All the talk about the battery got me to thinking. People are saying that the screen size/resolution + battery size will result in average battery life at best. Let's assume this is correct; if we assume that, however, we also have to assume Moto is very well aware of it as well. The question then becomes why? Why would Moto saddle their flagship with "average" battery life?
The only answer I can come up with is they determined the alternatives all had far worse trade-offs. A bigger battery would have made the phone heavier, and maybe their research showed that Joe Average Consumer would pick up the phone once, mutter "ugh, this thing is a brick," immediately put it down, and move on. Maybe a lesser screen would have done the same, especially side-by-side with the newest phone from Samsung or LG. Maybe they had production or quality control issues with a larger battery. Maybe they determined that most people only need around three hours of screen-on time, and decided the turbo charger would be a suitable bandage for those who need more.
I don't know. I'm just speculating. All I'm saying is this obviously was not a decision they took lightly, and we don't know what all went into that decision. Time will tell whether or not it was a good one, and for some of us it won't matter. Some people need/demand high SOT, and that's fine. This may not be the phone for them. But maybe it will surprise us. Personally I'm not thrilled about the size and the screen type, but I'm withholding judgment until review time. Perhaps in the end it won't matter.