Poll results: Moto E: is this the end of the feature phone?
We’re talking about price of course - the Moto E does not deliver great in any aspect, but it does bring good features all-around at a very affordable price: just $129 off-contract. Last week, we asked you whether you think that with its alluring price tag, the Moto E could finally bring forth the end of feature phones, sold for around the same price.
Now, the answers are in: an overwhelming nearly 66% of you think that the Moto E does indeed have the potential to be the lethal weapon that kills the feature phone for good. The remaining 34% disagree.
What were your reasons? Those who voted in favor pointed out that people will always prefer the vastly superior functionality of a smartphone over a feature phone now that the price gap is little, if there at all. On the other side, arguments ran that feature phones will never die since they can go down in price to cost just tens of dollars, and in addition, they offer great battery life that no smartphone can ever match.
Either way, results show that feature phones have one serious killer in the form of the Moto E. And as to whether they’d fade away or not? Only time will tell.
1. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Question is why would you buy the E when you can get the G for just about the same price? Should've priced it a little lower if you ask me.
8. o0Exia0o (Posts: 348; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
Moto E: $129 USD
Moto G: 8GB $179-16GB $199USD
Moto G LTE: 8GB $219
For $50 more one could have the BASIC Moto G but for some $50 might as well be $5000. The Moto E delivers the biggest bang for the buck of almost any smartphone available. A person could buy 5 of them off contract and still not spend the amount that almost any other smartphones cost now days. If you think there is a better deal for a smartphone out there please Mxy do tell us!
11. NexusPhan (Posts: 463; Member since: 11 Jul 2013)
I agree! $50 more is an increase of 40%. That's a huge difference. To many of the people that the Moto E is targeting, it's just as significant as comparing a $399 phone with a $559 phone (same 40% difference.) It's all relative to their purchasing power.
19. corporateJP (Posts: 1555; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
The G can be found in the $100 range (Verizon or New Cricket [after rebate]) or even lower (Boost) in carrier packaging in the U.S.
Unless the E shows up the same way here in carrier packaging in the $50 to $70 range, it is either senseless or the buyer is uneducated if they pay more for an E than a G.
25. Doakie (Posts: 1240; Member since: 06 May 2009)
CDMA Moto G's barely count. Even in the most optimal conditions Verizons CDMA would top out at 2 Mbps, usually only getting 1 Mbps. My unlocked US Bands Moto G on T-Mobile gets 12 Mbps downloads on good days with 8 Mbps on a bad connection. You get what you pay for and CDMA sucks.
36. Sangeet (Posts: 232; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
What makes you think that everyone is from USA? I am from India and Moto G costs $240 in India for the 16GB version which is exactly the double of what is costs for the Moto E, which is $120 in India.
24. Doakie (Posts: 1240; Member since: 06 May 2009)
If you're in the USA you can get better deals. How about the T-Mobile Alcatel One Touch Fierce for $125.01, AT&T ZTE 998 $112.98 on Amazon or $99.99 for a reconditioned Z998 from AT&T GoPhone directly. 4.5" qHD, 4 GB internal storage, 5 MP phones have existed for a long time. Plus these phones are even better because the screen size is marginally larger with off screen buttons which give you more usable screen space, both have a LED flash, both record video in 720p, both have front facing cameras, not to mention the 998 has a better processor, GPU and includes LTE. Check out this comparison. The Moto E is pretty crap compared to the ZTE 998.
Don't forget the Lumia 520 from AT&T GoPhone for $79.99 new $39.99 reconditioned. There are much better deals than the Moto E. I'd personally take a Z998 with LTE over the E.
32. downphoenix (Posts: 2302; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
Also, the ZTE and Alcatel are from cheap chinese crap brands, they may have better specs on paper, but they wont last nearly as long, and will degrade in performance much more easily. The moto e may not be a powerful phone, but we can at least expect it will be a reliable one. That's more worth it than a bigger screen or higher res video capture honestly.
27. zhiae (Posts: 174; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)
For 30$+moto g lte u can get
sd801 ,3gb ram ddr3,13mp camera.1080p screen,better than stuck android.
U can gess the phone allready.
almost frgot it have LTE too.
35. Sangeet (Posts: 232; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
In India the Moto G costs twice as much as much as the Moto E, the same is true for almost everywhere, since 8GB version is such a no go, so naturally one would normally get at least a 16GB version which is $200.
So, that makes a $80 difference which is very much for anyone and 8GB version is a definite no go for like 90% of the people buying an android smartphone.
2. jaytai0106 (Posts: 1268; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)
Asking a 72 year-old to use a Moto E? You'll definitely get yell at haha
12. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1352; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Some older people don't do well with touchscreens. I mentioned to my dad that there might come a time in the near future that he won't be able to get a phone like his flip phone. He said he just wouldn't have a cell phone in that case. And while I understand that carriers want everyone on smart phones to be able to charge for data, there are some people who don't want or need a smartphone. Going hat route will simply lose them customers.
17. kabhijeet.16 (Posts: 633; Member since: 05 Dec 2012)
A smartphone can be used as a feature phone, but a feature phone cannot be used as Smartphone..
18. jaytai0106 (Posts: 1268; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)
But asking people from older generation to use smartphone is sometime impossible. Beside, why would they want to pay extra for the data plan when all they want is to call people when they need to which in their case is not very often.
23. sgodsell (Posts: 1210; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)
Anyone can learn if they want to. Its up to the individual. I trained my mom who is in her 80's now to use a smartphone. Granted at times I think it would have been easier to train a box of rocks then her, but luckily everyone around her started to help her as well.
Always remember if there is a will, then there is a way.
29. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I mentioned recently how some older ppl have Facebook accounts.
We cant lump all older folks in together. I know some in their 60's that have touch screen phones. Whats a few more years ..
20. Chidoro43 (Posts: 17; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)
why's that? 72 is not too old to use a smartphone. There were computers used during the latter 20 or so years of their careers and it isn't rocket science
21. corporateJP (Posts: 1555; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
Some of you people posting on here are office jockies, probably some are the same ones that work in Verizon's corporate offices. If you actually ever sold phones, customer-facing, you might understand what he's saying about the nightmare that revolves around a 72-year-old and a smartphone.
I'd open it up more and just say "unqualified", because age isn't the real issue, it's just certain people, even younger than 72, just don't have the mental comprehension to operate a smartphone let alone a microwave oven.
30. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
"I'd open it up more and just say "unqualified", because age isn't the real issue, it's just certain people, even younger than 72, just don't have the mental comprehension to operate a smartphone let alone a microwave oven."
Now this I can accept...
3. csoulr666 (Posts: 87; Member since: 04 Nov 2013)
It might kill feature phones in the US and Europe or maybe even Japan, but feature phones won't die that easily in developing countries like India.
Many people here still prefer feature phones because they don't do much other than calling or texting, plus 3G coverage still is haphazard here
37. Sangeet (Posts: 232; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I am an Indian who never got a smartphone because there was no smartphone in the $100 dollar range which had no real compromises when it came to usability.
At this price range, the smartphones available in India are from Chinese brands with 512MB RAM, bloated OS and they are lacking something or the other and has some problems here and there.
But with Moto E, you get a smartphone from a company which is recently being known for providing a good experience with no real problems that you could have with those Chinese smartphones.
The Android is stock one, the unofficial support from CyanogenMod and other communities would be amazing, the parts won't die and since it is coming from a good established company hence things would be amazing when compared to the Chinese smartphones.
I am from India who bought a Samsung feature phone, Corby II like a few years ago for $120 at that time because this was my maximum budget. Now finally, I can get a real smartphone experience at that budget and this is how Moto E killed the feature phone, at least for me.
So, looking at me and many other people in India, it really has what it takes to kill a feature phone, at least for teens and middle aged people. Old people are better off sticking with a phone that does not have a touchscreen.
5. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Whats going to kill feature phones is phones like this and the cheaper Nokia WP's...and data plans going back down. We are starting to see more n more offer 500MB of data....and 1GB and/or 2GB being cheaper now.
6. RaKithAPeiRiZ (Posts: 1339; Member since: 29 Dec 2011)
might kill off the feature phones in the western countries , but elsewhere , featurephones will still be king , many people dont want to spend the extra in a phone that has no removable battery , a flashlight and breaks after one drop
7. jrod78414 (Posts: 101; Member since: 18 Dec 2013)
yeah Feature phones are here to stay for 10 bucks vs 129. guess who wins
9. quakan (Posts: 1177; Member since: 02 Mar 2011)
It won't kill off feature phones for one simple reason: data. Many people are still holding on to their feature phone so that they don't have to pay those extra monthly data charges. I'd be willing to bet that if consumers could get a smartphone without having to pay for data, feature phones would already be dead.
14. RebelwithoutaClue (Posts: 726; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
I'm not sure if this is true in other countries as well (I'm Dutch) but dad uses an iPhone 4s with data disabled and no data fee on his coverage plan. He uses it merely for calling and texting and the occasional website when on wifi.
22. corporateJP (Posts: 1555; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
That would be awesome, but in the United States, carriers and Wall Street are greedy bastards, so they force you to get a data plan with a smartphone.
If you want a smartphone here, you get the bull with the horns.
31. RebelwithoutaClue (Posts: 726; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
Shame actually, because switching back to 2g instead of 3g does wonders for your batterylife. He bought a coverage plan without buying a smartphone, so sim only. Dunno if that makes any diff in other countries.
10. suneeboy (Posts: 156; Member since: 02 Oct 2012)
I don't think it will kill feature phones, because the price is still a little too high (relatively speaking) for the low end buyer. The feature phone will die out with time, not with a new wave of products. As the population ages, and older generations are accustomed to smartphones we'll then see the end of feature phones.
16. aminkhs (Posts: 11; Member since: 11 May 2014)
No! Because of some people dont like smart phones! But in the future we cant see feature phone same as now! They market share getting low!
38. Sangeet (Posts: 232; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
It was never targeted at ones who don't like Smartphones.
This phone is targeted at people who had only a small budget but were never able to afford a proper smartphone. Someone like me.
I bought a Samsung Corby II for $120 a few years ago because that was the best phone available at that time for that price in India, but now a proper smartphone, the Moto E is available at that exact price.
So, this phone is for people who wanted a proper smartphone but were never able to afford one. Someone exactly like me and thanks to Moto E, now I finally would be able to use a smartphone. This is one big change the Moto E is bringing.
39. aminkhs (Posts: 11; Member since: 11 May 2014)
Sorry but u dont see some people somebody dont like smart things for example my grand parents! Or some of my stupid friends!
41. Sangeet (Posts: 232; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
As I said before, this isn't targeted at them. This is targeted at guys like me who wanted a smartphone but were not able to afford one.
Someone exactly like me. For me, this really was a feature phone killer because it replaced my feature phone.
Feature phones essentially have two subcategories :
---> Low Tier feature phones. (Small, compact, great battery life, uses keypad)
---> Smartphone wannabe feature phones (Touchscreen phones like Nokia Asha, Samsung Rex and Corby II and LG Cookie kind of phones which aim to give smartphone like features but at the end of the day are still feature phones)
So, the Moto E is targeting the "Smartphone wannabe feature phones" and I believe it is doing a good job at it.
As for those small keypad based phones, they are here to stay because let's face it.. my mom uses one. But the 2nd subcategory will essentially die because of these kind of phones.
I hope you get it.
26. elitewolverine (Posts: 1541; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
Let's use logic here. How did the landline die? It didnt, but it surely has been 'killed' off that i know a total of 1 person that has one....grandma.
The people hanging onto feature phones? The older parents, meaning the 40+ crowd.
so lets be logical. We have smartphones that are 50bucks, 70 bucks (nokia) and now Moto in the 120+ range. Have any of those killed the feature phone? NO. Price.
I was just at wally world, king of low cost, for 9bucks or 19 i could get a feature phone. Attached to a $30 dollar account what benefit does the generation that was not born with the internet in one mouth and their parts into a keyboard benefit from? Nothing, they dont text, they dont want to, nor feel the need too.
It will take a 2 generation cycle, read 20-30yrs where feature phones will not exist and that is because the people at that generation cycle will be the people that are growing up with a iphone as a 5yr old gift. My 3yr old has play phones, his play phones are a blackberry, two droids and a windows phone, they turn on, they play games they have no service. When he grows up, he will have no idea what a feature phone is. This is the generation that will kill the feature phone.
Side not PA, the only thing this has to offer over the nokia is the droid sphere, the Nokia has a better SOC, yet you froth at the mouth for this device. The people buying the phones do not care about about Android, iOS, WP, Symbian. If you think they do, i have a bridge to sell you. Their first questions are, can it call, text, can it get on facebook. No these people will not have twitter most likely. The people getting them to buy the smartphones are younger generations upgrading their oldies.
End rant, mark my words here and now this is the only right answer. IMO that is ;)
33. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1352; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Exactly. Could these people learn to use a smartphone? With enough time sure. If all they want a cell phone for is to (gasp) make calls, should they be forced into something that requires a data plan, and is also much more complicated to use? No.
I don't see why everyone is so behind the killing of the feature phone. Does it hurt people who aren't using them. What negative effect do feature phones have on people who don't use them? The only people this benefits are mobile carriers. So why the hell is everyone behind lining Verizon's, AT&T's, etc. pockets. Are you gonna be okay if they charge more for VoLTE? Because you're basically rooting for people to pay more for something they don't want. My Dad has a flip phone. He doesn't text, surf the web (on a phone or PC), he just wants it to make calls. He's an 83 year old farmer, so not exactly tech savvy. So why should he pay another $20 a month, learn something he has no desire to learn, simply to have the ability to make phone calls?
40. Chidoro43 (Posts: 17; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)
"older parents, meaning the 40+ crowd"
jesus, you should up that number a bit. Smartphone adoption in the US was fastest in 40-54 crowd. yes, even faster than the 20-29's.
34. PAPINYC (Posts: 2273; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
I don't agree with the article as, I doubt this will have any effect on iPhone sales; Apple's got that 'feature-phone' market in the bag.