Ok so Leo Laporte is reporting 25 percent battery used with 3 hours usage and 1-1/2 hour on screen time. That would add up to 6 hours on screen time. I'm good with that.
I no longer think laporte is reliable. Am still reading reviews, but what surprises me is the different reviews. Read the Engadget and verge reviews and I was like, are they reviewing the same phone???
Posted via Android Central App
Here's how I understand it:
The battery itself is not exceptional, so there's no way it's going to beat out devices like the Maxx. The way the phone uses its power is different, but the real battery savings come from actually changing the way you interact with your device. This is apparent from the various "tests" people have done on the phone; stress tests that involve constant screen-on time and such report average to slight-better-than-average battery life, while real world usage tests seem to be more favorable. This plays into the entire philosophy of the device's design anyway -- why shoehorn bigger spec'd hardware in a phone when you can optimize what's already there? If you watch movies all day on your phone, you're not going to be blown away by the battery life on the Moto X. The people who will notice a difference, I'm guessing, are those who no longer have to turn on their entire display just to check their notifcations, etc.
Motorola didn't suddenly invent more power reserve in a smaller battery. What they've done is akin to high-power sports cars that limit their engine output at freeway speeds to save gas mileage. If you stuff the gas pedal into the floor, of course you're going to have to fill up every 50 miles. But if you just drive normally, you'll definitely feel the benefits of only using four cylinders instead of eight.
Thx for post. His reviews are always right on point. Great guy.. I am soldhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJTlB_S7ct0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Good review and the battery life seems to be on par with the verge figures as well. I waiting to see whats AC and Phonedog get but it seems you can get 2-6 hours more than most popular smartphones today. It seems you can get 24 hours with minimal use but moderate to high seems to be 12-16 hours.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
I thought the idea of Peek was that you wouldn't be turning the screen on as much. If that's the case wouldn't stand by time be far more important?
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
I don't quite understand what you are getting at?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using AC Forums mobile app
I thought the idea of Peek was that you wouldn't be turning the screen on as much. If that's the case wouldn't stand by time be far more important?
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
I've never understood the focus on screen on time.
That's especially true for this phone, where the idea is that you're not powering the screen on all the time to see notifications.
I get that use cases are different, and I know mine have changed, but I have a Nexus 7 for media consumption and gaming. My phone battery will be used for keeping in touch with people.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
To me it rely doesn't seem that the Engadget and Verge reviews are very different.
The two biggest points of divergence i see are in their opinions on the aesthetics of the device and battery life.
The only real complaints i see on the Engadget review about the looks are the back scuffed and the front white face looked cheap. I really think that the big problem is that I feel all glossy white phones look a lot cheaper than their black counterparts. Also the light colored backs will always show more dirt and scuffs than the dark ones.
The Verge battery test showed 7 hours rather than Engadgets 24+ anecdotal evidence. The Verge one was a full screen on time test surfing webpages. They did say the Moto X faired much better than the the leading phones.
What else did you see that seems to be a big point of divergence between the two reviews?