If we've actually moved beyond "BECAUSE SPECS" as the gripe for the price, and onto "it should be cheaper because the parts aren't as expensive"...
Are the parts that much less expensive? What's the price to moto for a 1080p vs 720p screen? Even with markup included, have the prices of 'last years' parts come down 30% already? 40%, 50%???? If we were to demand moto sell us a phone at 1/2 the price of the flagships, and we assume something like a 2.85x margin (apparently the S4 is ~$225 to build, and retails for $640. I guess most of that is samsungs gigantic marketing budget), prices for the hardware would have to be a mere fraction of what's in the s4.
If we want off contract for $400, since there's a huge $500MM marketing budget, let's assume the 2.8x margin. That means the total BOM + manufacturing for the motox would be: $400/2.8=$140. That's $85 less, 62% of the costs of the S4, meaning that 'last years parts' have come down 39% in price. That sounds a bit unbelievable.
Consider, further, that there are only 2 parts where Moto made a decision to use 'last year's' instead of top of the line, the screen and the processor. The screen in the S4 was $75, and the processor was $20, $95 dollars between the two. Since most of the other parts are the same or comparable, that means that the MOTO WOULD HAVE TO PAY NEGATIVE $10 FOR THE TWO to get to $140 from $225.
Even if the Screen and Proc savings were as much as HALF (i find that to be unlikely, happy to be proven wrong), that's $47.50 in savings over the S4, a cost of $225-$47.50=$177.50*2.85=$505 retail.
Unless someone shows me otherwise I can't see the justification for the price gripe. Samsung isn't passing shit along to you, the customer, at a 2.85x profit margin (all marketing).
I could make the argument based on these numbers that the moto X at it's current price is actually a FEAT given US vs China labor rates.
