Moto X costs $221 to Build

[Thats]

Article teardown by a different website lists it at $221.

Moto X costs $221 to build, teardown apparently reveals

 

[Tyroooooone]

Here's the S4 cost for a comparison:
Samsung Galaxy S4 Costs $237 to Build, Teardown Analysis Shows - Arik Hesseldahl - News - AllThingsD
I don't get how everyone is complaining that it's overpriced when it costs only $18 less than the Galaxy S4.
People are dumb.

 

[Wolfedude88]

Here's the S4 cost for a comparison:
Samsung Galaxy S4 Costs $237 to Build, Teardown Analysis Shows - Arik Hesseldahl - News - AllThingsD
I don't get how everyone is complaining that it's overpriced when it costs only $18 less than the Galaxy S4.
People are dumb.

FYI the math comes out to only 16 dollars less.

 

[drhill]

FYI the math comes out to only 16 dollars less.

People are dumb .

I feel the biggest argument against the price is three fold.

#1. Internet rumors about price. Yeah, they are bad.

#2. Because of #1, the hope that this would break the foolish US phone purchase carrier model.

#3. The phone is missing some features on what would be a flagship phone.

Just looking at it's big brother device the Droid Maxx it has less flash memory, a smaller battery, and no wireless charging (ignoring the screen size difference which isn't great). Someone would point out the $100 contract difference and I would say, "okay I'll pay more for all three of those things in the X", but I don't have that option.

Next you would compare the screen resolution differences between flagships. Personally I couldn't care less about this one as I don't need to see 1080p @ 4.7". I am not doing careful image study, watching movies on my phone, or playing intense games. I have real devices to do any of those things at proper resolutions.

Finally you would mention dual core vs. quad core. This is a tricky one. People will argue they need processing power for their super apps. Mostly they know nothing of what they are speaking to. Few apps will 100% peg four cores of a processor. This won't even change in the future, and this is also true of (mobile) games. The "pro" group for dual core will argue that it saves battery. They are probably right for the most part, but there are valid exception. One of those exceptions is Chrome. Loading a complex website can take advantage of many cores (and more in the future as Google has forked from webkit to take advantage of multi-processor environments better). A quad core system may be able to distribute it's work load over four cores and keep those cores clocked lower. A dual core system will be able to do the same work load, and even in the same time, but it will have to keep it's clock rate higher and thus use more energy.