1) How are you of the opinion that a 4.7" is too small for a display? You said a majority of Android flagship feature a larger display... Name them. Galaxy S4, Xperia Z (I believe), and... What else? Note II? Niche product. Galaxy Mega? Niche product. HTC One? 4.7".
2) You cannot tell the differences in pixels between 1080 and 720 displays. Known fact, and Motorola knows that well. They opted for a lower resolution display for the power savings, not for cost.
The phone is designed to be an ever present assistant by always listening and lasting all day. THAT is the purpose of this device: to be there for its user when called upon.
Posted via Android Central App
I'm absolutely not suggesting that 4.7 inches is too small for a display. I'm merely suggesting that when it comes to the one spec that consumers are almost universally aware of - screen size and screen resolution - the Moto X loses out. The GS4 has the clear advantage and will certainly be hard to pass up for buyers big on screen size. And regarding screen resolution, I agree with you - the differences are minimal between 720p and 1020p, but we live in the HD age, where buyers believe 1020p is superior in almost every way to 720p. A majority of consumers are going to feel like they're buying an inferior product when compared to the "1020p AMOLED 5 inch" GS4 and the "Retina" iPhone. Again, I'm certainly not suggesting the Motorola X is actually inferior. I'm merely saying that from a marketing and business perspective, they are going to lose a lot of non-tech savvy customers who are out to buy the 'latest and greatest.' Without these specs or even marketable labels (eg "Super HD") for otherwise identical or inferior specifications, they're risking a good amount of business.
As for the Always On feature, I was certainly enticed by this feature - as were others. Even the non-tech media was cheering on the notion of an "ever present assistant." But instead of making this the Great Moto X draw, as Siri was on the iPhone and as Camera features were on the GS3, Motorola decided to inject this feature into 3 other Droid phones at launch. Sure, I don't lose anything - I still get am awesome feature on an awesome phone regardless of wherever else it exists - but again, from a marketing and business perspective, it dilutes the ability of Motorola to promote the X as the 'must have' device. It would kind of be like Apple launching Siri on the iPhone and the iPod Touch concurrently, or Samsung making all of its Camera features and gestures available on its million different phones at once. I'm not saying that these things have to remain exclusives into the distant future, just that keeping them exclusive to one product at launch helps sell a phone.
Perhaps I am simply taking the Moto X out of context. Based on the manner in which Google and Microsoft have approached the X, you would've thought that they intended this phone to compete alongside the Galaxy S4's and HTC One's of the world, a true volume seller with amazing potential to become Android's best selling phone. Instead, you see Motorola AGAIN making good phones that miss the mark on marketing and advertising.
And you may be saying so what, why do we care? It's because the very survival of Android depends on a competitive framework in which Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony, and whoever
make phones that the masses want so developers will prioritize Android, so awesome social features like Hangouts and Play Games will be embraced by millions of people, and so we can get the best price points and the best features without having to compromise anything. I'm baffled as to how Motorola has missed that memo.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram