After the Moto X (2014) reveal, are you excited?

[YAYTech]

The difference is once the QHD is taking of apps will find ways to make it more useful and the biggest benefit for me would be it reduces scrolling.

Indeed it increases costs but if it boosts sales too might have been worth it

I don't see how it would make apps more useful or reduce scrolling - the screen size is the same, and readability is the same (since it's at a PPI beyond what we can discern differences in), so unless people are unable to make apps that rescale, how will it do either of those things?

We can debate about what would lead to more sales all day. Yes, a higher res screen would increase appeal (even if it's likely to lack a discernible benefit), since there are a number of buyers who buy on specs alone. However, cost affects sales too, and if they have to bump up the cost of the phone much to include it, I think there's a good chance the loss of sales from price increase would likely more than offset an increase in sales from a superfluous spec bump. So unless Motorola is just supposed to eat the extra cost, I don't see it increasing sales overall.

 

[Ry]

We all know that stronger marketing will lead to more sales.

 

[ScottMGS]

Excited? About the hardware, no. Screen's too big. About the software, yes. Looking forward to what will be ported to the original X.

 

[mpetruzz]

I have a g3 after using a moto x since launch. The qhd screen is nice but honestly its not such a big difference I wouldn't get a phone if it didn't have qhd.

I gave my moto x to my wife and yesterday when I picked it up I did notice how different the screen looked. It wasn't bad, but def a downgrade after seeing qhd for a few weeks.

 

[mpetruzz]

Excited? About the hardware, no. Screen's too big. About the software, yes. Looking forward to what will be ported to the original X.

Its already been confirmed by Motorola that the new software features aren't being ported to the original moto x!!

 

[Ry]

Its already been confirmed by Motorola that the new software features aren't being ported to the original moto x!!

Link?

 

[mpetruzz]

Link?

I saw many threads where people posted the twitter responses from Motorola execs saying the new features aren't coming to the OG moto x.

 

[Ry]

I saw many threads where people posted the twitter responses from Motorola execs saying the new features aren't coming to the OG moto x.

http://forums.androidcentral.com/showthread.php?t=434190#post3877459

 

[Citizen Coyote]

That tea set image is awful IMO. Any of the current flagships (even the ones from 2013) could do better. Look at the full res image for that picture...that noise is a mess. This is a 100% crop:

I saw that image. What I have not seen is a comparable image from other smartphones in the same lighting conditions of the same subject. Maybe you can pass judgment without a control, but I can't. Also, the photos you linked from the Nexus 5 do not seem to be of the same resolution as the one from Ars, making comparisons difficult.

 

[Citizen Coyote]

This should be the LOW bar for any flagship camera in 2014 IMO. The Nexus is almost a year old at this point. Any current flagships coming out right now should be spanking these pictures in lowlight and an obvious way.

Apparently Samsung didn't get the message. This is a 100% crop of a photo from AC's Galaxy S5 vs Nexus 5 post from a few months back.



Look at all that noise!

The point of all this is you're judging the worth of the camera off a single photo. I could find a terrible photo online from any phone and post it as "proof" that the camera sucks. Side by side comparisons are the best way to evaluate smartphone cameras in relation to one another, and we don't have those yet for the Moto X 2014. That is why I said you were being presumptuous in your judgment. But hey, if you want to believe the Moto X 2014 camera sucks based on the scant photos we've seen so far (and Moto's past history in this department, which is admittedly not stellar), that's fully your choice.

 

[JeffDenver]

I saw that image.

That image alone tells me what I need to know...regardless of what any comparison photos might have looked like. Even an incredibly bad photographer would have a hard time reproducing that on purpose on a good phone camera.

What I have not seen is a comparable image from other smartphones in the same lighting conditions of the same subject. Maybe you can pass judgment without a control, but I can't. Also, the photos you linked from the Nexus 5 do not seem to be of the same resolution as the one from Ars, making comparisons difficult.

Thats the irony...the Nexus 5 camera is actually almost half as many MP...this is a textbook example of how more MP does not = better.

If AC review photos from the new Moto X show that these were an aberration, I'll be happy to publically admit I am wrong on here. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[JeffDenver]

Apparently Samsung didn't get the message. This is a 100% crop of a photo from AC's Galaxy S5 vs Nexus 5 post from a few months back.

Look at all that noise!

I agree. These are from that same post. These are AC images.





Which side do you think looks better? It's easy for a camera to deliver little noise in daylight photos. Low-light is the real test.

That being said, I am the first to admit the S5 has a great camera. Light years better than the new Moto X, if the ARS images are any indication.

 

[Citizen Coyote]

I agree. These are from that same post. These are AC images.

View attachment 135811

View attachment 135812

Which side do you think looks better? It's easy for a camera to deliver little noise in daylight photos. Low-light is the real test.

That being said, I am the first to admit the S5 has a great camera. Light years better than the new Moto X, if the ARS images are any indication.

If anything, our spirited back and forth has shown me that the Nexus 5 has a rather good low light camera, of which I was not aware (I had previously thought it was adequate but nothing special). I will also note that the Verge's recently posted review of the Moto X 2014 notes the low light performance was not very impressive, but they didn't call it bad.

I guess it just all depends on how you plan on using the camera. I know people who wouldn't touch the HTC One M8 because of its camera, while others think it's just fine. On the new X, I have yet to see anything overly alarming, while you have. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

 

[CarbonOak]

Not the same hardware as the S5...the S5 has a way better camera. The S5 is also waterproof.



The camera still sucks, especially in lowlight. I don't think it is worse than the original Moto X, but it is definitely not in the same league as a GS5/G3/G2/Nexus5 and probably the M8. It has a MP bump, but thats it. Still sucks in low light. See for yourself here - Hands-on: Moto G and Moto X get big screen updates—but not new names | Ars Technica - Look at the full resolution version of that silver tea set picture.

It does do 4k video though. And daylight photos (as with the original Moto X) are still decent.

I've read several other previews/reviews and the camera is indeed an improvement over the original Moto X, though not by much. I agree that the Nexus and the iPhone do much better camera shots, and really every company should strive to at least meet those standards, but it isn't a deal-breaker for me.

Everything else about the phone seems pretty great so far from what I've read. Battery life, though not ultra amazing, is at least on-par, if not also slightly better than the original Moto X. I'm okay with both the camera and the battery being only slight improvements.

I guess the question is: With camera and battery life on-par/slightly better than the first Moto X, and the rest of the hardware and software much better, is that enough to convince me to get the new one less than a year after the original? I'm going to have to read about it some more and play with one in my hands first. But I'm liking what I see so far.

Of course, one could ask the same question about every new phone iteration, whether it be the iPhone, the Galaxy line, the LG G series, etc.

 

[mpetruzz]

I'm really bummed about Tue camera. I do use mine quite a bit and over the past year there were more times than not where I'd look through pics I took and many were just plain bad.

If it's marginally better and the other new features will be ported I'd prolly stay with the original due to form factor.

 

[JeffDenver]

If anything, our spirited back and forth has shown me that the Nexus 5 has a rather good low light camera, of which I was not aware

Neither is everyone else. I've been trying to tell people this for the better part of a year now.

I have no idea why the nerd media (yes, even Android Central, Champions of Nexus products...Droid Life panned the camera as well) got it into their heads that the Nexus has a mediocre camera. But it's probably the best Android phone camera of 2013 except maybe for the G2. OIS is a really big deal, and smartphone makers need to jump on the OIS bandwagon quick.

(I had previously thought it was adequate but nothing special). I will also note that the Verge's recently posted review of the Moto X 2014 notes the low light performance was not very impressive, but they didn't call it bad.

On a flagship phone "mediocre" is the same thing as "bad". If this is Moto's flagship, it should be better than almost anything released last year IMO. This is basically a really good midrange phone without it.

Not everyone cares about the camera of course, and the Moto X is certainly not lacking anywhere else...I even think the battery complaints are overblown. Thats why I am so ticked off about the camera. I really wanted to love this phone. I was considering upgrading to it.

I guess it just all depends on how you plan on using the camera. I know people who wouldn't touch the HTC One M8 because of its camera, while others think it's just fine.

They're right. The M8 camera is fine. It's MP sucks, but it still has great quality. Lowlight is very good on it. If it was not for washed out daylight photos I would have loved it. And it has the hardware-supported lens-blur gimmick which a lot of people would still use (I have used the software version of that on the Nexus before myself, though not often).

 

[JeffDenver]

I guess the question is: With camera and battery life on-par/slightly better than the first Moto X, and the rest of the hardware and software much better, is that enough to convince me to get the new one less than a year after the original?

It would for me. The hard cold fact is that there is no one else on the market offering what Moto is offering...that touchless control thing is really cool, and can only be approximated by the competition. It's a jackpot as far as gimmicks go...a gimmick that people actually want and care about. Samsung and HTC need to be taking notes.

So if you want that on the best possible hardware, your only option is to upgrade to the 2014 model.

Of course, one could ask the same question about every new phone iteration, whether it be the iPhone, the Galaxy line, the LG G series, etc.

Naw...I think the G3 and GS5 are significantly better than their predecessors. The iPhone 6 probably will be too.

 

[KennyC78]

Not really excited about it now.

For one, the screen size of 5.2" is a little too big for me, sadly. Something in the region of 5" or smaller would have been perfect. The battery size is also a big concern for me. I think if they had fitted in 2700mAh, it would have alleviated the concerns felt by a lot of people.

1080p is meh. I would be equally happy with 720p. I've been managing with 16Gb on my N4 pretty fine, but it's pure stock. Have read somewhere that free space on the X by default is around the 10Gb mark, for the 16Gb version. I think that might be an issue for me since it doesn't have a SD slot, unless the 32Gb version is more widely available than the 16Gb one.

It's now a toss-up between the new Moto X and the Z3 compact for me, and I'm nowhere near to a decision.

 

[JeffDenver]

I saw that image. What I have not seen is a comparable image from other smartphones in the same lighting conditions of the same subject. Maybe you can pass judgment without a control, but I can't.

Here you go.







Source: Review: In its second generation, the Moto X becomes a true flagship | Ars Technica

The reviews seem to be consistent - "The camera is better this time around, but not hugely so, and it is still inconsistent. It’s really fast, almost as fast as the iPhone 5S, but images are still grainy and blurry in medium to low light and the focus can be unreliable even in good light. I didn’t find the ring flash to be much better or different than any other smartphone flash either." - http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/8/6121143/motorola-moto-x-2014-new-review

Phandroid also has some samples - http://phandroid.com/2014/09/05/motorola-moto-x-2nd-gen-camera-samples-video-photos/ - In bright light, it's really not awful. That car picture is actually very nice.

 

[Citizen Coyote]

Well it does seem to be lacking in low light compared to the Nexus 5, at least in the situation Ars tested in. I'd like to see more comparisons under different low light conditions, but given that the daylight shots are pretty nice the camera is not a deal breaker for me by any means. A software update may potentially help address these issues; I recall the Nexus 5 camera was also improved by a later software update. Or was that the original Moto X?