09-03-2013 07:12 PM
621 ... 45678 ...
tools
  1. Farish's Avatar
    Man Intel should get out of business because those 5-7 percent gains on Haswell versus Ivy Bridge...
    Ry and Aquila like this.
    08-26-2013 03:28 PM
  2. Ry's Avatar
    Hahaha.

    So you're proven wrong and now you're into questions that I already answered.

    The Krait 300 didn't begin manufacturing until Jan 2013. The answer to your question is NONE.

    And that doesn't mean there is NO 2012 TECHNOLOGY INSIDE A MOTO X.

    Hopefully now he gets it. Otherwise forget it. I can keep repeating the same post forever.
    Do you accept that all of these "2013" phones are just marginal improvements over "2012" phones?

    By your logic, every 2013 phone has 2012 technology - just "marginally" upgraded. And that's fine. But if you want to dismiss the Moto X for "2012" technology, the all other "2013" phones must be dismissed as well.
    Here I am agreeing with you. See bolded. I accept that the Moto X has technology from 2012. Your statement is not false.

    Just looking for clarification, which you ignored.
    08-26-2013 03:28 PM
  3. ajarnfalang's Avatar
    If you consider the completely new architecture of the Krait 300 a negligible upgrade from the different 2012 S4 Pro then ALL 2013 phones are worthless because they are using 2012 processors that have been slightly modified by switching the Krait 200s to 300s.

    In fact the Krait 400 was announced at the same time as the 300... Therefore the LG G2 is just using last year's hardware because all Qualcomm did was switch their Krait 200 cores for Krait 400 ones and we all know that the processor architecture is completely modular and is really all the same.
    Completely wrong again. That's because you live in Google.

    The LG G2 is a Snapdragon 800, Adreno 330. = totally new Tech

    Moto X (here we go again) - S4 Pro (krait 300) with Adreno 320 = marginally updated 2012 hardware.
    08-26-2013 03:29 PM
  4. thegrants82's Avatar
    If the Moto X costs as much as the GS4 to produce as you say then Motorola is really doing something wrong because half the phone should cost half the price........
    But it's been shown that the Moto X costs about as much to make as the Galaxy S4, which I'm guessing you wouldn't qualify as a "mid tier" phone. And the iPhone 5 probably costs less to make than the Moto X, and that's Apple's "flagship." The Moto X is priced the same as both at retail.

    So what, exactly, are you talking about?
    08-26-2013 03:31 PM
  5. ajarnfalang's Avatar
    Do you accept that all of these "2013" phones are just marginal improvements over "2012" phones?



    Here I am agreeing with you. See bolded. I accept that the Moto X has technology from 2012. Your statement is not false.

    Just looking for clarification, which you ignored.
    No. I don't accept that.

    Snapdragon 800 Quad Core and a Snapdragon S4 Pro dual Core with krait 300 are not the same.

    One is slightly updated old tech and the other one is completely new.
    08-26-2013 03:34 PM
  6. Haalcyon's Avatar
    Completely wrong again. That's because you live in Google.

    The LG G2 is a Snapdragon 800, Adreno 330. = totally new Tech

    Moto X (here we go again) - S4 Pro (krait 300) with Adreno 320 = marginally updated 2012 hardware.
    Why does it matter whether or not the Moto X uses yester-year tech or not?

    Sent from my humble Note 8.0 LTE
    Paisley likes this.
    08-26-2013 03:35 PM
  7. ajarnfalang's Avatar
    If the Moto X costs as much as the GS4 to produce as you say then Motorola is really doing something wrong because half the phone should cost half the price........
    Wow. You guys really don't read

    Here we go again

    It costs the same not because of the phone but because it is manufactured in the USA while the S4 is made by slaves.

    Ok?
    08-26-2013 03:36 PM
  8. ajarnfalang's Avatar
    Why does it matter whether or not the Moto X uses yester-year tech or not?

    Sent from my humble Note 8.0 LTE
    Ahahaha.

    Here we go

    I said, a few pages ago, that the Moto X is doing an Apple. Specs don't matter. What matters is the experience.

    And this is how this all started.

    Ok?
    08-26-2013 03:38 PM
  9. still1's Avatar
    wonder if ajarnfalang is paid by someone to trash talk X. just like what samsung did with HTC One. I have doubts on Crapple
    08-26-2013 03:51 PM
  10. JungleLarry's Avatar
    wonder if ajarnfalang is paid by someone to trash talk X. just like what samsung did with HTC One. I have doubts on Crapple
    He's actually not trash talking the Moto X. He's said before that the experience outweighs the specs. That's what he means by "Motorola pulling an Apple" (paraphrased).

    Right now we're just arguing for the sake of arguing. It's pretty neat.
    08-26-2013 03:53 PM
  11. LegalAmerican's Avatar
    He's got 102 posts and 101 of them are in this pointless thread.

    Still never answered my question about whether or not he's used it. Who cares if it has some 2012 features/hardware/whatever that's been "marginally improved" for 2013. I would imagine every single device on the market in 2013 could fall into that same category. Gorilla Glass 3 is a marginal improvement over 2012's Gorilla Glass 2. 1080p is a marginal improvement over 2012's 720p (not getting into the way the screen is actually produced).
    Ry and trandz like this.
    08-26-2013 03:57 PM
  12. roadkizzle's Avatar
    Completely wrong again. That's because you live in Google.

    The LG G2 is a Snapdragon 800, Adreno 330. = totally new Tech

    Moto X (here we go again) - S4 Pro (krait 300) with Adreno 320 = marginally updated 2012 hardware.
    Why are you so caught up on the name that Qualcomm gave their processor? Yes they named it a S4 Pro, but that really means nothing more than Snapdragon 600, Snapdragon 800, or X8.

    The only thing the Moto X processors have in common with 2012 ones is the fact that it only has two main processing cores and the Adreno 320.

    We really need to get rid off of using the marketing names.

    In 2012 we dual core Krait 200 processors and quad core Krait 200 ones.
    In 2013 we have Krait 300 cores. The X8 utilizes a dual core Krait 300 while the Galaxy s4 and One both use quad core Krait 300s. The LG G2 really just uses a quad core Krait 400.

    The X8 is much closer to the Snapdragon 600 processor, which can be seen by looking at the benchmark scores. The Moto X barely trails behind the Snapdragon 600 phones while is close to double the scores of all the 2012 S4 Pro's.

    Yes there is 2012 technology, but no more than in any other 2013 phones especially the ones that it is closest to.
    TheLibertarian and bp3dots like this.
    08-26-2013 03:58 PM
  13. Paisley's Avatar
    Why does it matter whether or not the Moto X uses yester-year tech or not?

    Sent from my humble Note 8.0 LTE
    Srsly. That st only matters if youre in some sort of agro meathead spec race war, which is completely stupid. If your S4 doesnt run as well on its quad core, and putting a dual core + whatever the heck else theyre doing makes the X run smooth, go ahead and lust after the G2 cuz its is now more agro than your laggy-arse S4 and you cant bear the thought of using a dual core. Who cares.

    What are these people doing? taking their big-arse plasticy-feeling laggy phone out at parties and bragging that's it's got the latest hardware which is actually no longer the latest cuz the G2 came out? wha??? that is just beyond lame. seriously, beyond. I think thats what theyre actually doing, I really do. lol. Meanwhile we have the S4's at my company and people can't wait to get rid of them.
    08-26-2013 03:58 PM
  14. Dregur's Avatar
    08-26-2013 03:59 PM
  15. Ry's Avatar
    No. I don't accept that.

    Snapdragon 800 Quad Core and a Snapdragon S4 Pro dual Core with krait 300 are not the same.

    One is slightly updated old tech and the other one is completely new.
    This is all I needed. LOL.
    Paisley, Aquila and TheLibertarian like this.
    08-26-2013 04:11 PM
  16. Haalcyon's Avatar
    Srsly. That st only matters if youre in some sort of agro meathead spec race war, which is completely stupid. If your S4 doesnt run as well on its quad core, and putting a dual core + whatever the heck else theyre doing makes the X run smooth, go ahead and lust after the G2 cuz its is now more agro than your laggy-arse S4 and you cant bear the thought of using a dual core. Who cares.

    What are these people doing? taking their big-arse plasticy-feeling laggy phone out at parties and bragging that's it's got the latest hardware which is actually no longer the latest cuz the G2 came out? wha??? that is just beyond lame. seriously, beyond. I think thats what theyre actually doing, I really do. lol. Meanwhile we have the S4's at my company and people can't wait to get rid of them.
    My, as you put it, "laggy-arse" S4 doesn't lagg that I notice but that doesn't mean others haven't had an entirely different experience. My "big-arse plastic-feeling phone" seems just fine to me and I've accepted the lower quality build materials since I keep it in a case anyways. I'm happy with my phone, but being an adult, I don't take it out with hopes of impressing others with it. It's just a phone and it's 2013. Where I frequent phones are no longer considered impressive, no matter how they look or what specs they have. Cars? Houses? Now, that's another matter. This won't stop me from seriously considering a Note 3 though.

    Sent from my humble Note 8.0 LTE
    LegalAmerican and txtoast like this.
    08-26-2013 04:40 PM
  17. garublador's Avatar
    Moto X is a mid-tier device sold at a very high price.
    But only if you look at certain specs. Try running continuous voice recognition on any other mid-tier phone and see how long the battery lasts. So far the Moto X has been getting as good, if not better, battery life than most other top end phones and that's with continuous voice activation on. It's a hardware improvement they've made that doesn't have an easily quantifiable number associated with it. People are calling it "user experience" but it's really a hardware improvement they've made in an area that doesn't have a standardized benchmark associated with it.

    You just wait. Eventually they'll take their manufacturing to Chinese slaves and will be giving the Moto X away for fee under contract and $200 bucks unlocked, when they don't sell any.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't work in electronics manufacturing. Final assembly in the US isn't horribly expensive. It's the parts and PCB manufacturing and assembly that's expensive. They're almost certainly getting that done in China. $200 worth of final assembly costs would be 10 hours at $20/hour (that's a $41k/year salary). It probably takes on the order of minutes to get it assembled in Texas by someone getting paid less than that so it's more like it costs $10 to assemble here and the fallout is probably way lower. My guess is they're making that up several times over in the lower resolution screen and limited internal storage. Those are two things that many people don't really care that much about. There are a lot of people out there who care more about battery life.

    It seems like the target for this phone is people who want these extra features that phones can offer while idle, a better battery life and don't really care about using their phone as a media/gaming device. That seems like a significant market to me.
    Ry and txtoast like this.
    08-26-2013 04:40 PM
  18. thegrants82's Avatar
    Ok then make the X in China and sell it for 300.00 That is a good price for a mid-range phone like the X. Motorola will make a killing.
    Wow. You guys really don't read

    Here we go again

    It costs the same not because of the phone but because it is manufactured in the USA while the S4 is made by slaves.

    Ok?
    08-26-2013 04:46 PM
  19. guesswhat_567's Avatar
    But only if you look at certain specs. Try running continuous voice recognition on any other mid-tier phone and see how long the battery lasts. So far the Moto X has been getting as good, if not better, battery life than most other top end phones and that's with continuous voice activation on. It's a hardware improvement they've made that doesn't have an easily quantifiable number associated with it. People are calling it "user experience" but it's really a hardware improvement they've made in an area that doesn't have a standardized benchmark associated with it.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't work in electronics manufacturing. Final assembly in the US isn't horribly expensive. It's the parts and PCB manufacturing and assembly that's expensive. They're almost certainly getting that done in China. $200 worth of final assembly costs would be 10 hours at $20/hour (that's a $41k/year salary). It probably takes on the order of minutes to get it assembled in Texas by someone getting paid less than that so it's more like it costs $10 to assemble here and the fallout is probably way lower. My guess is they're making that up several times over in the lower resolution screen and limited internal storage. Those are two things that many people don't really care that much about. There are a lot of people out there who care more about battery life.

    It seems like the target for this phone is people who want these extra features that phones can offer while idle, a better battery life and don't really care about using their phone as a media/gaming device. That seems like a significant market to me.
    Gaming is awesome on this device ..it does not get hot also ..it is just awesome in handling everything you throw at it ..you should use before commenting on how it perfoms

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-26-2013 04:48 PM
  20. Aquila's Avatar
    By your logic, every 2013 phone has 2012 technology - just "marginally" upgraded. And that's fine. But if you want to dismiss the Moto X for "2012" technology, the all other "2013" phones must be dismissed as well.

    You can't get over the "S4 Pro". You can't get over Adreno 225 vs. Adreno 320. Figured I'd bring the Krait 200 vs. Krait 300 into the discussion again (it was already discussed).
    Exactly the problem. With this false logic, the S4, One and G2 are 2012 devices and 2013 doesn't exist except for tegra 4 devices.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
    Ry likes this.
    08-26-2013 04:50 PM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    iPhone 5, GS4 and Moto X all cost about the same to make, but that's because the Moto X is built in the USA. If it was built in a Foxconn sweatshop like the other 2 it would cost about $100 bucks to make or less.
    The BOM doesn't include labor, r&d or marketing, etc. Margins are already slimmer on the moto x because the much higher sunk costs are spread over fewer units.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
    Ry likes this.
    08-26-2013 04:54 PM
  22. garublador's Avatar
    Gaming is awesome on this device ..it does not get hot also ..it is just awesome in handling everything you throw at it ..you should use before commenting on how it perfoms

    Posted via Android Central App
    Where did I say otherwise? The Moto X "only" has a 16GB internal storage option, so you're limited in the number of high end games you can have on it at one time. The screen is lower resolution as well. Someone who really cared about gaming would require more internal storage and would want a higher resolution screen. That doesn't mean you can't play games on it, just that people who buy a phone to play games look at specifications that the Moto X was not designed to excel at.
    08-26-2013 04:59 PM
  23. guesswhat_567's Avatar
    Where did I say otherwise? The Moto X "only" has a 16GB internal storage option, so you're limited in the number of high end games you can have on it at one time. The screen is lower resolution as well. Someone who really cared about gaming would require more internal storage and would want a higher resolution screen. That doesn't mean you can't play games on it, just that people who buy a phone to play games look at specifications that the Moto X was not designed to excel at.
    Sure anyone who looks at specs and Benchmarks will realize that moto x does better than s4 and HTC one in graphics department ..could be because of moto optimizations along with 720p display ..and of course any gamer will want his phone last longer which x does ..

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-26-2013 05:16 PM
  24. SteelGator's Avatar
    He's got 102 posts and 101 of them are in this pointless thread.
    ^^^^
    This

    Rant about SPECS!!!-fry-meme-trolling-stupid.jpg
    08-26-2013 05:44 PM
  25. Haalcyon's Avatar
    Steel, you're gonna get Jennifered. Be nice.

    Sent from my humble Note 8.0 LTE
    ffejjj likes this.
    08-26-2013 05:49 PM
621 ... 45678 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-27-2013, 03:37 PM
  2. need help about updateing
    By Red_Berry_21 in forum Android 4.1 / 4.2 / 4.3 Jelly Bean
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-25-2013, 07:10 PM
  3. Thoughts about Verizon Updates for the One
    By eshropshire in forum Verizon HTC One
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-25-2013, 12:23 AM
  4. spent about 15 min with the moto x
    By mcelmeel17 in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:25 PM
  5. Quick noob question about android OS.
    By rupam95 in forum Google Nexus 4
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 03:35 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD