Motorola CEO talks $50 smartphone; customizable screen sizes

CEO Dennis Woodside discusses super-cheap and super-customizable smartphones

Read the whole story

 

[groghunter]

You had me at picking my own screen size... provided I can get a smaller one.

 

[ajax81]

Hmm...I've had a smaller smart phone before, and it was practically impossible to use. Unless the people in those markets have remarkably smaller thumbs than I do (and believe me, I've never been accused of having "manly" hands), I'm pretty sure they're going to have a similar experience. I'm curious - is there any merit to making sure that all the people you're trying to bring online have a good experience? or Is a bad user experience a calculated risk that is worth taking in order to increase traffic?

edit - grammar nazi.

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

Man, the Galaxy Pocket has a faster processor, more RAM and the same amount of internal memory as my first desktop computer. Living in the future is pretty awesome.

 

[Black Frost]

Fully modular phone still sounds fun. If I can easily swap between 6+ and 4.3 I'll be on that list.

 

[Midnitte]

I'm looking forward to this future...

 

[Deleted member 192806]

"Have it your way" and MicroSD isn't mentioned.

 

[Workaround]

ajax81[/url]":3p83ejan]Hmm...I've had a smaller smart phone before, and it was practically impossible to use. Unless the people in those markets have remarkably smaller thumbs than I do (and believe me, I've never been accused of having "manly" hands), I'm pretty sure they're going to have a similar experience. I'm curious - is there any merit to making sure that all the people you're trying to bring online have a good experience? or Is a bad user experience a calculated risk that is worth taking in order to increase traffic?

edit - grammar nazi.

It's a different user experience, not necessarily a bad one. Using a small screen like that to consume the content we're used to would be lousy. But if the content is geared toward smaller screens, it would be a lot different.

 

[thealmightysam]

Workaround[/url]":1ha9cck1]

ajax81[/url]":1ha9cck1]Hmm...I've had a smaller smart phone before, and it was practically impossible to use. Unless the people in those markets have remarkably smaller thumbs than I do (and believe me, I've never been accused of having "manly" hands), I'm pretty sure they're going to have a similar experience. I'm curious - is there any merit to making sure that all the people you're trying to bring online have a good experience? or Is a bad user experience a calculated risk that is worth taking in order to increase traffic?

edit - grammar nazi.

It's a different user experience, not necessarily a bad one. Using a small screen like that to consume the content we're used to would be lousy. But if the content is geared toward smaller screens, it would be a lot different.

Not to mention, for a considerable portion of the world, we're talking about these kinds of devices being the primary access portal to the Internet and social networks. In that case, even a lousy user experience is much preferable to no user experience at all.

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

Workaround[/url]":1xb855cb]

ajax81[/url]":1xb855cb]Hmm...I've had a smaller smart phone before, and it was practically impossible to use. Unless the people in those markets have remarkably smaller thumbs than I do (and believe me, I've never been accused of having "manly" hands), I'm pretty sure they're going to have a similar experience. I'm curious - is there any merit to making sure that all the people you're trying to bring online have a good experience? or Is a bad user experience a calculated risk that is worth taking in order to increase traffic?

edit - grammar nazi.

It's a different user experience, not necessarily a bad one. Using a small screen like that to consume the content we're used to would be lousy. But if the content is geared toward smaller screens, it would be a lot different.

And compare it with having no access to the internet at all.
Edit: Ninja'd

 

[Boskone]

I know a lot of people that want a smartER phone; they want a nice calendaring experience, basic email, maybe nav and media; they don't care about web pages, games, and so on. A $50 phone would suit them well.

Additionally, I know a lot of people that don't understand smartphones. My mom, for instance, didn't see the point. "What does it do that my tablet, computer, or phone don't?". Then, once they get used to it (I got mom a Nexus 5, because it was cheaper than a standalone mifi), they start finding the utility the additional capabilities bring.

So, it makes sense to me to create a "gateway device", something to get someone's foot in the door with smartphones, even if you're losing a bit of money on it. It's probably more in the nature of an investment: they get the $50 Moto C, then the $180 Moto G, then step up form there.

 

[somini]

ajax81[/url]":lsizktko]Hmm...I've had a smaller smart phone before, and it was practically impossible to use. Unless the people in those markets have remarkably smaller thumbs than I do (and believe me, I've never been accused of having "manly" hands), I'm pretty sure they're going to have a similar experience. I'm curious - is there any merit to making sure that all the people you're trying to bring online have a good experience? or Is a bad user experience a calculated risk that is worth taking in order to increase traffic?

edit - grammar nazi.

If only there was a more efficient way to introduce text on a smaller screen...
I know, how about a cellphone-style physical keyboard?

As for the price, just take out the touch screen and replace it by an old fashioned LCD.
My

can access the Internet just fine.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

ajax81[/url]":2yx2r0p5]Hmm...I've had a smaller smart phone before, and it was practically impossible to use.

Everyone is different. Some people will sincerely love the things you find incomprehensible: music. clothes, movies and, yes, cell phone screen-size.

 

[ToniCipriani]

Come back to me when I can factory order a phone with a full QWERTY hardware keyboard...

 

[hecate.]

Kinda reminds me of Asus's announced Zenfones, which cost 99$ for the smallest screen size (and lowest specs), 149 for the middle, and 199 for the highest tier. (All of those prices are off-contract prices, somewhat surprisingly).

They're not the best phone, but they're certainly going to be hard to beat for the price.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

Boskone[/url]":2bwe974e]I know a lot of people that want a smartER phone; they want a nice calendaring experience, basic email, maybe nav and media; they don't care about web pages, games, and so on. A $50 phone would suit them well.

Bingo.

WaPo:

About 81 percent of the nation’s cellphone users send text messages — among the easiest things to do on a smartphone, requiring just basic spelling and typing abilities — but only half of the users download apps and read or send e-mail, according to research by the Pew Research Center.

I found this comment (while searching for the article on the website):

The Jan. 18 Metro article “Phones getting smarter, but their owners aren’t” touched a nerve with me. The users are not the problem. The problem is that the petulant bullies who design these systems (and who are definitely not geniuses) design them for themselves, not to fulfill the needs of the real people who will be using the phones.

 

[feistypenguin]

groghunter[/url]":13eocd9b]You had me at picking my own screen size... provided I can get a smaller one.

I would add battery size to that list too. I'm sick of this implied assumption in the smartphone industry that if your phone lasts for one business day of moderate use, then that's "good enough." Especially if they are going to keep jacking up the screen sizes, when screens are the biggest source of power drain.

On the other hand, as annoying as it can be to try and pocket a 5+ inch smartphone, it makes sense for those who like using web applications on the go. Larger-sized smartphones are very popular in Asia, where mobile devices tend to be a person's primary means of internet access. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101174395

My S.O. has a Galaxy S4, and the phone looks kind of funny in her comparatively-tiny paws... but she loves the screen size. Mine has a 4.7 inch screen, and seems to hit the sweet spot for me between bulkiness and usability for web stuff.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

feistypenguin[/url]":1hwq72a1]
As annoying as it can be to try and pocket a 5+ inch smartphone, it makes sense for those who like using web applications on the go- Pinterest, Facebook, etc. just look better on a bigger screen.

To you. It makes sense and looks better...to you.

It's a subjective judgement, not an objective one.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

From the Trusted Reviews site:

As well as highlighting the company’s plans to revolutionise the budget end of the smartphone market, Woodside has suggested that Motorola will adopt an novel approach to the high-end side of the handset game, looking to introduce improved customisation options rather than lead with innovation.

Samsung (and Apple) have locked up most of the profits on the high-end. Moto almost has to search elsewhere for a steady and stable profit line.

 

[bburdge]

This seems a lot like a reaction to Nokia's moves in the low price reasonable quality market.

The Lumia 520 sells at prices competitive to the Samsung Fame in the article, but has a 4" screen (much more usable) a 5MP camera, a qualcomm cpu/modem, and 8GB of storage, with a uSD slot. Comparing the two is like night and day.

I think Motorola is being pressed in this direction by Google who are seeing MS picking up momentum on the back of low cost quality smartphones, and aren't seeing Android OEMs making a real effort in that market.

 

[MisterAV]

If Google share a bit of profit from the ads and/or google play with the manufacturer they could lower the cost of the phone a bit, they could have even an incentive at updating the phone to keep it running the latest apps. And that's not only for developing worlds

 

[Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer]

bburdge[/url]":3s8jo3d0]This seems a lot like a reaction to Nokia's moves in the low price reasonable quality market.

The Lumia 520 sells at prices competitive to the Samsung Fame in the article, but has a 4" screen (much more usable) a 5MP camera, a qualcomm cpu/modem, and 8GB of storage, with a uSD slot. Comparing the two is like night and day.

I think Motorola is being pressed in this direction by Google who are seeing MS picking up momentum on the back of low cost quality smartphones, and aren't seeing Android OEMs making a real effort in that market.

In America, you can buy the 520 for $60 off contract right now, so the world Woodside envisions is pretty much here, though maybe not for Google (yet...).

 

[logic_88]

bburdge[/url]":2h33ybiv]This seems a lot like a reaction to Nokia's moves in the low price reasonable quality market.

The Lumia 520 sells at prices competitive to the Samsung Fame in the article, but has a 4" screen (much more usable) a 5MP camera, a qualcomm cpu/modem, and 8GB of storage, with a uSD slot. Comparing the two is like night and day.

I think Motorola is being pressed in this direction by Google who are seeing MS picking up momentum on the back of low cost quality smartphones, and aren't seeing Android OEMs making a real effort in that market.

Yeah, I was coming to post this. MSFT is selling the 520/521 (locked though) for $59/$69 with free shipping.

If the resolution was a tick higher (960x540 or 1280x800), I would have picked one up in an instant.

 

[superdave2013]

I am one of the holdouts that companies are starting to get desperate to pander to. So if you are reading this anyone, it's not the phone price I care about, it's the plan price.

 

[abhi_beckert]

feistypenguin[/url]":3srbjcdp]

groghunter[/url]":3srbjcdp]You had me at picking my own screen size... provided I can get a smaller one.

As annoying as it can be to try and pocket a 5+ inch smartphone, it makes sense for those who like using web applications on the go- Pinterest, Facebook, etc. just look better on a bigger screen. Larger-sized smartphones are very popular in Asia, where mobile devices tend to be a person's primary means of internet access. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101174395

When I upgraded from a 3.5" iPhone to a 4" iPhone I didn't notice any real difference in usability.

When my 4" iPhone got water damage and I switched back to the 3.5" one for two weeks hoping it would dry out (rice) I still didn't notice any difference in productivity... And at $380 to fix my damaged phone (water damage isn't covered by warranty and that's Apple's price for a refurbished replacement, I didn't see much point in hurrying, so I continued using the old smaller iPhone for a couple of months, before finally forking out the cash, which I did because of the better camera and lighter weight of the iPhone 5, not screen size.

Going back to 4" again, I still didn't notice any change in productivity. Movies are obviously better, especially since the aspect ratio changed, but I don't watch many movies on such a tiny screen - that's what tablets are for.

I'd love to test out a 3" smartphone as thin and light (unibody aluminum) as an iPhone 5/5S. I think I'd like it.

But not if it costs $50. A small screen needs to be high resolution and have great contrast, including outside in full sunlight, because text will need to be smaller. And I insist on a great camera and CPU at least as fast as my current $800 smartphone. Plus the battery needs to be reasonable and I want the phone to survive at least two years so build quality has to be good. These things cannot be achieved if your budget is $50.

 

[abhi_beckert]

superdave2013[/url]":2sw6q5ov]I am one of the holdouts that companies are starting to get desperate to pander to. So if you are reading this anyone, it's not the phone price I care about, it's the plan price.

So buy an unlocked one and stick a prepaid SIM card in it.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

abhi_beckert[/url]":2i9zyb5n]

superdave2013[/url]":2i9zyb5n]I am one of the holdouts that companies are starting to get desperate to pander to. So if you are reading this anyone, it's not the phone price I care about, it's the plan price.

So buy an unlocked one and stick a prepaid SIM card in it.

A Tangent. Why doesn't someone do like dpreview and compile a cell phone database were one can easily find a phone that fits ones requirements?

 

[abhi_beckert]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":27q8evs0]

bburdge[/url]":27q8evs0]This seems a lot like a reaction to Nokia's moves in the low price reasonable quality market.

The Lumia 520 sells at prices competitive to the Samsung Fame in the article, but has a 4" screen (much more usable) a 5MP camera, a qualcomm cpu/modem, and 8GB of storage, with a uSD slot. Comparing the two is like night and day.

I think Motorola is being pressed in this direction by Google who are seeing MS picking up momentum on the back of low cost quality smartphones, and aren't seeing Android OEMs making a real effort in that market.

In America, you can buy the 520 for $60 off contract right now, so the world Woodside envisions is pretty much here, though maybe not for Google (yet...).

My niece has one, it's not a very good phone.

If you're going to buy a Lumia you should find the cash for one the more expensive models. Eg the 925 is around $400 in Australia.

 

[somini]

superdave2013[/url]":34izkm5b]I am one of the holdouts that companies are starting to get desperate to pander to. So if you are reading this anyone, it's not the phone price I care about, it's the plan price.

I pay 6€/month for unlimited SMS and 300MB data cap. The 6€ can be used as credit towards calling.
Poor Americans...

 

[jerkwad_robot]

Jesus...okay,

1. In what part of the world are these sweat shops going to go? How much are you going to pay these 12 year olds to assemble these? If you think youcan do it that cheap AND give some developing country a leg up with some decent income, by all means, go for it. I doubt that's possible.

2. I won't deny anyone the power of the internet etc and maybe I am thinking of developing countries in a different light... But if you think this cheap phone is going to suffice for things beyond voice and messaging you're mad. I can't help but think there are bigger priorities here than Moto selling phones (yes, these would be things beyond Moto's sphere of influence) like infrastructure etc... This smacks of moto trying to please shareholders or some such nonsense.

And let me guess, this isn't the price the user will pay by the time they're done with the contract they need to sign to get service.

I am getting more pessimistic as I get older :-(

 

[superdave2013]

abhi_beckert[/url]":3ajzt2q4]

superdave2013[/url]":3ajzt2q4]I am one of the holdouts that companies are starting to get desperate to pander to. So if you are reading this anyone, it's not the phone price I care about, it's the plan price.

So buy an unlocked one and stick a prepaid SIM card in it.

I've been considering this and will probably do it once I get around to researching the best options.

 

[logic_88]

abhi_beckert[/url]":118dh3xf]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":118dh3xf]
In America, you can buy the 520 for $60 off contract right now, so the world Woodside envisions is pretty much here, though maybe not for Google (yet...).

My niece has one, it's not a very good phone.

If you're going to buy a Lumia you should find the cash for one the more expensive models. Eg the 925 is around $400 in Australia.

What's wrong with the 520/521? Every review that I've seen seems pretty positive.

Of course, if you're comparing a $59 device to a $400 device, the $59 device might not come off so well...

 

[Chemical Tribe]

logic_88[/url]":2htvk50k]

abhi_beckert[/url]":2htvk50k]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":2htvk50k]
In America, you can buy the 520 for $60 off contract right now, so the world Woodside envisions is pretty much here, though maybe not for Google (yet...).

My niece has one, it's not a very good phone.

If you're going to buy a Lumia you should find the cash for one the more expensive models. Eg the 925 is around $400 in Australia.

What's wrong with the 520/521? Every review that I've seen seems pretty positive.

Of course, if you're comparing a $59 device to a $400 device, the $59 device might not come off so well...

Spring $30 more and you get the moto g on Verizon. $60 monthly bill though.

 

[wicker_man]

sprockkets[/url]":ia80oq10]

logic_88[/url]":ia80oq10]

abhi_beckert[/url]":ia80oq10]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":ia80oq10]
In America, you can buy the 520 for $60 off contract right now, so the world Woodside envisions is pretty much here, though maybe not for Google (yet...).

My niece has one, it's not a very good phone.

If you're going to buy a Lumia you should find the cash for one the more expensive models. Eg the 925 is around $400 in Australia.

What's wrong with the 520/521? Every review that I've seen seems pretty positive.

Of course, if you're comparing a $59 device to a $400 device, the $59 device might not come off so well...

Spring $30 more and you get the moto g on Verizon. $60 monthly bill though.

$30 on top of $59 is >49% increase in original cost. If a person is looking to spend only $60 on the phone, good luck up-selling them on extra 50%.

 

[conficio]

combover[/url]":370pbuub]
2. I won't deny anyone the power of the internet etc and maybe I am thinking of developing countries in a different light... But if you think this cheap phone is going to suffice for things beyond voice and messaging you're mad. I can't help but think there are bigger priorities here than Moto selling phones (yes, these would be things beyond Moto's sphere of influence) like infrastructure etc... This smacks of moto trying to please shareholders or some such nonsense.

And let me guess, this isn't the price the user will pay by the time they're done with the contract they need to sign to get service.

I am getting more pessimistic as I get older :-(

I guess you have not heard about many third world countries. Consider that for many developing countries there is no working phone/internet/cable infrastructure to homes or many, many villages. Let alone a power grid or water or fuel system. Cell phone service is something that makes inroads and becomes the access to communication, SMS, e-mail - replacing slow unreliable snail mail (to those family members that moved to the city/abroad), phone service, but also banking (sending money, paying bills via SMS to institutions but also to individuals), news - replacing spotty newspapers and radio or tv stations and to transact business (get the price of cotton, coffee, etc. at the market town w/o relying on the buyer who gives you a bad quote and before you leave town with your harvest, weather forecast, etc.), communicating with a doctor, school information, etc.

Have a look at the pictures of the recent mega storm in the Philippines, some of the first services desired was charging your phone for a fee on the street corner.

And contracts are structured quite differently in those countries too!

 

[ubercurmudgeon]

Why can’t these devices be $50?

Patents?

 

[abhi_beckert]

Ostracus[/url]":516qww9w]

abhi_beckert[/url]":516qww9w]

superdave2013[/url]":516qww9w]I am one of the holdouts that companies are starting to get desperate to pander to. So if you are reading this anyone, it's not the phone price I care about, it's the plan price.

So buy an unlocked one and stick a prepaid SIM card in it.

A Tangent. Why doesn't someone do like dpreview and compile a cell phone database were one can easily find a phone that fits ones requirements?

Because most cameras are good, and most smartphones are shit. There are only a handful of good ones.

First decide what operating system you want to run, probably try them all out in the store.

Then, you need a phone with:

* at least a full day of battery life under moderately heavy use. All cheap android phones are off the list now.
* a high resolution screen that can be read outside and has accurate colour (this means LCD, most AMOLED phones are terrible)
* a very good camera - and this doesn't mean megapixels, this means lens quality and sensor technology and software processing. Most phones have bad cameras
* a modern CPU and (of choosing android) recent version of the operating system
* enough storage to fit your stuff, preferably not a MicroSD card because those are really slow and have a tendency to stop working (deleting all your data) a few days or weeks or months after buying it. A friend of mine had to get his MicroSD card replaced five times by the store, to finally get one that actually worked - and it was supposedly the best brand available
* finally, you probably want it to be fairly small and light and have buttons that will continue working for a couple years

At the end of the list, you're down to only one android phone (HTC One), one iPhone (5S), and one windows phone (Lumia 925). Pick your operating system, and then buy the only good phone available to run it.

Pretty much every smartphone available has one or two things that make it a terrible choice, and you can't put software variation on a chart.

 

[abhi_beckert]

ubercurmudgeon[/url]":3ekdbept]

Why can’t these devices be $50?

Patents?

There are plenty of cheap phones, and they all have to pay the same patents as more expensive phones, especially since most of the patents are around communicating with the cell tower.

 

[abhi_beckert]

logic_88[/url]":uknkjh1x]

abhi_beckert[/url]":uknkjh1x]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":uknkjh1x]
In America, you can buy the 520 for $60 off contract right now, so the world Woodside envisions is pretty much here, though maybe not for Google (yet...).

My niece has one, it's not a very good phone.

If you're going to buy a Lumia you should find the cash for one the more expensive models. Eg the 925 is around $400 in Australia.

What's wrong with the 520/521? Every review that I've seen seems pretty positive.

Of course, if you're comparing a $59 device to a $400 device, the $59 device might not come off so well...

Bad screen, bad camera, bad battery life, poor build quality, slow CPU, not enough memory, etc.

If you just wanna make phone calls it's fine. That's about all it's good for though.

Ignore the price, you need to first set a minimum quality for the product. $59 is not cheap if you're buying a terrible phone, it's only cheap if you get a good phone. And the 520 is not a good phone.

$400 for a 925 is absolutely cheap, there are phones for twice as much money that are on par with it, in terms of features and quality.

 

[Shudder]

groghunter[/url]":25vf9hxr]You had me at picking my own screen size... provided I can get a smaller one.

I'm sure Samsung and LG will offer this feature too. It will range from 5.4" all the way to 6.9" (only up to 6.9" though, 7 is big and is just for tablets!)

Personally I feel Moto nailed it with the 4.7" size and I wouldn't need to customize that, though I'd have to try something like their 4.5" G to really determine if the slightly smaller window actually had more of it reachable than I can with 4.7.

All I know is customizations aside, which are amazing and I love the look of my X, Moto is doing everything right on the software side too, which isn't something you can say for HTC, Samsung, or LG.