I actually saw that on Google+ yesterday. I thought that it was interesting, but it is hard to argue with. I think that it is telling that the phone isn't spec'd out like all of the other smartphones that hit the market in 2013. Who would have thought that a phone with a 4.7 inch 720p screen, with a slightly slower processor and a questionable camera would be the best smartphone for the year? But like I said, it would be hard to argue that it isn't. It I didn't have the Nexus 5, I would have definitely gone with the Moto X.
I think it is telling too that Roku refreshed their entire line last year and yet the home theather gadget of the year is a $35 dongle that you can't even use by itself. We have gotten to the point in a lot of tech where the most powerful is not always the best. You can sacrafice power and more than make up for it with an elegant user experience and have a better product.
...I had a moto x and it couldn't hold a candle to the LG G2 or my Nexus 5, and I'm not just talking about specs.
So says Engadget. Obviously, opinions are like you know what... I had a moto x and it couldn't hold a candle to the LG G2 or my Nexus 5, and I'm not just talking about specs.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Of course there are going to be people who think differently with the staff at Engadget. But I do think that it is noteworthy that the Moto X was the smartphone they chose. And it is particularly interesting why they chose it. When it comes to Android, specs have been what consumers focused on. But with the Moto X, that wasn't the intention. It was user experience and they hit a homerun. I also thought it showed that manufacturers don't have to continue to oversize smartphones to have a hit. Not only that, it also shows how great performance could be if manufacturers scaled back on their skins.
This clearly shows that Motorola or Google got it right. While the other brands don't have a clue.
That's an interesting pair of comparisons. I considered both of those gadgets. I decided against the G2 because it was too large to hold comfortably (for me) and against the Nexus for a variety of reasons. But one aspect I cared a lot about was battery life, and I understood that the Nexus had significantly worse battery life than the Moto X, and the LG G2 had significantly better battery life. Is that what you found? Or was I misinformed?So says Engadget. Obviously, opinions are like you know what... I had a moto x and it couldn't hold a candle to the LG G2 or my Nexus 5, and I'm not just talking about specs.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
This clearly shows that Motorola or Google got it right. While the other brands don't have a clue.
I wouldn't say the others don't have a clue. There's a market for what they produce, as evidenced by their sales. But I think Motorola hit the mail on the head in trying to address a previously ignored part of the market.
Sent from my Moto X using TapaTalk
I wouldn't say the others don't have a clue. There's a market for what they produce, as evidenced by their sales. But I think Motorola hit the mail on the head in trying to address a previously ignored part of the market.
Sent from my Moto X using TapaTalk
...That said, I hope that Lenovo's direction for Motorola doesn't take it into the spec wars that the two top Korean makers (and maybe Sony) seem to want to stoke with their leapfrogging screen resolutions and number of features that many of us would never end up using.
I wonder how it handles the heavy games..I wouldn't say the others don't have a clue. There's a market for what they produce, as evidenced by their sales. But I think Motorola hit the mail on the head in trying to address a previously ignored part of the market.
Sent from my Moto X using TapaTalk
So says Engadget. Obviously, opinions are like you know what... I had a moto x and it couldn't hold a candle to the LG G2 or my Nexus 5, and I'm not just talking about specs.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk