A Quick Look at the Moto X - Motorola's New Flagship
by Brian Klug on August 1, 2013 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Qualcomm
- MSM8960
- Motorola
- Mobile
- Android 4.2
- Moto X
- S4 Pro
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
162 Comments
View All Comments
hrrmph - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
I've got 3 devices: Z10, Note 2, Nexus 7 3G. The one that bugs me the most is the N7. Why?1. Because its the slowest to get data in and out of (due to not having a MicroSD slot);
2. It can't hold much data (due to not having a MicroSD slot);
3. Its slow to change a SIM chip (due to needing a tool to open the SIM carrier tray and the awkwardness of using the SIM carrier tray because the chip is always trying to slide out while you change it, such as when doing so on airplanes or boats); and
4. Changing a battery without tools is impossible (due to not having a removable back).
Compare that to the Samsung S4 where you just pop the back cover off and have access to Dual-SIMs, Micro-SDXC slot, and Battery, all ready for easy swapping and replacements.
The Moto-X brings an interesting size, a curved back, and WiFi-AC. Otherwise, it is lacking.
It is a "good enough" phone that will succeed only due to the massive marketing push behind it. It reminds me of those AOL CDs that used to fall out of magazines.
A lot of people are going to try it because its "there." They'll like it because its "close enough." And they'll feel good about it because it has some interesting colors.
It looks like Motorola is getting ready to fire up it's own "Reality Distortion Field." Mark my words, here comes another iteration of "form over function." And people will buy it, hook, line, and sinker. Kind of reminds you of Lumia, doesn't it?
skytophall - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
..."It reminds me of those AOL CDs that used to fall out of magazines"...now that's funny!darwinosx - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
Too bad they don't have the Nexus 7 in 32 gb right?ESC2000 - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link
... they do have the nexus 7 in 32 GB... and i can tell you it is unequivocally the best small tablet on the market unless you cannot bear to give up iosDentons - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
Not everyone has the same use case.If you travel, having a spare battery (or 3) is a tremendous benefit. I can carry 3 spare Samsung Galaxy batteries in the space of a single 3rd party chargers. I never have to hunt for outlets and can go for days at a time.
As for the lack of microSD, the only reason it's missing is because Motorola is pompous. They believe their phone is good enough to compete without a feature that would cost them pennies. Their phone is not that good. No phone is that good, exactly because some of the best phones in the world do have microSD.
For most customers, this phone will be exactly the same price as phones like the HTC One and Galaxy Note. This is Motorola's flagship phone. Compared to the flagship phones of Samsung, HTC, and Apple, the X is a failure.
Brutuski - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
Why yes... Apparently I have found room in my anus for both Verizon and Motorola to shove their dicks in there. $199 on contract for last years hardware, sure!jbrandonf - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
A little graphic there but I agree with your point.jbrandonf - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
Google removed the ability to install apps to SD cards, of course the Google-owned Moto isn't going to then throw in a card.Where they messed up is by defaulting to 16gb and making 32 exclusive. With more and more HD content available for phones(HD cameras,larger apps, movie rentals) 32gb will need to be the new standard.
darwinosx - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
The carriers love 16 gb with as little space available as possible so you store as much as possible in the cloud and use a lot of bandwidth. It's a racket.lunarx3dfx - Monday, August 5, 2013 - link
Um, I agree with you that being able to change batteries is a per use case type of preference, but your thoughts about the reasoning behind no microSD slot is dead wrong. It isn't missing because Motorola is pompous, it's because they are owned by Google and Google has been trying to eliminate microSD in Android for a few years now. This is old news.Seeing as Motorola is owned by Google now, I would say it is safe to assume that all future Motorola devices will lack microSD support.
That being said, while I really like the design of the X, I agree that it is overpriced, and Moto's attempt to make it sound competitive by claiming it has "8 cores" is just sad. Give me a Nexus 4 or a HTC One any day of the week over this thing.