unlocks the phone by fingerprinting your voice instead of having to measure your finger. It can also unlock via environment (bluetooth in-car detection), and unlock via NFC token. (proximity to wearable) This will only get better over time.

Moreover, the concept of powering only part of the pixels of the screen to constantly show time and recent notifications based on the contextual CPU sensing that it is visible is much more useful than the constant need to turn on the phone's screen. It actually does what people hope wearable watches do, which is to present information at a glance rather than requiring you to "unlock" something.

Apple is going for the past, biometric sensors, including fingerprint scanners, have long been used on corporate laptops, AuthenTec has been doing this for years.  The future is not having to touch your device at all to get the most useful information. If I have to press the Home button to see what time it is or get the weather, you have failed.

The camera gesture Moto X has is a gimmick IMHO, it could be done better. But Touchless Control, Active Display, and Clear Pixel camera aren't gimmicks.

Samsung's crap is gimmicky in comparison. 

While these are useful concepts, it is the implementation of said concepts that usually let's people down.
post #78 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Cute!  Did you also mock all the wood cases have been sold for years for iPhones?

Apple sells them?

 

(It's a rhetorical question, in case you didn't get it).

post #79 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Apple sells them?

(It's a rhetorical question, in case you didn't get it).
1rolleyes.gif

Of course some users will miss the nice woodgrain backgrounds that Apple still had on the iPhone in iOS6. Others are happy to see it go.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From what I've read about it no. The good news is that it reportedly "learns" to recognize only your voice and not others.

Now I'm not so sure that you can't pick your own phrase. From a review:

"If you “buy” a Moto X from an AT&T store (other carriers supposedly to follow), instead of an actual phone you get a Moto X Card. You go home, rub off the redemption code which you enter on the Moto Maker Web site. You can now choose from 18 different rear cover colors, either textured or flat, seven accent colors for buttons and trim, and either white or black for the front. You can even add a “signature” – a phrase or your name, up to around 20 characters depending on letter width – to be printed on the bottom rear of the phone.

You can also choose a wake-up screen phrase, configure your phone with your Google account, choose a wallpaper screen and order a case along with matching wired earbuds from Sol Republic ($100). All the configuration is done in the U.S., and Motorola guarantees you’ll get your Moto X in four days or less. Or, forget going to an AT&T store – you can configure and order the phone completely online if you’d like.: http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/08/moto-x-hands-on-first-impressions/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Piper Jaffray: New Moto X won't draw consumers from iPhone