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
sherlockwing - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
It have GS4 Mini/HTC One Mini specs aside from a larger screen, yet is priced to compete with GS4 & HTC One. That's the fatal flaw with this phone.Spunjji - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
"Europeans quickly learned that"Learned what? My girlfriend just bought the 16GB model for £290 including VAT; so that's roughly $360 excluding VAT. I'm not sure what this has "taught" me besides what I already knew which is that everything costs more here for no good reason.
I entirely agree that they're trying to make an "iPhone", though. They've even gone with an Apple-esque balance of GPU and CPU power and are differentiating their product via unique aesthetic choices.
Grennum - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
Well the iPhone 5 was released 10 months ago. In 2 months we will see was Apple releases.I do think that Motorola/Google is copying Apple in that hard specs don't really matter, user experience does. Until very recently various Android phones have had superior hardware to the iPhone but all of them were not as smooth as the iPhone was.
What is being sold here is a more usable device with features that Motorola/Google has determined are actually important to most users(Smaller screen), I suspect they will be very successful.
divinitus - Thursday, August 8, 2013 - link
"all of them were not as smooth as the iPhone was"I think the phrase should be "some of them". That statement is pretty much generalization. It's true some phones still produce a bit of choppiness, mainly due to carrier bloat. However, there are also devices without carrier bloat that average response time is faster than the iPhone 5.
mrochester - Wednesday, August 7, 2013 - link
Apple is able to sell the iPhone 5 at the price they do because it offers something different; iOS. Motorola may struggle to sell the X for $200 precisely because it doesn't offer anything different over the other $200 Android phones; they are all still Android phones. They'd probably need to use a different OS to be able to offer something that's worth the $200 asking price.halcyon - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
- Pink, medium res screen- Medium size battery (sans MAXX)
- 32GB only, no SD slot
- Medium-grade SoC
- Android 4.2.2
- Quick features taken off Samsun's TouchWiz
- acceleration sensing features that work hit&miss style
All this for $200/$300 locked-in to a 2-yr contract?
FAIL. Sorry Moto.
Sony, LG, Samsung and Apple will get the buyers (excl. a few people who buy it for the wooden back panel).
BlueScreenJunky - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
Oh well... Thought I would finally replace my SGS 2 with this phone, but unless they release a "China Edition" assembled in China and sold at $299 off contract, I think my S2 is going to get another year of use ^^Phone looks great, especially the form factor (The Nexus 4 is a tad too large for my taste, but the Moto X looks perfect, slightly narrower than the S2), but there's no way I'm paying 500-600€ for a phone.
twtech - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
I'm concerned about the battery size. I was hoping they were going to continue with the trend of having a flagship with over 3k mAh. Battery life is really the #1 important feature to me. It doesn't matter how fast the phone is, or what features it has, if it's off because the battery is dead.This seems like a very ordinary phone, not bad, but that doesn't really have a must-have feature, unfortunately.
Mondozai - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
Just no.Price that high for contract? Their major selling point(customization) only for one operator? No LCD screen?
Also, being owned by Google and still being on 4.2.2?
Just no.
jt122333221 - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
I agree that it was a mistake to lock the customization to AT&T, but based on info I've heard from other sites and sources, that should only be for the first couple of months. It should be (in my opinion, for future devices) available to any carrier and even unlocked devices at launch. The LCD screen isn't something that would provide good battery life with Active Notifications, which is a large reason they went with AMOLED (the other reason is probably because they've been using AMOLED for a few years in their Razr line). Next, 4.3 just came out last week... While Samsung and HTC have been working on it, Moto's likely been doing the same for their device, but these things all take time. It's not like everything can be done overnight.