My Biggest Issue: You can get competitor phones that will blow the Moto X away....for less $$$

[SteelGator]

Remember, phones like the One and GS4 are competing against 720p devices in an intensely competitive market everyday, so the fact that 1080p is dominating proves that cost-benefit favors 1080p. It is betting against 1080p that's risky in this market. This is simple marketplace math and there should be no disagreement on this point. I'm puzzled as to how or why you dispute the results being obtained by the top Android sellers' 1080p devices.

I think you have a point with most of your post, but there are a lot of reasons beyond the display that the 1080p devices are winning right now. The two best and newest devices are sporting 1080p displays, but that is confounded by the fact that both the GS4 and the One have several features that are worth plopping money down for beyond the display. It does not logically follow that 1080p is the only way to go because the 2 market leaders have that. It may be true in the end, but correlation does not mean causation.

It will be interesting to see if the moto gambit pays off. I personally place a higher value battery life, and I think the Active Display may be a killer app. I am willing to give a little on the display for those points. Many others are, many others are not -- that is what is great about Android. We have a choice.

 

[eyesopen1111]

Of the top 5 smartphones out, 3 are 1080p and 2 are not. If this is considered top 5 it'll either stay 3-2 or move to 2-3, depending on what gets bumped off of the list. Clearly that one spec is not what makes or breaks a top device.

Which five Android phones are you referring to? I hope you're not counting the iPhone... Lol!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

 

[roadkizzle]

All evidence is to the contrary. The top Android phones are both 1080p devices with the battery sizes we all know about. If what you wrote were true, you'd expect that buyers would avoid these phones in favor of other 720p devices allegedly better on battery. They don't. They buy 1080p by the millions, demonstrating their actual preference for the highest quality screen. If the MotoX causes a general pull back of the 5 inch 1080p screen, I'll admit you were on to something and eat crow. Of course, if it doesn't, I'll suppose you'll eat crow. I'm happy with my side of the bet, if you're happy with yours.

I would agree with you if I thought that it were true that 720p = 1080p. But I don't. Consequently, this spec delta is NOT meaningless in any sense. There is nothing "BS" about an OEM making and marketing a better quality screen or a consumer buying one. People like better screens precisely because smartphone display quality improves their EXPERIENCE. It's one thing to say that second rate meets your needs; that's personal choice. But it is quite another thing to say that second rate is just as good as first rate, which is objectively false and contrary to the facts being proven daily in the marketplace.

I think that Motorola disagrees with you, as their entire marketing campaign is designed to convince prospective buyers that the compromises which were made on the MotoX shouldn't stop consumers from considering the phone. If it were the uncompromised best product, no such messaging would be needed.

Strictly speaking, I do not dispute Motorola's position. I do, however, dispute the claim of its being uncompromised. Perhaps we could agree that Motorola compromised aspects of the phone by design? They seem to admit this, after all.

I agree with the others. If you'll note that the reason why many of the other phones do not have battery issues is because they are forced to have bigger batteries. This means that the manufacturer must designate more space in their phone for the corresponding bigger battery necessitating a larger phone. Motorola used a 720p screen because they wanted to reduce the resource impacts of the screen and enable an extremely good user experience in a very compact product.

The benefits of a 1080p screen are negligible. I honestly won't say that there are no differences between 720p and 1080p screens, but I do honestly believe that these differences are so minimal on a day to day basis of using the screens when you aren't minutely comparing two different phones together to determine which is better.
Your day to day experience of looking at a 1080p 4.7" screen will not be any different from a day to day experience of looking at a 720p 4.7" screen. Again, these differences may be noticeable when looked at side-by-side but individually it won't come into the picture.
On the other hand, the stuttering of a GPU and CPU trying to push the 2.25x more pixels and overall phone size forced by the additional battery required to power the 2.25x more pixels WILL have a day to day impact on the experience of using your phone.

I honestly see no compromise from the choices that Motorola made with their phone.

I also don't see anything about the marketing campaign designed to convince buyers that any "compromises" shouldn't stop consumers from buying the phone.
The only commercials I've seen showcase the touchless controls and the ability to quickly take pictures. Then both have a unified informing of the customization abilities. Their print marketing also either advertises Touchless Controls, Active Display, or customizeability.

Nothing that I've seen talks about why their lower resolution screen is beneficial. In fact these discussions have only even been taken into consideration by people on this forum... Especially RoundPotato and you.

 

[roadkizzle]

Which five Android phones are you referring to? I hope you're not counting the iPhone... Lol!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

PSST. The other poster said "Smartphones". They never said anything about the top 5 Android phones.

 

[JHBThree]

I'm not ignoring you; I'm listening to you.

Listen, my point is simply that the two top Android handsets both sport 1080p screens, so saying that this spec is somehow lacking from a cost-benefit perspective is nonsense.

Remember, phones like the One and GS4 are competing against 720p devices in an intensely competitive market everyday, so the fact that 1080p is dominating proves that cost-benefit favors 1080p. It is betting against 1080p that's risky in this market. This is simple marketplace math and there should be no disagreement on this point. I'm puzzled as to how or why you dispute the results being obtained by the top Android sellers' 1080p devices.

On science. You seem to claim that customers' paying for 1080p is a hysteria, since you claim they cannot tell any difference in display quality between 1080p and 720p. I would strongly disagree.

Try this: Navigate to the same page or movie on both an HTC One and the 720p screen of your choice and survey people by asking, "Which one looks better?" The answers will surprise no one. Nor should they. Apparently, the answers will surprise you when they are able to tell the difference. Shocker! People can tell the difference between first rate and second rate displays. They can also tell the difference between first class and coach on an airplane, though a person can be happy flying in either.

Look, it's not just me. Several tech sites, tech writers, etc have noted that Motorola is trying to refocus the marketing debate surrounding the MotoX away from specs. I thought this was common knowledge. Apparently not. If you doubt this, I can supply links upon links.

Perhaps people will be willing to trade a second rate display for voice activation and allegedly better battery life. We'll see. But make no mistake, that is the deal Motorola is offering with the MotoX.

BTW, trying to dress up the phone in colors/back casing to add value is exactly what Nokia did with their underspec'd Lumia line and what Jolla is doing with the Sailfish phone. If you can't add steak, add sizzle.


Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

Again, you have completely ignored the fact (and it IS a fact) that the majority of the population cannot see the difference between the two screens, and a good 720p screen will be indistinguishable from a 1080p screen for nearly all buyers.

I'm not sure why you're attempting to disagree with scientific facts concerning visual acuity and the ability to distinguish pixels beyond a certain point. I guess it speaks to how much you want to bash this device.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Paisley]

this review is pretty interesting. LONG though so i'll give some bullets:

he doesn't do too much comparison, mostly just talks about the moto after a brief comparison

It's iPhone vs. s4 vs. moto x (he has all 3 on hand)

720 noticeable
moto screen brighter than s4
Verdict on the screen "I like the moto screen the best, except for the resolution".(seems to prefer the moto screen overall),
tasks = fast. Does a dual webpage visit "the samsung beat the X by a fraction of a second".
"video is faster on the X"
faster to take pictures

then:
"find their 24 hour claim to be very accurate"
"if you were to buy one of the X, One, or s4 today, which would you buy," the guy answers "tough one" (in the end due to driving and wants easy hands free nav. - and the voice thing overall - he chooses X. "In california it's illegal to touch your phone in the car). Also not crazy about the UI on sammy.
likes the feel of the phone

can't comment on photos, hasn't done enough tests. (from other comparisons i've seen people do say s4 better pics.

funny part, someone's asking a question about what do you want eventually from the voice services and he says "i wanna be able to say okay google now bring me a hamburger" and then the phone pipes up and gives him info on hamburgers. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiIm7SXlPoU

 

[roadkizzle]

Look, it's not just me. Several tech sites, tech writers, etc have noted that Motorola is trying to refocus the marketing debate surrounding the MotoX away from specs. I thought this was common knowledge. Apparently not. If you doubt this, I can supply links upon links.

Why should Motorola be marketing their specs? I'm not saying that because they are better or worse than the other manufacturers rather because the actual specs provide NOTHING to the end user.

They are telling the customers what actually impacts them. Samsung can take all the time bragging about their huge high resolution screens and quad core processors... But then the users get ahold of the phones and encounter a phone that still stutters, with features that struggle to actually perform.

Motorola telling the consumers how their new phone will actually make their lives better seems to be a much more helpful marketing strategy to me.

 

[eyesopen1111]

I'm not understanding your position. You keep referencing the 720p screen resolution and how it's supposedly a breaking point for the Moto X, but you've also admitted that you've donated to the Ubuntu Edge project and it's the only 720p phone you'll consider.

Moto X - 4.7" (4.5" usable) screen, 720p
Ubuntu Edge - 4.5" screen, 720p

WHAT HAS UBUNTU DONE? SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT, I GUESS....
I sincerely hope production of the Ubuntu Edge is successful and your eyes explode from the pain of gazing upon a sub-standard, 720p display.

Thank you for listening/asking! The Ubuntu Edge has other features that I value above screen resolution, like the 4gigs of RAM, the sapphire front "glass", the 128 gigs of storage, the dual boot capabilities, the. . . well you get the idea. So, yes I can compromise on display quality like anyone else can.

The BIG difference is that I acknowledge that I am compromising on the display spec! I'm not here saying, "720p is just as good." Or "Nobody can tell the difference." That's nonsense. I'm acknowledging the tradeoff.

The primary difference between this and the tradeoff with the MotoX is that with the MotoX you primarily get only voice activation and allegedly enhanced battery life. Secondarily would be the enhanced lock screen and, for AT&T customers, the glam dressings.

But you're right: I'm not that hung up on screen if the rest of the offering is hella tight. I'm not sold on MotoX yet, but I could be if the actual device performance WOWs me. Not looking good at the moment though.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

 

[asanatheist]

This is what I expected, good for Moto. Contrary to all the negative comments on the "mediocre & outdated" specs, maybe Moto actually knows what they're doing & their approach will prove innovative after all.

Sent from my Droid RAZR MAXX using Tapatalk2

Or more like the people comparing don't know what they're doing. Typical in the mobile segment of "youtube experts".
1920x1080 renders even if they're upscaled from 720p sources they will still take longer to load than lower resolution renders. This is comparing loading a standard def game versus a high def game. Remember these GPU's don't come with huge on board dedicated ram.

Anyways I strongly believe this phone will flop, it's marketed for the Average joe yet the press release was private, the phone's key selling feature: customization is exclusive to AT&T, and the software feature they promise (voice commands) are really not big deal maker.

Part of my job means teaching people how to use mobile devices: Few ever buy devices based on one or two features as silly as quick glance, or as somewhat useful as always ready "voice commands".
Ignoring marketing (I will say in the smartphone industry, marketing is king).
A good portion go to the store, look at specs and know 16GB<32GB. Dual Core< Quad core. 720P<1080P. Plastic< Aluminum. And when matching phones, Moto X S4 One and the Iphone 5 are all priced the same or cheaper it is going to lose. These are the ones who have money to blow, and a $200 is not an issue. These "Specs" are things they are more familiar with than "voice commands" since everyone has used a computer before and have seen the jargon already.

The other portion are those looking for budget phones, from free to $100. Which is a no go for the Moto X.
I see this for phones, laptops, desktops, and tablets on a daily basis.
Despite all the marketing the Moto X simply is NOT for the average joe, not with a price tag of $200. Which is a darn shame.
Remember the average joe simply doesn't understand the benefits of always ready voice commands, or quick glance (which many devices can have with a simple lockscreen widget some out of the box). Some barely know a thing about smartphones how will they know what to expect?
All they will see is the price, and or the specs.

A lot of reviewers I think still attach geeks to the stereotypes of the past where buying a smartphone for specs was truly all there was because the experience with android 2.3 and older simply was lacking and everyone's custom android version was unstable.
This is simply not the case anymore. Most flagship phones will deliver the specs, and experience with no problems. The phone "looking at specs" only is no longer as big of a gamble as it once was. So reviewers? Stop playing the "experience card" and "geek" justification card.

On a separate note I want to make it clear: I think a price of $200 is a really good price, and I don't think it's expensive by any means. It's assembled in the USA and that is something I strongly support. I think always ready voice commands are also cool. I've always wanted to talk to the computer in the sky.

Funny but true: see how it takes a geek to understand the value of what Motorola thinks of as "average joe" features?

 

[JHBThree]

Or more like the people comparing don't know what they're doing. Typical in the mobile segment of "youtube experts".
1920x1080 renders even if they're upscaled from 720p sources they will still take longer to load than lower resolution renders. This is comparing loading a standard def game versus a high def game. Remember these GPU's don't come with huge on board dedicated ram.

Anyways I strongly believe this phone will flop, it's marketed for the Average joe yet the press release was private, the phone's key selling feature: customization is exclusive to AT&T, and the software feature they promise (voice commands) are really not big deal maker.

Part of my job means teaching people how to use mobile devices: Few ever buy devices based on one or two features as silly as quick glance, or as somewhat useful as always ready "voice commands".
Ignoring marketing (I will say in the smartphone industry, marketing is king).
A good portion go to the store, look at specs and know 16GB<32GB. Dual Core< Quad core. 720P<1080P. Plastic< Aluminum. And when matching phones, Moto X S4 One and the Iphone 5 are all priced the same or cheaper it is going to lose. These are the ones who have money to blow, and a $200 is not an issue. These "Specs" are things they are more familiar with than "voice commands" since everyone has used a computer before and have seen the jargon already.

The other portion are those looking for budget phones, from free to $100. Which is a no go for the Moto X.
I see this for phones, laptops, desktops, and tablets on a daily basis.
Despite all the marketing the Moto X simply is NOT for the average joe, not with a price tag of $200. Which is a darn shame.
Remember the average joe simply doesn't understand the benefits of always ready voice commands, or quick glance (which many devices can have with a simple lockscreen widget some out of the box). Some barely know a thing about smartphones how will they know what to expect?
All they will see is the price, and or the specs.

A lot of reviewers I think still attach geeks to the stereotypes of the past where buying a smartphone for specs was truly all there was because the experience with android 2.3 and older simply was lacking and everyone's custom android version was unstable.
This is simply not the case anymore. Most flagship phones will deliver the specs, and experience with no problems. The phone "looking at specs" only is no longer as big of a gamble as it once was. So reviewers? Stop playing the "experience card" and "geek" justification card.

On a separate note I want to make it clear: I think a price of $200 is a really good price, and I don't think it's expensive by any means. It's assembled in the USA and that is something I strongly support. I think always ready voice commands are also cool. I've always wanted to talk to the computer in the sky.

Funny but true: see how it takes a geek to understand the value of what Motorola thinks of as "average joe" features?

Your post is 100% opinion not backed by any facts.

I think you're underestimating how much research they actually did to arrive at the feature set they did. Features like quick glance and the touch less controls are being advertised so heavily because of that research. That also plays into you not understanding the purpose of things like quick glance.

These features would not have been Motorola's focus unless they had research to back up their inclusion. That's how Google works.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ultravisitor]

These features would not have been Motorola's focus unless they had research to back up their inclusion. That's how Google works.

Yeah, but people seem to not really care about the fact that Google is a hardcore data-driven company and could possibly influence Motorola in that respect. All people think is "OMG NEXUS SELLS FOR CHEEP GOOGLE OWNS MOTO THAT MEANS MOTO PHONES MUST BE CHEEP!11Q!"

 

[asanatheist]

Your post is 100% opinion not backed by any facts.

I think you're underestimating how much research they actually did to arrive at the feature set they did. Features like quick glance and the touch less controls are being advertised so heavily because of that research. That also plays into you not understanding the purpose of things like quick glance.

These features would not have been Motorola's focus unless they had research to back up their inclusion. That's how Google works.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Maybe you didn't read in that I teach workers how to use their smartphones and mobile devices? I've been in the tech industry for 6 years now. As in first hand experience I see what they go through everyday. Trust me most of them won't realize they will have such features available in the Moto X unless Motorola runs advertising in the same league as Samsung and Apple which is certainly doable with Google backing them up.
The average Joe (my students) IS NOT going to sit around researching a phone for weeks on end. They will go to the store, pick out what they like and go home. That's why I said the customization is Moto's biggest selling point and also their worst mistake since they sold that exclusivity to AT&T. The voice commands and quick glances won't be strong enough selling points.
.
I stand by my statements: When it comes down to it, it will be a specs war at the store (remember specs are something many average joes are familiar with from their time with PC's. NOT voice commands or quick glances OR it will be a price war. Or both. Remember the voice commands on the Moto X are the same as any other 4.2.2 or newer android OS. The only difference is you can access this phone's voice commands from anywhere by just talking.

 

[eyesopen1111]

Again, you have completely ignored the fact (and it IS a fact) that the majority of the population cannot see the difference between the two screens, and a good 720p screen will be indistinguishable from a 1080p screen for nearly all buyers.

I'm not sure why you're attempting to disagree with scientific facts concerning visual acuity and the ability to distinguish pixels beyond a certain point. I guess it speaks to how much you want to bash this device.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Please cite or link the article supporting your position that people can't distinguish a quality difference between 720p and 1080p smartphone displays. I can't find one anywhere. Let's see this proof that common sense, the marketplace, and even other MotoX supporters on this thread openly deny. People may or may not see the pixels, but what's at issue is that they can tell that the 1080 first class screen is superior to the 720p class screen. Honest. Hold the two screens side by side, and I bet you can, too.

In the spirit of putting up or shutting up, it's only fair that I offer proof of my claims about the Antutu benchmark squabble regarding the HTC One and MotoX. Here are some published facts.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/moto-x-...re-4-7-inch-display-and-no-sd-slot/46182.html

The article notes: "With an AnTuTu score of 18753, though, the Moto X falls short of beating some of the top Android handsets out there (ex. Samsung?s GS4s and HTC?s Ones score in the high 24000?s)."

See also, http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/19203/20130801/lg-g2-vs-htc-one-samsung-galaxy.htm which also notes the HTC One Antutu score as being in the 24000?s.

Could anyone with a link showing the One with an AnTuTu in the low 20,000's please link? I couldn't find anything like that, and since both these sources were testing stock HTC's, I doubt that significantly lower scores are out there on non tampered devices.

And I'm still waiting to see how the MotoX battery life performs in a looped - movie battery run-down test. Let's see its actual battery life performance in movie watching or game playing scenarios, not just just checking the time with the new lockscreen. If MotoX's battery life estimates are based on estimated battery savings from using the new lockscreen a lot, then they may be overstated when it comes to calling, video chatting, gaming, browsing, media watching, music playing, and everything else that takes more juice than using your phone as a pocket watch.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

 

[anon(11078)]

Here's a link that discusses the ability to distinguish the difference between a 1080p and 720p smartphone screen. The bottom line conclusion is that you can't, at normal viewing distances. http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/16554/is-the-samsung-galaxy-s4-really-worth-it/

This becomes a bit more complex when you consider the fact that the Moto X has a non-pentile pixel arrangement and the S4 does.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Farish]

Please cite or link the article supporting your position that people can't distinguish a quality difference between 720p and 1080p smartphone displays. I can't find one anywhere. Let's see this proof that common sense, the marketplace, and even other MotoX supporters on this thread openly deny. People may or may not see the pixels, but what's at issue is that they can tell that the 1080 first class screen is superior to the 720p class screen. Honest. Hold the two screens side by side, and I bet you can, too.

In the spirit of putting up or shutting up, it's only fair that I offer proof of my claims about the Antutu benchmark squabble regarding the HTC One and MotoX. Here are some published facts.

AT&T Moto X phone: decent AnTuTu score, 4.7-inch display, and no SD slot - VR-Zone

The article notes: "With an AnTuTu score of 18753, though, the Moto X falls short of beating some of the top Android handsets out there (ex. Samsung?s GS4s and HTC?s Ones score in the high 24000?s)."

See also, LG G2 vs. HTC One vs. Samsung Galaxy S4: LG Flagship Specs Fastest Android Phone According To AnTuTu Benchmark Test [REPORT] - International Digital Times which also notes the HTC One Antutu score as being in the 24000?s.

Could anyone with a link showing the One with an AnTuTu in the low 20,000's please link? I couldn't find anything like that, and since both these sources were testing stock HTC's, I doubt that significantly lower scores are out there on non tampered devices.

And I'm still waiting to see how the MotoX battery life performs in a looped - movie battery run-down test. Let's see its actual battery life performance in movie watching or game playing scenarios, not just just checking the time with the new lockscreen. If MotoX's battery life estimates are based on estimated battery savings from using the new lockscreen a lot, then they may be overstated when it comes to calling, video chatting, gaming, browsing, media watching, music playing, and everything else that takes more juice than using your phone as a pocket watch.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

The article on VR Zone was using the leaked benchmarks, it was written July 22.

Because of that they could be lower or higher due to the beta environment of it.

Here is an example of what I mean and also answers your other question.

Here is the prelimary benchmark of the HTC One from XDA.

Notice it is a much lower score than you have stated.

Maybe some benchmark optimizations were added in after the fact.

The reason why people are using GL 2.7 benchmark is because in the Galaxy S4 cheating scandal, Anandtech came out and stated that version wasn't compromised yet.

Also just to prove it to you further:
Here is another benchmark listing for the HTC One that shows 22678.
HTC One benchmark scores are here, ready to blow your mind - GSMArena Blog

Since GL 2.7 is not currently known to be compromise it is quite possible that it is accurate.

It is also very possible that you will use whatever benchmark you feel will make your argument stand better.

 

[mattopotamus]

Here's a link that discusses the ability to distinguish the difference between a 1080p and 720p smartphone screen. The bottom line conclusion is that you can't, at normal viewing distances. Demystifying the myth of full HD smart phone screens ? The Express Tribune Blog

This becomes a bit more complex when you consider the fact that the Moto X has a non-pentile pixel arrangement and the S4 does.

Posted via Android Central App

it is the same thing with 1080p on TVs under 32". I don't think you can buy one under 32" with a 1080P screen since no one can tell the difference. People saying this phone will not sell next to the htc one and s4 must not know the power of marketing. People do have common sense. If i go in store and play with the s4 and notice lag b.c of touchwiz and none on the moto x...guess what I will pick regardless of the specs.

The only reason "us" "forumers" are upset is b.c we strictly looked at the specs and expected a lower price. If you actually read about the x8 processor it is new and innovative. On a piece of paper the specs may blow away the moto x, but in reality that is not the case. The reviews are very strong.

 

[JHBThree]

Maybe you didn't read in that I teach workers how to use their smartphones and mobile devices? I've been in the tech industry for 6 years now. As in first hand experience I see what they go through everyday. Trust me most of them won't realize they will have such features available in the Moto X unless Motorola runs advertising in the same league as Samsung and Apple which is certainly doable with Google backing them up.
The average Joe (my students) IS NOT going to sit around researching a phone for weeks on end. They will go to the store, pick out what they like and go home. That's why I said the customization is Moto's biggest selling point and also their worst mistake since they sold that exclusivity to AT&T. The voice commands and quick glances won't be strong enough selling points.
.
I stand by my statements: When it comes down to it, it will be a specs war at the store (remember specs are something many average joes are familiar with from their time with PC's. NOT voice commands or quick glances OR it will be a price war. Or both. Remember the voice commands on the Moto X are the same as any other 4.2.2 or newer android OS. The only difference is you can access this phone's voice commands from anywhere by just talking.

Again, all your opinion. Not based on the facts.

 

[asanatheist]

Again, all your opinion. Not relevant based on the facts.

As I implicitly said: I am using my experience to give an educated guess.
This is far more constructive then your attempts of invalidation with asking of proof while not really providing proof yourself when you are the only one of us asking for proof.

Where is this research, where are the links JHBThree?
I came in with 6 years of experience in business never claimed to be factual.
Samsung, Apple, and many others do research and we've yet to hear of these features coming from them, why do you think so? Do you really think Motorola knows something Samsung, Apple, and others don't know?

I would appreciate if you didn't come in questioning my statements with such a pathetic argument. Let alone the fact you demanded proof while coming in empty handed yourself. Quite a hypocritical request, JHBThree.

 

[JHBThree]

As I implicitly said: I am using my experience to give an educated guess.
This is far more constructive then your attempts of invalidation with asking of proof while not really providing proof yourself when you are the only one of us asking for proof.

Where is this research, where are the links JHBThree?
I came in with 6 years of experience in business never claimed to be factual.
Samsung, Apple, and many others do research and we've yet to hear of these features coming from them, why do you think so? Do you really think Motorola knows something Samsung, Apple, and others don't know?

The proof is in the feature Motorola chose and the studies Google forced them to conduct. (Which has been stated a half dozen times and you have ignored) Those studies are not public, but they exist and they were extensive. We know it because Motorola's executives have said so.

The features speak for themselves. We all know Google is a data driven company, and anyone that is trying to claim that Motorola somehow was exempt from that doesn't know what they're talking about.

Your experience is your experience, and has no bearing on the studies that Motorola conducted. Surely you are aware that your experience, and the people you work with, are not at all statistically significant, right?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[asanatheist]

The proof is in the feature Motorola chose and the studies Google forced them to conduct. (Which has been stated a half dozen times and you have ignored) Those studies are not public, but they exist and they were extensive. We know it because Motorola's executives have said so.

The features speak for themselves. We all know Google is a data driven company, and anyone that is trying to claim that Motorola somehow was exempt from that doesn't know what they're talking about.

Your experience is your experience, and has no bearing on the studies that Motorola conducted. Surely you are aware that your experience, and the people you work with, are not at all statistically significant, right?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

So what part of this paragraph is not hearsay or speculation?
Studies are not public, the amount of work done and how it was done are not public.
No executive in their right mind would admit that their studies are inconclusive, specially when they have a vested interest.

Actually they are statistically significant. I don't train technicians, I train everyday people and workers. We've had customers who didn't even know how to unlock their phone's screens.