AT&T Moto X will run you $575 without a contract, $629 for the 32 GB version
0. phoneArena 02 Aug 2013, 07:59 posted on
AT&T has confirmed that the Moto X will cost $575 without a contract, and that's for the 16 GB version. The 32 GB one will run you $629, or in line with all current flagship phones, just like the $200 contract price for the basic Moto X jibes with what we are used to pay for the latest and greatest...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
6. boosook (Posts: 1296; Member since: 19 Nov 2012)
I'd rather take the moto x than the htc one or gs4, even at the same price. There are reasons, of course. Just keep in mind that we're not all equal and what is the best product for your needs and taste might not be the best product for everyone else.
38. techspace (Posts: 938; Member since: 03 Sep 2012)
the moto x is not a bad phone and yes, every person is different...
but that doesn't justify the pricing of the moto x...
it should have been cheaper
47. jubin.mathai (Posts: 15; Member since: 11 Jun 2013)
Yes, considering the specs of the phone, it's way more costly.
66. Captain_Doug (Posts: 940; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)
It could still be cheaper. Motorola may sell them unlocked for less or the Google Play edition may be less. Regardless, I think this is exactly why T-mobiles JUMP program will be a success. Also, I'm still willing to pay a premium price for everything else this phone offers because I don't need a quad core processor. All the check boxes are ticked.
84. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Except that T-Mo isn't going to be stocking the X in the immediate future, so no X from Jump.
113. Dro (Posts: 27; Member since: 23 Dec 2009)
Exactly!! I mean, they announced the Droid mini for $99 on contract with Verizon. The Droid Mini and the Moto X are the same specs wise apart from the 4.3" screen on the Mini vs the 4.7" on the X.But, with both screens having the same resolution the Mini has the higher ppi, so I can't see why they're selling the X for $100 more than the Mini. It makes no sense.
57. flynfree (Posts: 374; Member since: 09 Jun 2013)
I think, you are still using low end phone's and want a mid range one.
Picking Moto X than S4/hTc One is no brainer.
67. Shatter (Posts: 2036; Member since: 29 May 2013)
How is it a no brainer? The Motorola X is the same specs as last years flagships from mid 2012 and their pricing it as a brand new flagship.
77. flynfree (Posts: 374; Member since: 09 Jun 2013)
Then stick to it.
2012 is past, 2013 is the present.
103. whysoserious (Posts: 318; Member since: 20 Jul 2012)
I think you meant Picking s4/htc over moto x is a no brainer.
112. CX3NT3_713 (Posts: 2028; Member since: 18 Apr 2011)
Motorola your drunk!!! Go home...... lol reallt!??? For a midrange phone lmao cool.story
2. blahb (Posts: 48; Member since: 16 May 2012)
Samsung Galaxy S 4 from the Play Store would be a better option at that price.
3. Rorschach (Posts: 83; Member since: 26 Apr 2013)
$575/629 for this? You're better off getting the S4/One Google ed.
91. GTR722 (Posts: 253; Member since: 20 Oct 2012)
The price is insane, Google/Moto are on crack !! You can get an Xperia Z for $500 in Amazon.
4. jharkem17 (Posts: 21; Member since: 29 Jul 2013)
A bit pricey..but still better than the S4 and One..in everything.
18. jharkem17 (Posts: 21; Member since: 29 Jul 2013)
better in 1.design..simple yet striking..samsung is so cheap. htc one is trying hard to be attractive--fail!
solid 2.performance..check out other sites to see how motoX put sammy's top dog to shame.
25. dexter_jdr (Posts: 1163; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)
moto x has a better cam tech than htc 4ultrafail
51. flynfree (Posts: 374; Member since: 09 Jun 2013)
The only high end with this phone is the price.
I better use my gnexus with 4.3 jb and removable battery.
58. greyhulk (Posts: 150; Member since: 30 Jun 2010)
Spoken like someone who has never owned either a GS4 or an HTC One.
Go ahead and pay premium price for your mid-range MotoX. The rest of us will buy real phones.
59. jdoee100 (Posts: 334; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
I don't care about Moto X's performance. Moto's small chip can not beat S4's raw horsepower. Moto's bringing a knife to a gunfight.
69. Shatter (Posts: 2036; Member since: 29 May 2013)
1.7ghz dual core snapdragon s4 pro. Sorry that is significantly worse than the Nexus 4 which cost $350 for the 16gb version.
I think the reason the phones price is so high is because its made in USA not China. Specs wise its about equal to a Galaxy s3 which is $400 off contract brand new.
70. Captain_Doug (Posts: 940; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)
Except the Moto X processor has beaten many a quad core already. Snapdragon 600 included. Definitely not in all of the categories but it is no slouch. Moto brought a 9MM and everyone else has .40's. The edge goes to Moto because their little 9MM has a laser pointer and scope and is using the right bullets.
76. jdoee100 (Posts: 334; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
S4 spanked Moto X in 7 out of 10 benchmark tests. In 3 other tests, Moto either tied or barely beat S4. Benchmark tests show that Moto is not ready for prime time(as everybody mentioned, the price need to come down significantly, then it would make sense).
80. Captain_Doug (Posts: 940; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)
GFX benchmark is pretty important.
In the benchmarks it doesn't win it's a pretty close second. Sounds like those quad cores should be doing more work and draining less battery...
82. jdoee100 (Posts: 334; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
This is from your own reference(droid-life), "... Moto X beating the Galaxy S4 in browser tests, OVERALL FALLING in a FULL performance bench, but that’s because it’s only a DUAL-core CPU."
And, check out GSMARENA, they have much more comprehensive benchmark scores.
88. jdoee100 (Posts: 334; Member since: 04 Jun 2013)
In all fairness, Moto has a good CPU(on par with quads in some instances), but not at the same or similar price as the best quad chips. Price is just too high.
72. pellegrini (Posts: 84; Member since: 14 Jun 2012)
I'm not a big fan of Samsung, but at this price point it would be hard to not think about the S4.
Anyway, everybody was expecting a lower price off-contract.
19. WHoyton1 (Posts: 1635; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
how better? are you diluted, worst processor, worst screen, worst design than one, worst OS version than s4....
nope not better...
23. jharkem17 (Posts: 21; Member since: 29 Jul 2013)
dude when you have problems with your android phones..I took them..been troubleshooting samsung, bb, htc, zte, windows..
samsung is the best in the world atleast in paper.
am I diluted? guess what.
73. roldefol (Posts: 3331; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
How do you know he's not highly soluble? That's awfully presumptuous of you. Solutist.
5. jharkem17 (Posts: 21; Member since: 29 Jul 2013)
The whole phonearena is all about motoX from top to bottom..annoying
8. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 3579; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
On 7th Aug, it'll be LG G2 from top to bottom.
21. WHoyton1 (Posts: 1635; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
yes there a smartphone manufacturer....and the G2 is coming out on the 7th
29. jharkem17 (Posts: 21; Member since: 29 Jul 2013)
sorry I'm just too stupid for not knowing that LG is a phone manufacturer and actually the fifth largest mobile maker in the world and is based in korea with more than
$48 billion revenue..
32. tech2 (Posts: 3057; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
Nice. So you know to use a search engine too ! Congrats Buddy !
35. jharkem17 (Posts: 21; Member since: 29 Jul 2013)
just like you...I'm just wondering if this G2 is an upgrade of the Optimus G or a reincarnation of the respected LG G2..
71. johnbftl (Posts: 266; Member since: 09 Jun 2012)
LG did not release the original G2, if you're referring to the one from T-Mobile. That was made by HTC. I'm actually a little surprised that LG is able to get away with using the same model designation so soon.
62. tonygoz (Posts: 11; Member since: 29 Dec 2011)
lol..... nice one man...LOL... IM DYING....
7. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 3579; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
Then Nexus 4, S4, HTC One and Xperia Z are much better options.
9. papss (unregistered)
Hmm seems a bit stiff to be honest. I would rather pay a hair more and get a 1020 as I did. I still like what Moto is doing here though
10. pellegrini (Posts: 84; Member since: 14 Jun 2012)
If it was 299,00 of contract, It would be awesome! but 500+? Come on, it's must be something wrong. I remember somewhere saying that the cost of the moto x was around 220. So what is the point selling it so expensive when you have better options for the same price or even lower (Nexus 4)?
75. Shatter (Posts: 2036; Member since: 29 May 2013)
its $550 to buy off contract from the carrier. The nexus 4 was like that too when it came out tmobile charged $500+ unlocked. Outside of the US a Nexus 4 usually cost $500+ too.
Just hope Google steps in and saves this phone with a $300-$400 off contract price.
12. ajac09 (Posts: 1447; Member since: 30 Sep 2009)
575? wow all the websites saying this was going to be cheap off contract were so wrong and at 199 its not worth it on contract get a gs4 or a note 2 or wait on the note 3
30. OldNorseBruin (Posts: 229; Member since: 12 Mar 2013)
Literally, all the websites were saying $299 OFF-Contract...That was the ONE Leak, and the WORST leak they got wrong...This is going to be MOTOROLA'S TITANIC of 2013!
13. roldefol (Posts: 3331; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
I do think they screwed the pricing. Compare the specs and capabilities to, say, the Lumia 928. $500 off contract for a 720 AMOLED and 32 GB. Nokia may be pricing the Lumiae to sell, but with similar or worse market share, why does Moto think it can command a premium?
15. darkvadervip (Posts: 365; Member since: 08 Dec 2010)
Might as well get the lumia 1020 for the camera
20. Mass88 (Posts: 52; Member since: 06 Jan 2012)
I don't know about you, but I would not buy a phone solely because it has a great camera. Camera aside the X is better than the 1020