I have an Iphone 5S and love it, but I am nuts for waiting until September for the 6, so I ordered a Moto X to use as a second phone. I am very familiar with Android, having a couple of Galaxies. The Moto X was the only Android phone that interested me, mainly because of the form, 4.7 inch screen in only a slightly larger size than the Iphone. On the days that I will use it, I will call forward from my Iphone 5S.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Getting a Moto X
- Thread starter jimbo1mcm
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why must everyone focus on the "specs"? I have a Moto X, of the 3 Android phones I've had (original Motorola Droid, HTC Thunderbolt and now the Moto X) the Moto X is the best-performer. Anything I do is quick, smooth, beautiful display. The only gripe is that the camera doesn't excel in low-light situations, if I anticipate a need for that I'll grab my Canon EOS-M, AN ACTUAL CAMERA!
Motorola/Google did a FINE job optimizing the hardware and software for this device. While the "CPU" isn't clocked as high as on some other devices, it doesn't need to be because it isn't saddled with EVERYTHING like in some of those devices due to the X8 architecture.
That architecture also allows the BEST feature of the phone to be available, touchless control.
"OK Google Now, call bob smith on mobile"
'say call to call bob smith on mobile'
"OK Google Now, navigate to target in Syracuse, NY"
'say or type PIN code'
Speak PIN code, navigation starts with the destination set to the target in Syracuse, NY
"OK Google Now, what are the hours for Target in Syracuse"
'say or type PIN code'
speak PIN code, the phone responds with hours for the store requested.
"OK Google Now, find my phone"
if the phone can "hear" you, it starts pinging at full volume (even if the volume is all the way down) and the screen lights up and says "here I am"
and you never have to touch the phone.
Motorola/Google did a FINE job optimizing the hardware and software for this device. While the "CPU" isn't clocked as high as on some other devices, it doesn't need to be because it isn't saddled with EVERYTHING like in some of those devices due to the X8 architecture.
That architecture also allows the BEST feature of the phone to be available, touchless control.
"OK Google Now, call bob smith on mobile"
'say call to call bob smith on mobile'
"OK Google Now, navigate to target in Syracuse, NY"
'say or type PIN code'
Speak PIN code, navigation starts with the destination set to the target in Syracuse, NY
"OK Google Now, what are the hours for Target in Syracuse"
'say or type PIN code'
speak PIN code, the phone responds with hours for the store requested.
"OK Google Now, find my phone"
if the phone can "hear" you, it starts pinging at full volume (even if the volume is all the way down) and the screen lights up and says "here I am"
and you never have to touch the phone.
Because of its relatively high retail cost especially in Europe.
When you are paying the equivalent of $520-550 for a handset as carriers don't have them subsidised here, then yes specs ultimately have to be taken into consideration, no matter how great the X8 platform is.
I wouldn't call S600 old. For all intents and purposes this is basically a dual core S600.
----------
If he doesn't love it he would be rather ungrateful. That's coming from a 16 year old that gets a new phone every two years from his parents.
In the US on Verizon, I used Motomaker and designed the phone( 32gb) I wanted and it cost me $50.( I also had to sign up for 2 years on Verizon ). I had previoulsly gotten a new HTC one and although a very nice phone, I couldn't stay with a device that was that large and heavy. If you are used to a heavy, big phone, the HTC one is very good.
But better specs don't always mean better performance. Look at Intel/AMD back when AMD was a viable contender, AMD performed better at lower clock speeds. It all depends on how the hardware is configured, and how the software is optimized for the hardware. In the case of the Moto X, this was done very well.
True, but you spend $500+ and tell me specification don't cross your mind even for a minute or factor into the equation
The processor on the X is good. For me the problem is the battery (just 2200) and the poor camera. Two very very important details for me.
Your also paying a lot for a 720P display when for the same price you can find phones with 1080P.
£263.99 simfree is not even close to being considered as a 'relatively high retail cost'
http://www.handtec.co.uk/motorola-moto-x-16gb-black-sm3761ae781.html
----------
you don't need a 1080p screen on a phone. a tv, yes. 1080p on a phone is just ridiculous and a battery sucker. what other phone in the same price bracket are you comparing the moto x camera against then?
If specs really mattered, why did anyone buy an iPhone? It typically has the lowest specs or completely lacks specs the competition has. I think reputation, peer users and word of mouth offer a much higher incentive to purchase. Hence, Apples iPhone success.
When you can get a GS5 for free or next to nothing on bill pay - paying €350 here for a moto x (as no carriers here are stocking it or offering it) can be considered expensive.
Indeed I got a GS5 & a Gear Fit for near half that price and I'm only paying a tariff that I would have been paying anyway per month no matter what phone I chose (including paying for a moto x outright).
That being said, I am looking forward to seeing what the Moto X +1 is...
----------
In fairness iPhones including the newest A7 chip in the 5S are in benchmarks outpacing many flagship androids, therefore regardless of dual core or quad core, it's specs are beating / matching the competition, so that's not a great example. Even the iPhones GPU's have always been ahead of the curve each generation comparatively.
Last edited:
I have to disagree. Yes the CPU is very good, better then most (all?) Android flagships. Pretty much every other "spec" in the iPhone 5s is lower though. Camera (in terms of megapixels), RAM, battery capacity, screen resolution, etc. is lower then pretty much all Android flagships (generalizing) and even some mid tier or last generation phones. That doesn't detract from the iPhone one bit because the user experience/interface is great... especially for your average consumer.
Now I can't argue that specs don't matter to some of us, and obviously can't argue against your opinion/usage but specs aren't the leading driver for most people's purchases. Personally, I didn't even give some flagships a thought like the GS5 even though its specs are much higher then my Moto X. I have more faith in Moto to update my phone for then next couple updates and on a quicker basis. I really don't think specs should be the deciding factor anymore in phone sales. It seems (to me at least) that we have come to the point where all phones can run Android well enough with the specs it has. Optimization and useful software features is what will sway me in my future phone purchases. But at the end of the day, preferences are the deciding factor and no one can argue that your phone is the wrong one!
You mis-understood him, even tho lets say the S4 has way better specs than the iPhone 5s all around it still looses to the iPhones 5s in speed. A semi has way more power than a car but which is going to win in a race? Gas milage? ect ect.
I would actually say ios devices are high specced, aside from RAM amount. Processing power is certainly high end. Along with camera performance.
Android specs vs ios specs are apples and oranges
In the latest gen I phones, the A series chips have been good (not saying the iPhone is crappy in terms of specs), but in general the iPhone is out classed in the specs department (on paper). The iPhone has less memory, no external storage capability, no OTG cable capability, no ability to add external devices like a mouse or monitor via BT, no NFC, lower resolution screen, lower pixel camera, less options for the camera, etc.
If a person just looked at specs on a sheet of paper, the iPhone looks pretty bad (as does my Moto X). But the experience the phone provides, the reviews by peers, and the look of the phone are all intangibles that can't be seen on spec sheets. And this is something Jobs was able to deliver to people to want to by the iPhone, iPad and iPod. He could sell the intangibles.
Yet people tell us not to judge the iPhone on its specs, but on its performance, and it costs much more than the Moto X.
On paper it isn't though - a dual core with low clock speed, a screen which isn't even 720p and a pathetic mount of RAM?
You are talking about real world performance, a situation where both the iPhone and the Moto X outperform any expectation you might have which is based on specs alone.
good grief
what is the point of comparing the price of a contract phone vs the price of a sim free phone? that is not a comparison. for those struggling with numbers, i'll try againmoto x simfree price £263.99
http://www.handtec.co.uk/motorola-moto-x-16gb-black-sm3761ae781.html
galaxy s5 simfree price £521.99
http://www.handtec.co.uk/mobile-pho...sung-galaxy-s5-16gb-black-sm-g900fzkabtu.html
so as you can clearly see above, moto x is about half the simfree price of your s5. so, is the moto x half the phone of the s5? no.
next time you want to do a price comparison, please do it properly.
good grief
You are entirely missing my pont......
Because as a consumer I have choices; the point goes back to the first part where we asked why are people comparing specs & pricing?
The fact remains that as a consumer if I am looking to change phone NOW and I am considering the Moto X with other handsets out now and available to me; then both availability and price factor into it.
The fact that the only choice available to me with the Moto X is 350 outright and I am still paying my monthly phone bill regardless; or the option of getting a newer phone such and the S5 or M8 free or very heavily subsidised - then unfair or not people are going to compare specs and pricing even though one is subsidised and one isn't, because that is a realistic choice that the consumer like myself has to make.
So whether you think its fair or not to compare subsidised versus unsubsidised pricing; the point remains many folks like myself have to take into account pricing and specs to justify whether I want to spend 350 outright or just get a newer alternative for next to nothing on my contract (which I am still paying even if I do get a moto x).
It may not be the most fair thing to do; but it is a consideration when the money is coming out of your pocket.
And that's the point and the answer to the question why are people comparing pricing.. Because it is a factor regardless if a consumer is given choice A) or choice B).....
Now had the Moto X been available heavily subsidised on carrier here also; then I would still compare specs and then performance as it still is a factor in a purchasing decision.
Last edited:
The phone is never FREE. When you buy subsidized, you pay less up front but many times end up paying more in the long run. And you don't actually own the phone while on that 1-3 year contract. I always buy phones outright, because I refuse to ever be chained to a carrier again.
