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 3

post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

Unlike you, I like my bookshelves to look woodgrain.

 

But there's no accounting for taste. 1rolleyes.gif

post #82 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Unlike you, I like my bookshelves to look woodgrain.

But there's no accounting for taste. 1rolleyes.gif

I didn't have a problem with those wood-grain bookshelves either. MMV
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #83 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I didn't have a problem with those wood-grain bookshelves either. MMV

Then wtf was the reason for your snarky post? 1confused.gif

 

(Given your predilection for obtuseness, I should add: that's a rhetorical question too....)

post #84 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Then wtf was the reason for your snarky post? 1confused.gif

(Given your predilection for obtuseness, I should add: that's a rhetorical question too....)

It wasn't at all snarky. Apple liked the use of wood-grains. Some users of iDevices did too. Moto likes the use of wood-grains. Some of their MotoX users will too. I got the impression from your post that you thought Moto's use was campy but had forgotten that you liked Apple's use of it. Whatever.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #85 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It wasn't at all snarky. Apple liked the use of wood-grains. Some users of iDevices did too. Moto likes the use of wood-grains. Some of their MotoX users will too. I got the impression from your post that you thought Moto's use was campy but had forgotten that you liked Apple's use of it. Whatever.

Ah, looks like I underestimated your obtuseness.

 

For future reference (the right answer is b):

 

rhe·tor·i·cal

 adjective \ri-ˈtr-i-kəl, -ˈtär-\
 

Definition of RHETORICAL

1
a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric
 
b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>
post #86 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Ah, looks like I underestimated your obtuseness.

I'm often underestimated 1biggrin.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #87 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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/

 

it had better be "customizable" (are there several fixed phrases to choose from, or can you record your own?). to require all users to utter the word "Google" every time they wanted to use their phone would be the most utterly arrogant corporate ego trip imaginable.

post #88 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.

I agree, listening mode might be a cool thing, especially if the iWatch comes to fruition. Of course, lets not forget Andy rubin's quote, "Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn't be communicating with your phone." It is also nice to see google trying to add features that aren't just gimmicky, like the 24 hr battery (although they tested the nexus 7's battery in airplane mode, so I'm not optimistic). But in typical google style, they can't help but cut corners (subpar screen), and add on incredibly tacky "features," like adding faux wood grain plastic back covers. It's actually pretty hilarious that they though this was a great idea.

As an aside, it's been pretty entertaining watching the google and samsung trolls bickering through the thread. Get a life guys (and some dignity).

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #89 of 107

the whole Voice UI discussion is complex, or course.

 

Voice UI is certainly not a "gimmick" - it's all about the implementation. Siri was the first really practical one, and since then Google and MS have their own versions. a full comparison of all three later this year after iOS7 is released would be totally interesting.

 

first some general observations:

 

- its huge general advantage is the ability to have the computer do stuff that is tedious to do manually - dictation and booking an airplane trip are a classic examples.

- its huge specific advantage are in circumstances that mandate hands free operation - like in your car obviously.

- but a fundamental drawback and limitation on all Voice UI's are their inherent lack of privacy and potential imposition on other nearby people. so much of the time it is not a good choice - and why texting will always be popular.

- the ideal Voice UI would be completely conversational - speaking without any code phrases or mandatory sequence of content elements in everyday language in a normal tone of voice.

- the ideal Voice UI will have a real "personality" in both its voices and interactive "attitude" - not just sound like a disembodied robot.

 

the last item is really interesting. Apple gave Siri a female smartass-light personality from the start. now it will add a male voice - but will that personality be different too? (if if were Apple i would license exclusive rights to use Hal - that would be fantastic!). what are the personalities of Google and MS Voice UI's (i dunno)?

 

and how good - really - are all these UI's "conversationally" in making sense out of what you mean (i dunno)?

 

the hands-free wake up capability of the Moto X strikes me to be of very limited real value. how often are you going to actually use it? if you are already holding it, pressing a home fingerprint button is just as easy and potentially imposes on no one. (actually, this will be much more applicable to smart watches ...) when aren't you already holding it to start (inside cars doesn't count)? so i think that feature is mostly a gimmick.

 

[edit - ok there is one potentially really useful situation. totally hands free phone calls from start to finish, never actually touching the phone at all. so you can leave it in your pocket or purse or on your desk or kitchen counter, and as long as you are within earshot and background noise is not a problem you can make and receive calls. or at least answer the phone while still fumbling with getting it out of a purse or not having to stop what you're doing elsewhere in the room. and this is a common situation, so if it works well this is a good feature.]

 

the voiceprint authentication of the Moto X has real potential - but how is it used throughout the OS? can it replace app passwords, which would be a huge improvement. can it be used to verify purchases/transactions, including NFC or whatever, which would have huge significance? can it be used to prove your identity like a drivers license does to third parties (based on what third party voiceprint database - oh wait, the NSA has that already)? or does all that have to wait for Android 5 (i think so)? without implementation of any of these breakthrough capabilities, mere voiceprinting alone is pretty much just a gimmick too. and for all these potential uses there are still always the potential privacy and imposition problems.

 

we do not yet know if/how Apple is going to implement fingerprint ID in iOS 7. will it be used throughout the OS in any of the above ways? we do know that iCloud Keychain, coming with OS X Mavericks, will provide half of such an ecosystem-wide password system. we do know Air Drop in iOS 7 will provide half of such a purchase/transaction capability. we do know that there is a large existing third party thumbprint data base - your State drivers license - that government agencies, like the TSA, can access, and fingerprint scanners are widely used by businesses already too. so we will have to wait until the iOS 7 launch in a few months to learn if Apple's fingerprint button is just a gimmick or not.

 

lastly, it is a real disappointment that Siri is apparently not coming to OS X Mavericks (hopefully this will be a final surprise). full hands free UI for your desktop iMac would be very nice. we could get up and walk around our room and do other things while still interacting with the computer. that would come in really handy in the kitchen, for example. but the key thing is, you need a big monitor screen to look at from a distance to visually check on what is happening frequently for practical use - a smartphone just doesn't cut it for this.

 

and there is clearly potential with the mythical (so far) Apple Television ...


Edited by Alfiejr - 8/2/13 at 10:58am
post #90 of 107

Google had a solid opportunity here to refocus Motorola.  With those specs and very lightly skinned software, the phone should have been $399 at most off-contract and $0-$100 on-contract.  Customization would have been a very popular selling point with the masses.  But they failed miserably.

 

And now the iPhone 5C will offer basic customization through colours and eat Moto X's lunch.

post #91 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Google had a solid opportunity here to refocus Motorola.  With those specs and very lightly skinned software, the phone should have been $399 at most off-contract and $0-$100 on-contract.  Customization would have been a very popular selling point with the masses.  But they failed miserably.

And now the iPhone 5C will offer basic customization through colours and eat Moto X's lunch.

Seems to give credence to Google's claim that Motorola Mobility is run as a separate company. Even the OS version is not the latest available (unless it's changed between now and release) even tho Google themselves have been rolling out 4.3x to the Nexus devices for the past few days.

Earlier this year one of the Google execs said not to expect any 'wow" devices out of Moto in 2013 as there was already over a years worth of products developed and slated for release when Google bought them middle of last year. Anything with a heavy Google influence apparently comes in 2014 at the earliest.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #92 of 107

So imagine you are talking to your friends and just BSing and telling some big fish story to wow your friends, next thing you know the Moto X has been listening to you and hear what it though was a question when in fact you was making crap up only to have the phone do an internet search and announce to everyone you have no idea what the hell your talking about.

 

Neat feature, just a dumb idea, another example of just because you can do these things and your smart enough to do it does not mean people really wants it.

 

I see this feature alone as a battery killer, there is no way they can passively signal process someone voice and then make some sort of decision and then got out to the net and bring back information.

post #93 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Neat feature, just a dumb idea

That just about sums it up.

 

Other than for use while driving -- which appears to be the type of solution that Apple is pursuing -- I see little else for this cute-sy feature.

post #94 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That just about sums it up.

Other than for use while driving -- which appears to be the type of solution that Apple is pursuing -- I see little else for this cute-sy feature.

Agreed.

...But the benefit for a driver is immense IMO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That just about sums it up.

 

Other than for use while driving -- which appears to be the type of solution that Apple is pursuing -- I see little else for this cute-sy feature.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Agreed.

...But the benefit for a driver is immense IMO.

Well Let me tell you about Motorola/Google/Android last attempt for voice commend in car use. I have Atrix HD (nice phone works well as phone) I also got the car dock and mounted the phone to window, use voice prompt to get direction to a place, work okay, navigation came up, still require interacting with the phone via your hands. Got my directions and began driving, about 45 minutes later I get a message saying the phone was going into standby since the battery was over heating. Then 10 minutes later the phone turned off battery was out of power. Once the battery goes over certain temp it stop charging good idea to save the battery, but why was it over heating. Simple the processor was working too damn hard giving directions and going out to internet to pull back information to present a map to you. On my last trip I phone the phone over the air conditioning vent otherwise it would keep over heating if I attempt to use any application which kept the phone active and on, like Trapster or Waze or Navigation

 

As i said above I see the always active as a battery killer, Android does not know how to manage power and battery usage. Apply battery is only 1.4AHr to Motorola 2.2Ahr and motorola does not last as long as Apple. Power management become critical when you state making the phone do all these things and Apple understand this from all their years doing laptops.

 

These guys are all looking for the one killer feature which will draw in consumers, sorry the game has changed too much and people are not buying into that any more, it like Samsung the stupid move your eyes and the movie stops playing why on earth would you want that. Some time when watching a movie I close my eye just to give them a rest and still listen. Against neat feature, just a dumb idea

post #96 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

So imagine you are talking to your friends and just BSing and telling some big fish story to wow your friends, next thing you know the Moto X has been listening to you and hear what it though was a question when in fact you was making crap up only to have the phone do an internet search and announce to everyone you have no idea what the hell your talking about.

Neat feature, just a dumb idea, another example of just because you can do these things and your smart enough to do it does not mean people really wants it.

I see this feature alone as a battery killer, there is no way they can passively signal process someone voice and then make some sort of decision and then got out to the net and bring back information.

That's why it requires a specific phrase to activate the command functionality. Whatever phrase you choose shouldn't be one that would come up in conversation. Out of the box it's “ok Google Now." How many times have you said that to your friends?
post #97 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


That's why it requires a specific phrase to activate the command functionality. Whatever phrase you choose shouldn't be one that would come up in conversation. Out of the box it's “ok Google Now." How many times have you said that to your friends?

if obscenities are allowed, they are really on to something!

post #98 of 107

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I see this feature alone as a battery killer, there is no way they can passively signal process someone voice and then make some sort of decision and then got out to the net and bring back information.

 
It is not going out on the internet until AFTER the phrase matches, which wakes the main CPU.
 

Think of it as a waveform activated Home button.  

 
Reportedly it's using a very low power CPU section just for this feature.  (There have been standalone low power chips like this for decades, used most often in kid's toys.  In this case, I think they added the processor to their SoC to save room.)
 

(Reminds me of that Apple patent low power always-on facial recognition.  They have the camera constantly watch everything in low resolution for basic human skin colors, then wake up the main CPU and go to higher resolution to check.  Same kind of idea.)

 
post #99 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


That's why it requires a specific phrase to activate the command functionality. Whatever phrase you choose shouldn't be one that would come up in conversation. Out of the box it's “ok Google Now." How many times have you said that to your friends?

 

Heh heh.  Key words can get misused.  My favorite Google Glass review is this one from a girl whose boyfriend... well, see for yourself at around the 3:00 mark!   Very funny.  

 

But watch it from the beginning for best effect.

 
post #100 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.

 

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.

 

It is rumored that iOS was developed around the time the iPod was announced and Jobs originally wanted it to be on a tablet. The iPod was released almost ten years before the iPad. And the iPhone was released 5-6 years after the iPod. That doesn't look like "short-term" profit to me.

 

And spending money just because you can isn't smart business. At the end of the day, that's what Apple is. That's what your beloved Google is. It is disappointing to see you apply altruistic intentions to the massive R&D spending practices of companies like Google, IBM, and Microsoft, and the acquisition of Motorola because it is such an asinine notion. Money doesn't grown on trees, and Google wants to make profit as much as Apple. The reason companies like Google, IBM, and Microsoft are funding so-called "basic R&D" is because they are confident in their revenue streams' ability to generate enough cash for the business. 

 

Businesses are judged on their ability to create value for shareholders, because that's who they're accountable to. And let me also say that a company that has a track record of creating value for shareholders is likely taking good care of its employees and other relevant stakeholders. I believe that Apple's R&D deserves as much respect as that of Google or Microsoft. Look at it this way. The iPhone has been instrumental in popularizing mobile apps. That has helped create a lot of new jobs for mobile software developers and ancillary jobs in software. How is that contribution in any way inferior to the contribution to society of Google writing a fat check for R&D expenses?

 

 

 

Quote:
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. 

 

If Motorola turns out to be a bust for Google, they don't deserve any accolades for trying "[rescue] what was once a great American company." Do you seriously think that was Google's intention when they bought Motorola in the first place? No. Motorola was about to get in bed with Microsoft, which would have created an intellectual property nightmare for other Android OEMs. Google swooped into buy out Motorola so that they wouldn't do that. Motorola took Google to the cleaners from the looks of it. So to think that Google bought Motorola out of some altruistic intention of trying to save a company with a storied past is absolutely asinine. 


Edited by vvswarup - 8/3/13 at 12:12pm
post #101 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Obviously. This is basically a very mid-range, near-stock Android phone priced at high-end, flagship phone prices. The colors are customizable and there's some hardware/software tweaks. This was supposed to be phone that was "as game-changing as the original iPhone", and "industry-changing".

Hilarious.

 

Couldn't agree more.  After months of leaks and hype, this was a complete let down with every revelation.  First the specs were sorry for a flagship phone.  Then the hype with the customization turned into lame colors and engravings when I thought it meant selecting from a (limited set) of screen sizes, storage, RAM, battery size etc. And then the price which was rumored to be $250-$300 off contract - like the Nexus 4.  They shouldn't have hyped it so much.

post #102 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by os2baba View Post

Couldn't agree more.  After months of leaks and hype, this was a complete let down with every revelation.  First the specs were sorry for a flagship phone.  Then the hype with the customization turned into lame colors and engravings when I thought it meant selecting from a (limited set) of screen sizes, storage, RAM, battery size etc. And then the price which was rumored to be $250-$300 off contract - like the Nexus 4.  They shouldn't have hyped it so much.

Moto had to hype it. they got nothing else.
post #103 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Heh heh.  Key words can get misused.  My favorite Google Glass review is this one from a girl whose boyfriend... well, see for yourself at around the 3:00 mark!   Very funny.  

 

But watch it from the beginning for best effect.

 

Well, it looks like we're just going to get a bunch of MORE stupid amateur videos on YouTube only recorded using Google Glass.  Oh great.  

post #104 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

It is rumored that iOS was developed around the time the iPod was announced and Jobs originally wanted it to be on a tablet. The iPod was released almost ten years before the iPad. And the iPhone was released 5-6 years after the iPod. That doesn't look like "short-term" profit to me.

 

Not to take away from the rest of your post, but ...

 

I think perhaps you're mixing up stories of early tablet R&D, with stories of the first iPhone project being based on iPod hardware.

 

Every history, interview, biography and trial testimony has stated that iOS was begun as an OSX port at the very end of 2005 / beginning of 2006, after Apple decided not to use Linux.

 

Otherwise, carry on.

post #105 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.

Translation: Businesses that invest money smartly deserve to be punished with seizure of the illbegotten savings. 

 

First of all, Apple is a business. They're accountable to shareholders. Any decision on spending money has to be looked at with the yardstick of strategic importance. 

 

And your notion that Apple just looks at "known plans and profits" is very far from the truth. How long do you think iOS was in development before it was released with the first iPhone? I don't know the exact number but I'm pretty sure it was about five years or more. Does that sound like going after "known plans and profits?" Sadly, people like you seem to married to the notion that if a company is getting successful products out of its R&D, then it's probably not being reckless enough. 

 

Go to http://www.patentlyapple.com/ and click on a link on the right under "Categories" called "Materials, Processes"  below and tell me if you still think Apple "really isn't a technology company," but rather "a consumer electronics company [that] buys technology developed by other companies and, packages it in a nice design that is acceptably by consumer."

post #106 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?

Agreed and first thing I thought of...between Google always listening and Xbox 1 always watching...Big Bro is in the HOUSE!

Moto at least should be able to compete with Samsung with this...iPhone users, not so much.

...and a bigger screen is all the iPhone really needs at this point IMO.

Edit: Maybe some curved glass...
Edited by TheUndertow - 8/3/13 at 10:04am
post #107 of 107
The obligatory iFixit tear-down of the MotoX is here for anyone interested:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Motorola+Moto+X+Teardown/16867/2
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