Moto X: Not about hardware. About the experience marketing blitz.

[asanatheist]

Yeah, screw that Larry guy. Let's just repeat the spec war nonsense until we crap our pants.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee3/vkyle8/t.gif

And that's what I meant by you personifying that profile picture.
Can you tell me what is this specs war in detail? I would certainly like to hear your take on it.

 

[JungleLarry]

 

[asanatheist]

I'm curious. How does living near the factory get you the opportunity to try the phone out for a day?

Since a lot of people are asking: the factory near me needs permits, tax "breaks" (not sure if they got any) and required 2,000+ employees which was a human resource nightmare but awesome for the economy in Forth Worth.
Anyways, some politicians here in Texas have the Moto X. I got to borrow the phone from one of them, by sheer luck.
Lastly I didn't really try to look for new things because I was busy seeing how it worked with what I used my phone for.

 

[Paisley]

This is exactly what I was thinking. He described all of the reasons why I would prefer the Moto X over the HTC One and the S4 and then argues that it doesn't justify the same price as the S4 and HTC One. I don't quite understand the point. I love the new features, I like that it has a better hand feel than the HTC One (which I think is a very nice looking phone), I like that it is smaller. But I get all of this and it's just as fast and its battery lasts longer. Why is this considered some kind of misdirection?

and then it was "worth the price" but not, b/c they're tricking customers into paying bmw prices (even though the phone costs as much to make as the other phones that sell for the same price). Logic like that happens when it just makes no sense in the first place.

 

[Paisley]

First off, thanks for the serious response even if it is a tad bit hostile.

If they really want people to give it a chance they should focus on what it can do that other phones can't. Which so far is 3 main features, 1 being tied down to AT&T. Touchless control, quick glance feature, and customization. The vanilla stock appeal is already present in Nexus devices.
But those three features (well customization is awesome but sucks about it being tied down till about end of the year) doesn't really make an appealing phone does it? Nope instead they will use pretty words, and blanket statements to confuse the public into thinking the Moto X is different from the competition.

Those are 2 or 3 features on top of a phone that is a better chassis size for many, better form for even more, and that has better battery life and runs smoother than the htc/gs4. You're stuck on the marketing thing because that's your original hypothesis, but battery life, form and operating system are huge aspects of a phone. HUGE. You know what people like to hear "quad-core", but ya know what sucks? a stuttering o/s that the GS4 is known to have. and no matter what marketing either put forth, reviews say the X runs smoother than the GS4. And yes, in marketing they highlight new features, or unique features, like boom sound?. That boom sound is pretty fabulous. And so is not having to wake or pick up your phone as often. Some people get more out of the Boomsound? and some get more out of active display.

As as to what the phones can actually offer people?
So now what can the gs4 do that the X can't. You can remove the battery. What can X users do? Go longer without charging their battery.
What can htc do? boom sound. what can x do? fit in your pocket.
what can gs4 do? beat x in a cpu benchmark. what can x do? be more convenient.
what can the gs4 do? beat x in a cpu benchmark. what can x do? run without stuttering.
what can gs4 do? offer you more storage. what can x do that htc/gs4 cannot? navigate you in a car without you taking your eyes of the road to ask for it directions.
that sexy metal chassis can be as sexy as it wants but if it's too big for the user it's not a better chassis, no matter how pretty.

and we have to pick and choose among those features, that's how we make decisions in life.

 

[roadkizzle]

My take on ?ending? the specs war, aka marketing blitz for the Moto X.
I believe there is a big misconception and misleading that some people may not be aware of and seem to be fine drinking the cool aid.

Let?s explain what has been stated.
? Motorola claims it?s no longer pursuing a specs war that everyone else is involved in.
? Motorola claims the experience matters more than specs.
? Motorola claims people want features more than hardware specs.
This can lead to misinform or mislead those who don?t know better into thinking that everyone else besides Motorola is caught up in specs, and fails to deliver on the experience which is complete nonsense.


Let?s look at what has happened:
? Specs wars have yet to impede with experience for the past couple years, and every year the experience gets better and better. Projects like Butter, mfg confessions of having to simplify the OS (HTC/LG recent with the One and G2) and Motorola's own decision to scrap motoblur are proof that Motorola's statements as a clever marketing guise. The experience is getting better and better every year right along with hardware with NO signs that hardware is impeding software advances if anything at all, making them possible.
Most flagship phones are expected to provide a good experience, and most flagships already do. Just look at the reviews surrounding the S4, HTC One, Lumia 920/928/1020, and Iphone 5 (old I know).
? All of them provide a good experience, each having their own strengths and therefore weaknesses. Some relying on camera features (1020), some relying on an abundance of software and hardware features even if gimmicky (Samsung S4), some relying on feel mixed with premium hardware, lessened bloatware, and high quality build (HTC One), and lastly the Iphone 5 providing a safe ecosystem.
? With the Moto X it isn?t really about experience per say, after all they are not giving you a completely different OS nor a safe ecosystem nor a better camera, gaming, multimedia, or anything experience, at least going by Motorola?s focus it really is just about 2 features: Voice control, and quick glance. They're simply giving a semi stock but not truly stock android OS, for contract price and they added 2 more features. That about sums it up. It isn't some mystical unicorn fantasy Android version, it actually removes useful features, and doesn't really do much but give you a near Nexus experience, with a contract price to boot.
? You will notice most of these phones have strengths and weaknesses: Some are hardware strengths some are software. But let?s get to the meat of it: the ?specs wars?. Let?s point out the unique positives in the devices.o Samsung S4: SD Card, Removable battery, 13MP Camera.
o HTC One: Large pixel low light camera, boom sound, aluminum chassis.
o Nokia 1020: 41mp camera? hopefully that?s evident.
o Iphone 5: Superior fit and finish, sapphire crystal camera lens?
Now name one bad negative review for one of the aforementioned devices, except for the Lumia 920 and iphone 5 since they?re different OS.
Motorola is attempting to pull the wood over the eyes of the consumer by trying to mislead the public into thinking the industry is in a specs war and that they HAVE the solution to the problem with a new ?better? experience. An experience that consists of 2 features.
Funny and hypocritical enough, Motorola is fine with flaunting their ?hardware? when convenient with their RGB non pentile AMOLED, and their custom ?technically octa-core? SoC.
All the while saying anyone who compares specs does not understand the product design. They want to compare specs: but when they touch on flaws they immediate revert back to their hiding behind the unquantifiable: the ?experience?, which we all know to be so delicate it could be thrown out of balance\ by something as simple as having yellow instead of blue in some menu somewhere lost in a pool of binary code.

What Motorola is banking on is basically for people to pay a BMW price, for a Lexus all because the Lexus seems to do everything the BMW can. They are essentially asking with really nice marketing for consumers to take less pay the same all the while Motorola is fine with making a phone that is "just enough".

It is very clear the Moto X is meant to be used as a cash cow, to increase profits and put Motorola back in the map. But to say it's a great device fit to challenge others in the top tier of smartphones is lying to themselves. This device is meant to be the Iphone equivalent of Android in sense of becoming a money cow, without the goodies attached*.
By goodies I mean: (great apple store support, superb build quality, strongest accessories availability and a solid an well reserved ecosystem)

I really think the issue is that the other Android manufacturers are really trying to get the users to pay for non-value adding hardware/features.

Why in the world do you think a user should pay higher costs for a Galaxy S4 having a 1080p screen and Quad Core processor when it isn't able to perform with as high a framerate, heating up as much, and still having substantially lower battery life despite a 18% larger battery with the corresponding worse form factor.

I'm sorry, but users should not pay more for a phone with a 1080p screen when it really only provides an extremely minimal sharpness benefit and as a tradeoff causes substantially more battery drain, and strain on the phones hardware to push the additional 2.25x more pixels to achieve the same framerate.

I'll list out the pro's and con's that I really feel of the Moto X vs the other android flagships.
Galaxy S4:
Pros:
-Excellent Screen
-Multi-window functionality
-Very good camera
-Removable Battery
-You can scroll up and down web pages without touching the phone

Cons:
-Lags and stutters
-The phone is to large to easily use one-handed


HTC One:
Pros:
-Boomsound allows for loud sound with good clarity
-Excellent Screen
-Smoothest running quad-core phone

Cons:
-The worst battery life of the "flagship" phones
-HTC had to reduce the ability of the multi-tasking to get the smooth phone
-Metal body makes the phone the heaviest and most slick of the flagships increasing the chances of dropping it. When dropped the metal is most likely to dent causing long-term issues

Moto X:
Pros:
-Form factor is most ergonomic and comfortable bar none
-According to all reviews the performance (smooth responsiveness of the phones GUI) is substantially better than Galaxy S4 and on par with HTC One
-The undisputed king of these flagship phones battery life
-The phone that gets the best framerate in highly graphics intensive situations such as gaming. (In addition, all reviews that test gaming say it heats up substantially less than comparative phones)
-The Touchless Controls allows you to get much more useful touchless capabilities than scrolling through web pages, such as calling people, sending texts, setting alarms and reminders, taking notes, searching the internet, getting translations, and making calculations and unit conversions.)
-The Active Display allows you to always see at a glance the pertinent new notifications without having to touch your phone.
-The phone has the quickest accessible camera of the flagship Android devices.
-Very good screen (providing the ability for the phone to have the highest framerate and lowest battery consumption for a very negligible visual differences)
-The phones speaker apparently blows away the HTCs Boomsound in terms of loudness with little loss of clarity or distortion

Cons:
-Unpredictable camera

I really cannot think of any reason why the Galaxy S4 and HTC One should be more marketable and worth higher prices. The Moto X includes all the value added features required for phones without loading the phone down with completely unnecessary features used by makers to do nothing but justify higher prices for more poorly performing phones.

 

[roadkizzle]

Those are 2 or 3 features on top of a phone that is a better chassis size for many, better form for even more, and that has better battery life and runs smoother than the htc/gs4. You're stuck on the marketing thing because that's your original hypothesis, but battery life, form and operating system are huge aspects of a phone. HUGE. You know what people like to hear "quad-core", but ya know what sucks? a stuttering o/s that the GS4 is known to have. and no matter what marketing either put forth, reviews say the X runs smoother than the GS4. And yes, it marketing they highlight new features, or unique features, like boom sound?. That boom sound is pretty fabulous. And so is not having to wake or pick up your phone as often. Some people get more out of the Boomsound? and some get more out of active display.

and to what the phones can actually offer people, So now what can the gs4 do that the X can't. You can remove the battery. What can X users do? Go longer without charging their battery.
What can htc do? boom sound. what can x do? fit in your pocket.
what can gs4 do? beat x in a cpu benchmark. what can x do? be more convenient.
what can the gs4 do? beat x in a cpu benchmark. what can x do? run without stuttering.
what can gs4 do? offer you more storage. what can x do that htc/gs4 cannot? navigate you in a car without you taking your eyes of the road to ask for it directions.

I agree with all of this. In fact, the reviews are saying that the Moto X's speakerphone is very comparable to the Boomsound. The only differences are the Moto X is louder, slightly less clarity, and potentially more likely to accidentally cover the grill with your finger.

 

[Paisley]

I agree with all of this. In fact, the reviews are saying that the Moto X's speakerphone is very comparable to the Boomsound. The only differences are the Moto X is louder, slightly less clarity, and potentially more likely to accidentally cover the grill with your finger.

i wouldn't go so far to say that, and reviews i've read note that. I mean, there's no way you're getting close to boom sound with those huge *** speakers on the top and bottom of that phone, even though motorola makes great speakers (i've heard the Moto on you tube, it's pretty awesome for a regular phone). BS? is fuller, it's for music, and it's awesome. X has great speakers compared to most other phones on the market, which is gonna be great for when i'm asking it for information without it being in my hand. ;D

But moto also has some great sound cancelling technology. which is pretty cool.

 

[MikeLip]

It's new. It's all shiny and stuff. I want it. Game over.

 

[roadkizzle]

i wouldn't go so far to say that, and reviews i've read note that. I mean, there's no way you're getting close to boom sound with those huge *** speakers on the top and bottom of that phone, even though motorola makes great speakers (i've heard the Moto on you tube, it's pretty awesome for a regular phone). BS? is fuller, it's for music, and it's awesome. X has great speakers compared to most other phones on the market, which is gonna be great for when i'm asking it for information without it being in my hand. ;D

But moto also has some great sound cancelling technology. which is pretty cool.

I wasn't trying to say that the Moto X speaker is fully better than the Boomsound, just that the HTC One doesn't have the advantage over the Moto X that it does over the other phones in regards to its music and speakerphone capabilities.

While Boomsound is a determining factor against most other phones it is only a small benefit over the Moto X while I find much more pros for the Moto X.