Rant about SPECS!!!

[Ry]

Maybe when switching the S4 Pros from Krait 200/Adreno 225 to Krait 300/Adreno 320, Qualcomm should have called the newer ones S4 Pro 2s.

 

[thegrants82]

But I bet the 2012 was cheaper than the 2014.......how come you cant understand that? Moto X is a 300.00 phone Max.

The 2014 M5 uses the same powerplant as the 2012. Quick, call BMW and explain your pricing strategy before they set themselves up for colossal failure.

 

[ajarnfalang]

But I bet the 2012 was cheaper than the 2014.......how come you cant understand that? Moto X is a 300.00 phone Max.

It's $575 unlocked isn't it?

 

[Farish]

But I bet the 2012 was cheaper than the 2014.......how come you cant understand that? Moto X is a 300.00 phone Max.

It is called inflation.........

 

[JungleLarry]

But I bet the 2012 was cheaper than the 2014.......

Uhh....it is now. But UNLIKE the Moto X and its hardware, the 2012 BMW M5 was available in.....2012.

 

[thegrants82]

LOL and most of the Moto X parts were also.....

Uhh....it is now. But UNLIKE the Moto X and its hardware, the 2012 BMW M5 was available in.....2012.

 

[Farish]

Actually to be honest here,

Anybody considering buying a M5 would not care about the price difference increase or not on the 2012 versus 2014 model.

 

[Farish]

If you were take a Krait 200 and Krait 300 processor at the same clock speeds, the Krait 300 would still run in some areas anywhere from 15-25 percent better on the same benchmarks.

So this same hardware argument not so much so.

 

[JungleLarry]

LOL and most of the Moto X parts were also.....

Why....why are you doing this to us. Seriously. It hurts my soul.

Actually to be honest here,

Anybody considering buying a M5 would not care about the price difference increase or not on the 2012 versus 2014 model.

I can agree with that. It's a terrible analogy anyway, but I felt compelled to try to use his own example to show him why his argument makes no sense. Try...and fail.

The world is full of examples of items being given slight upgrades and being offered at a premium. The upcoming iPhone 5S, for instance....

P.S: 2003 was the best M5 year.

 

[ajarnfalang]

Please correct me if I make any incorrect statements -

The "S4 Pro" in the Nexus 4 (2012) uses 4 Krait 200 cores.

The "S4 Pro" in the Moto X (2013) uses 2 Krait 300 cores.

The "S4 Pro" in the Nexus 7 (second gen, 2013) uses 4 Krait 300 cores.

Are any of these statements incorrect?

Could you share which phones released in 2012 used Krait 300 cores?

Now is about the Krait 300 Cores.

First it was about the adreno 320. Now you gave up that argument knowing that MSM8960 With Adreno 320 was announced back in February 2012.

So the Moto X is a marginally upgraded 2012 MSM8960 Pro (Krait 300 gives it maybe 10% speed increase?) with the same Adreno 320 from over a year ago.

The Krait 300 didn't go into production until January so obviously they couldn't ship devices with it in 2012, but they were announcing it at the end of 2012.

And for the umpteenth time, saying the Moto X has no 2012 technology is false. What is an S4 Pro With Adreno 320 if not 2012 technology? So they bumped up a little bit upgrading to Krait 300. Whoopteedoo!

It doesn't matter how much Motorola pays you to come here and spew the X8 propaganda.

This is the reason why they never mentioned exactly what was inside the Moto X in the unveiling. They covered it up with the talk about the X8 and the phoney boloney graphic they showed the world that you alway manage to ignore when replying.

In reality the Moto X is based on marginally upgraded 2012 technology; with the addition of a couple of cores to take care of their Moto x exclusive features.

 

[Ry]

Now is about the Krait 300 Cores.

First it was about the adreno 320. Now you gave up that argument knowing that MSM8960 With Adreno 320 was announced back in February 2012.

So the Moto X is a marginally upgraded 2012 MSM8960 Pro (Krait 300 gives it maybe 10% speed increase?) with the same Adreno 320 from over a year ago.

The Krait 300 didn't go into production until January so obviously they couldn't ship devices with it in 2012, but they were announcing it at the end of 2012.

And for the umpteenth time, saying the Moto X has no 2012 technology is false.

It doesn't matter how much Motorola pays you to come here and spew the X8 propaganda.

This is the reason why they never mentioned exactly what was inside the Moto X in the unveiling. They covered it up with the talk about the X8 and the phoney boloney graphic they showed the world that you alway manage to ignore when replying.

In reality the Moto X is based on marginally upgraded 2012 technology; with the addition of a couple of cores to take care of their Moto x exclusive features.

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).

 

[rajeshr68]

In reality the Moto X is based on marginally upgraded 2012 technology; with the addition of a couple of cores to take care of their Moto x exclusive features.

Who cares? If it works for you, buy it. If not, find something else that tickles your fancy!

If the label of "2012 technology" matters to you more than real world usability then you won't really get the Moto X.

 

[ajarnfalang]

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).

S4 Pro + Adreno 320 was out in 2012.

It's 2012 technology. Maybe you'll get it the 1,000th time I tell you. OR, you can google it since its your favorite thing to do.

And as for your comment about all phones having 2012 technology. That's why they call them "mid tier" phones. The Moto X isn't a flagship expensive phone. To keep the cost down, they have to reuse internals (albeit marginally updated).

 

[LegalAmerican]

Now is about the Krait 300 Cores.

First it was about the adreno 320. Now you gave up that argument knowing that MSM8960 With Adreno 320 was announced back in February 2012.

So the Moto X is a marginally upgraded 2012 MSM8960 Pro (Krait 300 gives it maybe 10% speed increase?) with the same Adreno 320 from over a year ago.

The Krait 300 didn't go into production until January so obviously they couldn't ship devices with it in 2012, but they were announcing it at the end of 2012.

And for the umpteenth time, saying the Moto X has no 2012 technology is false. What is an S4 Pro With Adreno 320 if not 2012 technology? So they bumped up a little bit upgrading to Krait 300. Whoopteedoo!

It doesn't matter how much Motorola pays you to come here and spew the X8 propaganda.

This is the reason why they never mentioned exactly what was inside the Moto X in the unveiling. They covered it up with the talk about the X8 and the phoney boloney graphic they showed the world that you alway manage to ignore when replying.

In reality the Moto X is based on marginally upgraded 2012 technology; with the addition of a couple of cores to take care of their Moto x exclusive features.

After 5 pages of this nonsense, I have to ask........have you used the Moto X yet?

EDIT: Fixed typo's

 

[JungleLarry]

And as for your comment about all phones having 2012 technology. That's why they call them "mid tier" phones. The Moto X isn't a flagship expensive phone. To keep the cost down, they have to reuse internals (albeit marginally updated).

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?

 

[garublador]

It seems like the thing about the Moto X is that the spec advantage it has over phones like the S4 and one are all battery saving, which are difficult to quantify in a meaningful way. Being able to run stuff like always listening voice commands and location services without destroying your battery life are very real and meaningful specs, but they end up sounding more like marketing claims. It's just too difficult to really quantify "normal" use and get real numbers describing how long the battery will last. There's also the fact that more battery isn't always better. Having a phone that will work for a week straight isn't an advantage over one that works for a day if you charge your phone daily. Functionally they're the same.

So it seems as if the Moto X has poor specs for the money becasue what it really excels at is running features that are currently very new. Google Now is still only mildly useful (though I suspect it has the potential to get super awesome) and the voice activation is neat, but it's not something most people are used to using. If you don't care about those features, then a phone that has a better screen, more capacity and more processing power will be better. If you care about those features a lot, then the Moto X will be better.

So it's still all about specs, it's just that the specs the Moto X excels at aren't as apparent as specs that we're used to looking at with respect to computers.

 

[ajarnfalang]

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?

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.

 

[Ry]

S4 Pro + Adreno 320 was out in 2012.

It's 2012 technology. Maybe you'll get it the 1,000th time I tell you. OR, you can google it since its your favorite thing to do.

And as for your comment about all phones having 2012 technology. That's why they call them "mid tier" phones. The Moto X isn't a flagship expensive phone. To keep the cost down, they have to reuse internals (albeit marginally updated).

Which "2012" phone had the S4 Pro (with Krait 300 cores) and the Adreno 320 GPU?

 

[Ry]

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 Moto Xs that are going to Canada were assembled in China.

 

[ajarnfalang]

It seems like the thing about the Moto X is that the spec advantage it has over phones like the S4 and one are all battery saving, which are difficult to quantify in a meaningful way. Being able to run stuff like always listening voice commands and location services without destroying your battery life are very real and meaningful specs, but they end up sounding more like marketing claims. It's just too difficult to really quantify "normal" use and get real numbers describing how long the battery will last. There's also the fact that more battery isn't always better. Having a phone that will work for a week straight isn't an advantage over one that works for a day if you charge your phone daily. Functionally they're the same.

So it seems as if the Moto X has poor specs for the money becasue what it really excels at is running features that are currently very new. Google Now is still only mildly useful (though I suspect it has the potential to get super awesome) and the voice activation is neat, but it's not something most people are used to using. If you don't care about those features, then a phone that has a better screen, more capacity and more processing power will be better. If you care about those features a lot, then the Moto X will be better.

So it's still all about specs, it's just that the specs the Moto X excels at aren't as apparent as specs that we're used to looking at with respect to computers.

Moto X is a mid-tier device sold at a very high price.

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.