Thoughts on Moto X

My initial thoughts with the Moto X are that it's a great device, easily one of the best feeling, sized, and shaped devices of this year. The screen is big enough without the device being bulky, and Motorola says that over 70 percent of the front surface of the Moto X is display. I'm still not a fan of AMOLED, but in this case a lot of the features (active display) do need it to be power efficient. The customization options are novel and unique, even if they're limited to AT&T in the USA for the time being. The idea of a wood-backed phone excites me since it means each device will be unique and have different wood grain, and having some way to differentiate one's handset from all the other black squares out there would be awesome. Having the same device available on all the US operators is also a huge win for Motorola, who has been otherwise stuck to endless Verizon exclusives that dramatically limit the reach of its flagships, even if the Moto X isn't a single SKU solution for all the operators (I do not have cellular banding information for each variant). Even now though, we saw the announcement of some Verizon Motorola Droids that basically include the same hardware platform and a number of features from the X. 

The fruits of Google's interaction with Motorola are a bit more unclear. The Moto X runs a primarily stock UI, but it isn't entirely free of operator interaction – there's operator branding and light preloading, of course nowhere near the level that you'd get on a phone that goes through the normal interaction, but calling this "unadulterated android" still isn't factually correct, and it's definitely not Nexus with all that operator branding. I find myself puzzled as well that the Moto X isn't running Android 4.3. For other OEM partners, I can understand not having the absolute latest version of the platform running because of UI skinning and features, with a stock UI and operating under Google's umbrella, it's just a bit harder for me to explain away, especially given how far along Samsung and HTC allegedly are with 4.3 builds.

The last bit is pricing. The rumor and buildup led me to believe that Moto X would be priced like the midrange device the silicon inside misgives it for, but at $199 on contract it's priced just like a flagship halo phone with a quad core SoC. I realize specs aren't the be all end all for everyone, but I was hoping the Moto X would be the realization of an Android for the masses movement and platform direction from Google with the price to back it up, which would've been $199 with no contract. I have no doubt we'll see the Moto X move down in cost quickly, and it's premium, it's just surprising to see $199 out of the gate for what is a midrange platform (8960Pro) right now. 

I need to spend more time with the Moto X to really pass judgment. I've popped my personal SIM in and will use it as my daily driver for a while and give it the full review treatment. 

Touchless Control & Contextual Processor
Comments Locked

162 Comments

View All Comments

  • ollienightly - Monday, August 5, 2013 - link

    In actuality the newer batches of the older named S4 have exactly the same Krait 300 cores, just as found in the new Nexus 7. It would be insane for Qualcomm to make both 200 and 300 based chip at the same time considering they cost pretty much the same.
  • jleach1 - Wednesday, August 7, 2013 - link

    They're talking about the Galaxy S4. Discern the difference.
  • Jorgisven - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link

    S4 (snapdragon) ≠ SGS4. The SGS4 uses the 600 or 800 Snapdragon, which is what you describe (and also has the possibility of Krait 400, if it's the 800). The SGS4 does not use the Snapdragon S4, which almost all models use a dual-core Krait, with one model exception (APQ8064) that uses quad core Krait.
  • ollienightly - Monday, August 5, 2013 - link

    apparently you can't read properly, how do you find a G"S4" inside the "US versions of the One X and SIII" ?
  • jleach1 - Wednesday, August 7, 2013 - link

    The cores might be modular, but the design is not. An SoC is not a ram slot. You don't take a silicon wafer, and plop a couple, or a few cores in it and call it a day. This isn't an Intel or AMD CPU either, whrere the processors are the same, just with a varying amount of cores disabled. You don't even take into account the GPU, or the rest of the System.
  • khanov - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link

    You both will be very happy to have a spare, user-replacable battery when your original battery dies. I had a RAZR V and the battery (not user-replaceable) lasted just over one year. Out of warranty Moto wanted $150 to fix it.

    I won't ever buy a phone that does not have a user-replaceable battery again.
  • jbrandonf - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link

    At that point your warranty is already up, find a computer repair shop and have someone do it for less than a hundred bucks.
  • Hrel - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link

    Shouldn't have to do that at all though, I can get over the SD card, it's nice to have but as long as the device can function as simple external storage in Windows I'm fine. User replaceable battery really isn't optional for anyone who keeps their phone for 2+ years. Which, if you change your phone more than that you're just too rich to even know what to do with yourself.
  • darwinosx - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link

    That's a crap battery and before long there will be no phones with replaceable batteries or sd card slots so get used to it.
  • krutou - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link

    And I've been using a Samsung Focus for the last 3 years and have never had to replace the battery.

    The problem is with the phone, not the fact that its not replacable.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now