roadkizzle
Well-known member
Once again, I'll explain it again. It's sub-par for the asking price. The screen is 720p instead of 1080p, the processor is outdated, the phone itself isn't amazing. It's fast certainly, I mean Its a good phone. Just not for the money they're asking. It's sub-par for the amount of money they're asking
Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app
Tell me this. Why would you be willing to pay more for the Galaxy S4 over the Moto X when the 1080p screen gives nothing but poorer performance over a screen the human eye legitimately can't distinguish a difference in normal viewing?
Why would you pay more to a company for a phone that performs WORSE (slower, stutters, and has lag) than a phone that doesn't just because they put in two additional blocks of silicon that do nothing. The "mid ranged" phone on the other hand has a completely unique pair of silicon blocks that DO allow the phone to do completely unique things while being useful for longer with a smaller battery and size?
Samsung made really poor decisions because they are spending more money to build device that provide no benefit to the customer other than bragging rights.
The Moto X costs 199 because it is an extremely well made high end device and by all guesstimate costs only approximately 20-30 dollars less to build. But I can hazard a guess they spent a whole lot more than Samsung trying to figure out how to build a device with revolutionary features that don't kill the battery life or cause the phone to become overwhelmed.