Moto X review
engadget.com
Moto X review
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Moto X review
#2The benchmarks are impressive considering its older architecture. Combined with the fantastic battery life and novel features, this may be the Android phone to buy. I'm not exactly sure why Engadget concluded that it isn't worth $200.
Re: Moto X review
#3The benchmarks are impressive considering its older architecture. Combined with the fantastic battery life and novel features, this may be the Android phone to buy. I'm not exactly sure why Engadget concluded that it isn't worth $200.
That's $200 on contract, an important distinction for some of us.
But the battery life is definitely one of the killer features of this phone. If you want good specs, without paying a lot, there is the very nice Nexus 4 (likely due for a refresh soon), but that phone in its current incarnation certainly can't boast great battery life.
Re: Moto X review
#4What sensors does it have? There doesn't seem to be a list anywhere on the spec sheets from Motorola. I'm especially curious if it has a barometer - does anyone know?
Re: Moto X review
#5[deleted]
Re: Moto X review
#6The benchmarks are impressive considering its older architecture. Combined with the fantastic battery life and novel features, this may be the Android phone to buy. I'm not exactly sure why Engadget concluded that it isn't worth $200.
That's $200 on contract, an important distinction for some of us. But the battery life is definitely one of the killer features of this phone. If you want good specs, without paying a lot, there is the very nice Nexus 4 (likely due for a refresh soon), but that phone in its current incarnation certainly can't boast great battery life.
I would say that the battery life is the killer feature. Everything else is sort of "nice, but on they have ..."
For me that was refreshing to hear because when the first Android Phone came out (the G1), battery life was so poor that it made the phone seem unusable (well you were afraid if you used it at all you wouldn't have charge in an hour or so).
Re: Moto X review
#7when you think; for $199 you can buy a HTC one and flash an AOSP ROM vs pay the same for MotoX.
I would go with HTC One every time.
Re: Moto X review
#8I cannot comprehend why they did not put this through the Nexus branding (of course with slightly adjusted specs and price). Instead of having one true Google line-up they segment even further away with this purified Google-ish Motorola phone, the Nexus line-up and already existing phones of other brands with stock Android (Google Play editions?).
Where is this heading?
Re: Moto X review
#9The benchmarks are impressive considering its older architecture. Combined with the fantastic battery life and novel features, this may be the Android phone to buy. I'm not exactly sure why Engadget concluded that it isn't worth $200.
"The benchmarks are impressive considering its older architecture."
Blame Qualcomm's idiotic naming scheme. They are calling this a Snapdragon S4Pro, same as what's in the year old Nexus4.
In reality, it has the same Adreno 320 GPU as of the Galaxy S4 and the HTC one. Also the same Krait 300 CPUs of the S4 and HTC One, just 2 of them instead of the 4.
www.anandtech.com/show/7197/a-quick-look-at-the-moto-x-motorolas-new-flagship
Re: Moto X review
#10What sensors does it have? There doesn't seem to be a list anywhere on the spec sheets from Motorola. I'm especially curious if it has a barometer - does anyone know?
Just out of curiosity, what's your use case for the barometer? How accurate is a typical smartphone barometer?