Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Cellphones Hardware

Google To Close Its American Moto X Factory 154

Posted by timothy
from the cheaper-to-grow-them-in-iowa dept.
An anonymous reader writes "After only one year in operation, Google's Moto X factory in Fort Worth, TX, is scheduled to close at the end of 2014. The decision to close apparently has nothing to do with Google's decision to sell Motorola Mobility to Lenovo and everything to do with poor sales numbers and high labor and shipping costs in the U.S. The factory had, at one point, employed 3,800 people. Their ranks now number at about 700. Moto E and Moto G, newer and cheaper iterations of Moto X, have sold in more profitable numbers overseas, so Google's original rationale of building phones nearer to the largest customer base to decrease time between assembly and delivery to end user will unsurprisingly force the closure of the U.S.-based factory and transfer labor overseas as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Close Its American Moto X Factory

Comments Filter:
  • As someone who... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bartles (1198017) on Friday May 30, 2014 @11:40PM (#47134041)
    ...ships product regularly, I have watched domestic shipping costs triple over the last 6-7 years. I understand what Motorola is saying even if I am disappointed by it.
    • Re:As someone who... (Score:4, Informative)

      by rsilvergun (571051) on Friday May 30, 2014 @11:43PM (#47134047)
      How does making the handsets in China reduce the cost to ship them to American customers? Seriously. Are there some odd shenanigans or something here? otoh, I can't imagine how any company can compete with the kind of wages you can get in the Philippines and China. The time to market thing woulda been nice since they could beat Apple or Samsung to the punch, but then Motorola's engineers and marketing didn't really have the punch they needed :(.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Even the summary already explains that. They expected the Device to sell well in the US, so it made sense to have a factory there. Only it doesn't sell well, but it does sell well in Asia, so they can as well just manufacture it there.

        • by Z00L00K (682162)

          And the reason for devices not selling well in the US is the bundling scam that the telecom operators runs. The telecom operators picks which models you can buy and which services that can be offered with it. So it may not be a fault with the device but with the business model.

          • And the reason for devices not selling well in the US is the bundling scam that the telecom operators runs.

            In reference to other models, yes, this happens, but it's not the reason for the failure of the Moto X in the US. The Moto X is available on all 4 major carriers in the US, from the carriers themselves and from Motorola directly.

          • I was looking at the newest plans, and from my layman perspective they are guilty of tying. Right now they are forcing you to buy a handset to get a discount on cell service, that , to me, is highly illegal tying. (Verizon Edge, specifically)
        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          Even the summary already explains that. They expected the Device to sell well in the US, so it made sense to have a factory there. Only it doesn't sell well, but it does sell well in Asia, so they can as well just manufacture it there.

          No, they expected the "MADE IN THE USA!" and "USA! USA! USA!" labels to sell it. It was also more a political move than a manufacturing one - namely Google wanted to prove their superiority to a certain fruity competitor that "you can manufacture in the US with not problems! S

      • TFA claims that the Motorola X has sold better outside the US, so presumably the trip to the dock for foreign buyers was starting to become more costly than any savings in getting them to American buyers, along with whatever delta there is between domestic and foreign assembly.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          That does make sense:

          1: China has a monopoly on rare earths. You get a steep discount if you make your product on their soil than if you buy the rare earths to be sent to your factory elsewhere.

          2: China has steep import barriers. Remember the voltmeters which were refused import because they were a certain color, and couldn't be taken back to China? There are no "fair trade" laws... The US does not export to China for the most part, and when it is an export, it usually ends up being made on the mainlan

          • by Kaenneth (82978)

            "four dildos is a felony" ... citation?

            • "four dildos is a felony" ... citation?

              Any number of dildos used to be illegal to sell in Texas, but not for years now. http://www.lonestarq.com/fact-check-dildos-really-illegal-texas/ [lonestarq.com]

              • by marsu_k (701360)
                Oh I don't know. The fact that the law was struck down in 2008, as per you link, is just like... wow.
                • by Anonymous Coward

                  Such laws (banning or regulating various "sin" related things like sex toys, porn, alcohol, etc) were common throughout the US for decades. Each state has changed or deleted these types of regulations and bans over time at their own pace (so in each instance SOME state is going to be last). The repeals have often been MANY years after they stopped enforcing them and most people forgot they were even on the books (lookup local laws related to transportation or pesky animals for some laughs). In this particul

          • by Z00L00K (682162)

            Rare earth minerals exists elsewhere, but they are expensive to mine in an environmentally friendly way.

          • Re:As someone who... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @01:47AM (#47134421)

            1: China has a monopoly on rare earths.

            1. No they don't. America's largest rare earth mine, the Mountain Pass Mine in California, is back in operation.
            2. Cellphones don't actually use significant amounts of rare earths, other than Tantalum, which comes from Africa and Australia, not China.

          • 2: China has steep import barriers. Remember the voltmeters which were refused import because they were a certain color, and couldn't be taken back to China? There are no "fair trade" laws... The US does not export to China for the most part, and when it is an export, it usually ends up being made on the mainland after a while, either legally, or illegally.

            That had nothing to do with import barriers. It was simply the cost of putting it on a ship that was more than the cost of the multimeters.

            The only import barrier in that was was US refusing the import because it violated Fluke's trade dress.

      • by Mr0bvious (968303)

        I doubt the situation is the same for America and for volume distribution, but I can have an item shipped from China to Australia for less than I can post the same item within Australia - often when including the purchase price of the item. Yep, that's right, just the postal cost within Australia is more than the purchase price + postage cost from China to the same location in Australia.

        There most certainly are some odd shenanigans going on here.

        • I buy stuff from Hong Kong on ebay all the time - you can get items shipped from there for $0.00 - $0.99 shipping and handling - sure it takes 7-10 days to show up, but if they can ship that package 1/2 way around the world for $0.99, why does it cost $7.99 - $10.99 to get the same package shipped from 2-3 states away?
          • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            • by Mr0bvious (968303)

              Is there a similar agreement between the Chinese government and Australia Post? Since we obviously don't have USPS here in Australia.

          • by mlts (1038732)

            For RV-ing when I need LED bulbs to save the batteries, I end up ordering on eBay from Taiwan or the mainland for about a buck as well. Granted, it takes about 7-10 days to show up... but still. The light bulbs are a buck each with free shipping.

            I wonder what I'm missing here because if I want to ship the same bulb to another state, it probably will cost far more than the bulb is worth.

      • China shipping costs (Score:5, Interesting)

        by future assassin (639396) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @01:06AM (#47134315) Homepage

        Why is it that as a Canadian I pay some insane shipping costs but when I order stuff from Ebay/Chinese vendors I get it really fast and 1/5 the shipping price. Go figure....

        • by evilviper (135110)

          I pay some insane shipping costs but when I order stuff from Ebay/Chinese vendors I get it really fast and 1/5 the shipping price.

          You can't compare consumer-level shipping prices against the prices large companies pay... Operation costs for all those offices, phone numbers, etc., unsorted versus presorted, pickup costs, etc.

          And besides that, "the shipping price" from US or China is just an arbitrary number chosen by the retailer. Many times on eBay, I see a $20 item with $1 shipping, right next to an iden

          • by Mr0bvious (968303)

            Good point except that it often costs more just to post an item here in Australia than the combined product price + postage cost from China to Australia - so something is still amiss.

            • I'm betting they have vertical control of everything except the last leg, they wait till they can fill a container up, put it on a freighter and ship it for a miniscule per-item cost, drop it off at a distribution centre owned by the same company, then hand it to the local postal service with whom they're already arranged a bulk discount.

              • by Mr0bvious (968303)

                Yep, I expect that is the case. But that last leg is still an interstate delivery (for me) so there is still a massive discrepancy.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Karmashock (2415832)

        Its not the wages... its the regulations, the taxes, the insurance, etc.

        The manufacturing companies can operate just fine in the US paying US wages... its the other stuff that is intolerable.

        And no, I'm not talking about income tax on business since that's obviously about nothing when all is said and done. No, the issue is the fees.

        The companies get nickle and dimed for stuff that adds up to a big percentage of their total operating costs. Some heavy industries in the US pay more in these fees every year th

        • What fees exactly?

          • They're specific to every business.

            Gibson for example was paying a fee for wood harvested in the US.

            They eventually decided they couldn't keep paying for it so they shifted to imported wood from india.

            Where upon the FBI raided their factory and repossessed the imported wood citing an old import law from the 1920s that they weren't even in violation of in the first place.

            You'll find this in every single industry. There are literally thousands of regulations and fees.

            Pick an industry and I'll cite ten.

            • How about if I had a factory that made cell phones?

              • They told you in the article... transport costs mostly were killing them.

                Given that the transport from asia is if anything farther they're referring to the transport costs of parts etc that have to be imported or transported from other parts of the country. This specific type of thing is actually rather expensive in the US. Several other factory operators in the US have cited this as a problem. Especially small operators that can't handle the transport entirely with their own employees.

                We'd then have to loo

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by PopeRatzo (965947)

              Gibson for example

              This story has been a drum the Tea Party has been trying to beat for a couple of years now. As usual, there's more to the story than the tea party jackoffs would have you believe.

              http://www.motherjones.com/env... [motherjones.com]

              And, Gibson settled the case anyway.

              http://www.motherjones.com/blu... [motherjones.com]

              • Neither article actually addressed the issue or justified the use of a swat team showing up at the factory and confiscating the material at gun point.

                As to settling the case, the entire thing was a vast abuse of power and given that the executive lately hasn't been responsive to either judicial or legislative oversight, it isn't uncommon for people to just settle and run away from what is turning out to be one of the least accountable administrations in US history.

                As to which political factions gin up oppos

                • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                  ...the entire thing was a vast abuse of power...

                  Oh bullshit. They enforced the law. A law, I might add, that was signed into effect by President George W. Bush. A law with 10 Republican co-sponsors. A law which passed with fine bipartisan support in 2008. A law which Tea Partiers must oppose but which Republicans love because it's protectionism for the US logging industry. A law which has been proven empiracally to be working, since illegal logging is down 22% worldwide since the US and other countries enacted it.

                  Regardless of its pedigree and the

                  • You are a moron if you think you need a SWAT team to raid an established factory like Gibson. They could have simply informed their lawyers and worked something out instead of pulling their dick out and escalating the situation. Your fantasy of the Gibson factory workers making an armed stand is just that, fantasy.
                    • Your fantasy of the Gibson factory workers making an armed stand is just that, fantasy.

                      Who's the moron? Perhaps you've heard about a little incident in Nevada involving a rancher named Cliven Bundy? It isn't fantasy, asshole. It's already happened. This genius decided he would try to create Citizen's Eminent Domain and seize land from the government. So far it's working, because the BLM wasn't wise enough to do what the FBI did to Gibson.

      • Wages in China have been rising. Mexico is cheaper than China now.

      • by evilviper (135110)

        How does making the handsets in China reduce the cost to ship them to American customers?

        It can, actually... If the cheapest way to get an item from coast to coast is a big container ship, then having the loading done by $1/day Chinese labor can be cheaper, if the fuel costs for the slight extra distance doesn't erase it.

      • by jonbryce (703250)

        The two launch markets for the MotoE were the UK and India. That appears to be where they are most popular, not USA.

      • by Lisias (447563)

        How does making the handsets in China reduce the cost to ship them to American customers? Seriously

        Easy. You americans charge 20 times more for the shipping than the chinese.

        Simple like that.

        Last year I got some arduino spare parts costing about 40USD. I got free shipping, It took 3 months to get delivered at my home, but the shipping was free.

        The same parts on eBay would cost me 45, 47 USD. Not bad. But the cheapest shipping would cost me another 50USD.

        Do your math.

      • It saves them money by not having to transport subcomponents across the US. Cheaper manufacture also allows them to offset domestic shipping costs.
  • remove Health Care from jobs and then labor costs will come down. Out side of the usa your job does not control your Health Care

    • remove Health Care from jobs and then labor costs will come down. Out side of the usa your job does not control your Health Care

      Someone has to pay for the health care. Remove insurance from health care and then health care costs will come down. Outside of the USA, an insurance company does not need to profit for you to get health care.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Remove health insurance companies from the equation, go to a single payer system, and then things will get far better. The US spends twice as much on health care than the next country on the list, Norway... and we have jack and shit to show for it because the money goes into the insurance companies and flies overseas, forever out of the US economy.

        • It doesn't have to be single-payer. Germany has over 100 healthinsurancecompanies (German style spelling), but they're non-profit and heavily regulated. Works for Switzerland and a number of other countries too.

        • by Virtucon (127420)

          health insurance companies are bureaucratic nightmares even with Obamacare. It's worse now than it was a year ago but we also have to look at why it's that way and start simplifying things, also start barring the health care industry from charging laissez faire prices for everything, that's the root cause here outrageous prices that outstrip inflation and have no bearing in reality. If healthcare is critical to an economy it's time to start regulating it and break up these damn health care/hospital consor

        • by rally2xs (1093023)

          Duh, EVERYTHING costs more in the USA. That's why lotsa people buy stuff overseas. Our high cost of living is legendary. So why are U surprised when healthcare is $2X.

          Single payer would get gov't involved, which is ALWAYS guaranteed to cost more or deliver less or deliver it waaaaay slower. The US Gov't cannot do FAST, CHEAP, and GOOD all at once. They just can't. The US military is FAST and GOOD, but it sure as hell ain't cheap. The US Post Office is Cheap and Good, but not necessarily fast, at

      • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @12:15AM (#47134151) Journal
        Silly socialist! The risk of agonizing death from some untreated illness just incentivizes lazy poor people to work harder.

        Not until the paramedics check your credit history before they check your vital signs will America be truly great again!
    • by ShaunC (203807) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @12:25AM (#47134191)

      I agree, make health care a social right and decouple it from employment and income. It would be interesting to see what the CEOs come up with to blame for the next rounds of layoffs.

      • by hackus (159037)

        Technology should be employed to address the human condition of Food, Education, Shelter and Medical treatment.

        Instead, we use technology to build weapons, shiny trinkets to enforce a consumerist lifestyle which is destructive.

        We are branching out into using technology now to control and subjugate most of humanity so that a new dark age can take hold.

        If it isn't stopped there won't be any intelligent life on this planet.

        Perhaps we will find out why after half a century of looking for E.T., nobody answers is

      • by rally2xs (1093023)

        I pay $194/month as a retiree for former-employer-subsidized healthcare. I would expect that to go to about $1500 / month from a private company on the open market. Do I want my retirement reduced to deciding to pay the electric bill or affording my medicine due to the O'care high-deductibles? Nope. Leave this the hell alone, so I can have a good retirement.

        Want to really help the American people? Pass the Fair Tax, which would put everyone back to work and they could then buy their own healthcare w

        • I pay $194/month as a retiree for former-employer-subsidized healthcare....

          Want to really help the American people? Pass the Fair Tax, which would put everyone back to work and they could then buy their own healthcare without the gov't getting involved in paying for it.

          The "Fair Tax" sounds an awfully lot more fair when you're not spending 90% of your salary just to get by.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2014 @02:28AM (#47134497)

      Democrat president Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to control the economy; During WWII he froze wages. Like any typical politician of either party, he failed to foresee the obvious and predictable response of the much-more-nimble business community. Businesses rapidly found another way to boost compensation in order to keep/attract the best employees; something the employees would happily take because it would be even more valuable than cash: "health insurance". Prior to this time, most Americans paid their health costs out-of-pocket and did not have health insurance. After the wage freeze, employees got their frozen pay PLUS health insurance (whose value was NOT TAXED) that would pay their medical bills (allowing them to NOT spend their limited and taxed cash on healthcare). Once this trend started, it proved impossible to break; now we all expect our employers to "give" us health insurance and we all expect not to be taxed for it.

      This replacement-for-money (health insurance) we can "spend" getting healthcare does not "feel" like money to us and cannot be "spent" elsewhere so it becomes a driver of healthcare cost inflation. First, we do not feel financial pain when we use it (sort of like using credit cards versus cash). Second, we are insulated from rising medical prices (we are promised a benefit, not a price tag) so it has become a convenient way for the government to further tax us - by underpaying for medicare and medicaid services, which causes hospitals and doctors to shift the costs to the bills of people with private health insurance.

      Obamacare will likely destroy this linkage. There's SOME poetic symmetry to one liberal Democrat undoing the economic distortion caused by a previous liberal Democrat... but that'll likely be of little consolation to the people who will no longer have an employer on their side in matters related to health insurance. Most Americans have depended upon corporate HR people spending lots of time comparing the costs and benefits of various vendors and policies, negotiating the best deals possible, and intervening when there are problems. After Obamacare fully kicks-in (probably in 2017 - it's tough to be sure given the dozens of arbitrary waivers and extensions in place) people will likely pick whatever policy looks "best" to on a government website and then when things go wrong nobody will be there to help them. Most people will probably pick policies about as well as they pick their food and thier 401K investments - which means they'll do a much worse job than their employer's HR people used to do. I actually support the idea of sparating insurance from employment, but I think it ought to have been done VERY differently and much more explicitly (perhaps by initially changing the laws so that individuals and small businesses were treated the same as big employers on health insurance (which has NOT been the case historically)

      • by ebno-10db (1459097) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @11:16AM (#47135761)

        Democrat president Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to control the economy; During WWII he froze wages.

        What's more important, defeating Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire, or worshiping the Market God? I think we won that war, in large part because the Arsenal of Democracy produced war materiel at a rate made the few rational people amongst the enemy scared shitless. Wage and price controls, and rationing, meant that we didn't have the sort of inflation that trashed the American economy after other wars. The War Production Board (a/k/a the control in a controlled economy) was disbanded after the war.

        As for the short-sightedness of FDR (I wonder if anything other than market distortions was on his mind between say 1941 and 1945?), which helped lead to widespread employer paid health insurance, another liberal Democrat by the name of Truman tried to fix that after the war. He pushed for universal health care, but was defeated by the Republicans.

        • FDR imposed wage and price controls because the US wartime economy was already going at full tilt. Everybody was working maximum hours at maximum effort to produce all of the goods and services required by our military in a time of total global warfare. There was essentially zero unemployment and no spare capacity in the economy. Under these conditions it was necessary to impose wage and price controls because without spare capacity the economy was very sensitive to inflation pressures that would have occur

    • by evilviper (135110)

      remove Health Care from jobs and then labor costs will come down.

      Robots don't need health care...

      Welcome to 21st century manufacturing.

  • There are dozens phones, each with one minuscule feature that sets it apart from the rest. The market is saturated. Verizon's website shows 31 different smartphones and most of those will roll off and be replaced within a year. And, judging by the pricing, they apparently can't even give the Motorolas away.

  • I'm very picky about my phones: had an HTC from 3.5 years ago, but when the 2 years came up I couldn't find a suitable replacement until I finally went with the MotoX. First off, let me make it clear--this is a fantastic phone, one of (if not the) best, and for many reasons. One of the reasons I went with it was the made-in-America bit, but honestly, I don't see another alternative--made in America or elsewhere--that's this good. That having been said, the next-closest contender was a Samsung, and I would s

  • by morgauxo (974071) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @12:58AM (#47134289)

    Everywhere I look it's Samsung, Samsung. My personal experience after having two Samsung phones and two Motorola phones is that Samsung has prettier LCDs and better cameras but their quality sucks. They are constantly locking up or working very slowly. But... everywhere I look the advertising is all about Samsung. Has Google even tried to market it's Motorola stuff? The last time I saw anyone pushing Motorola was back when the kiosk guys at the mall kept stopping people to look at the Lap Dock. I have one now, btw.. I love it! But... I was never going to buy one at their price! I bought it used and cheap after they discontinued them.

    • by swillden (191260)
      I read articles that said Google spent $500M advertising the MotoX.
    • by csumpi (2258986)
      I had both moto and samsung phones, and was happy with both manufacturers. Neither locked up ever. I think you are just making shit up.
    • by Virtucon (127420)

      NO, they weren't trying. They bought Motorola [google.com] for the patents it had, the cellphone business was a secondary thing.

      • Google and Motorola Mobility together will accelerate innovation and choice in mobile computing. Consumers will get better phones at lower prices.
      • Motorola Mobility’s patent portfolio will help protect the Android ecosystem. Android, which is open-source software, is vital to competition in the mobile device space, ensuring hardware manufacturers, mobile phone carriers, applications developers and consumers all have choice.

      There was no Consumer benefit here because the Moto-X was priced competitively with Samsung, HTC and Apple. If they'd been priced more competitively then you'd see more uptake. The Moto-X is a great phone, Google botched it.

    • My wife just replaced her Samsung Galaxy with a google Nexus. Worlds of difference between her old galaxy S3 and the Nexus 5 in terms of performance. Plus there is a lack of "little" things that annoyed her on the Galaxy.

      • My wife just replaced her Samsung Galaxy with a google Nexus. Worlds of difference between her old galaxy S3 and the Nexus 5 in terms of performance. Plus there is a lack of "little" things that annoyed her on the Galaxy.

        key word: old
        of course if you compare a 3 year old phone with the latest money can buy, you are going to be impressed. compare the nexus 5 with the galaxy s5 and you will see:
        - samsung has vastly better battery
        - much faster
        - better screen
        - real buttons that dont eat up your pixels to display black
        - much better camera/video
        - much more storage
        - small but useful features like ir blaster, heart rate sensor, temperature sensor, barometer, hygrometer, etc
        - many useful software features (face tracking, gestures, m

  • REALLY tempted to get one of the wood backed ones, but seriously.. Fuck AT&T.

    Well, that and my old-man eyes really like the Note series screens (with the caveat that the Note 2 is the largest I want to go. It's already pushing the "will it fit in my pocket" test limit).

  • so you just make the phones in china and they magically appear in stores?

    you still got to ship them all over the country if you want to sell the chunks of crap

  • ... which was a great idea, but extremely poorly executed.

    The Moto G and Moto E is really amazing for what it is - budget phones that have all the right things - IPS screen, snappy processor, good software, respectable brand, LTE (on E and Gv2), etc. It sells extremely well in the UK and many other markets in the EU.

    If they opened up a factory in the UK or somewhere else in the EU, it may be 10-15 pounds more expensive to make than in China, but still there would be plenty of takers. In fact probably more s

    • by dj245 (732906)

      ... which was a great idea, but extremely poorly executed.

      The Moto G and Moto E is really amazing for what it is - budget phones that have all the right things - IPS screen, snappy processor, good software, respectable brand, LTE (on E and Gv2), etc. It sells extremely well in the UK and many other markets in the EU.

      If they opened up a factory in the UK or somewhere else in the EU, it may be 10-15 pounds more expensive to make than in China, but still there would be plenty of takers. In fact probably more so as it is manufactured locally and in an advanced economy - a sign of quality in its own right. The Raspberry Pi is made in the UK, and they were able to pretty much match cost with the batches produced in China.

      Isn't this a quirk of the nature of the Raspberry Pi product? Rasperry Pi is just a board. We assemble electronics in China because Chinese assembly is cheap. A robotic boardmaking machine costs the same everywhere. If you don't need to assemble the pieces together with a screen, battery, processor, buttons, speaker, etc, there is no advantage to making the board in China.

  • by Njovich (553857) on Saturday May 31, 2014 @07:38AM (#47135021)

    Moto X was a relatively expensive phone, with low specs. If you had $600 dollars to spend on a phone (either yourself or through contract subsidies), there would be very little reason to pick Moto X. The main attraction of the Moto X is that there are many variants in terms of colors and materials, and that's what you pay a premium for. Problem is, in this price range you already have lots of choices for very nicely designed phones, many with better specs. What's left is a niche market that is willing to pay a premium for stuff like a wooden phone back on a otherwise mediocre phone. That's still some market. However, I don't see how you can expect that to sell as well as a cheap phone with good specs like Moto G.

    Also, the article suggests in tone that Moto X and phones like Moto X sell better in asia, but the fact is Moto X hasn't sold well anywhere. It's just completely different phones like Moto G that are doing well.

    • If all you do is read the Spec sheet, yeah, it was underpowered. The benchmarks bore it out as a legit flagship phone, though.

      Remember, on paper, the iPhone 5s is 'only' dual core with 1GB of RAM, but if you look up the benchmarks on Anandtech, it clearly outperforms all comers. This is the magic of well designed and intentionally designed silicon. The Moto X was a little less off-the-shelf than its competitors in terms of components, and that showed in the actual performance.

      But big numbers sell, I guess.

"And do you think (fop that I am) that I could be the Scarlet Pumpernickel?" -- Looney Tunes, The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950, Chuck Jones)

Working...