Is the Moto X still worth getting?

[JungleLarry]

Someone just asked me to recommend a phone yesterday, and I said "Moto X" without hesitation.

 

[Clocks]

Get a used 16gb on swappa for cheap and you can always resell it for virtually no loss.

 

[gunzkevin]

My recommendation would be to wait. That is if you can.

I know when the upgrade bug hits, it hits hard and waiting doesn't seem like an option. But with so many new phones coming out, you could potentially avoid buyer's remorse, or just snag a better deal on a current phone.

With the "X+1" coming out "soon", and rumors of the Nexus 6 floating around, I would try and hold off. Or, the OnePlus One if you can handle a bigger phone. Within your price range, and has a little better specs.

I personally never liked the Moto X, it was ergonomically and aesthetically a good phone, I am just a specs kind of guy. Moto's processor and 720p doesn't do it for me on paper when my Droid DNA from Nov, 2012 has 1080p. Just my two cents though.

 

[benhaube]

My recommendation would be to wait. That is if you can.

I know when the upgrade bug hits, it hits hard and waiting doesn't seem like an option. But with so many new phones coming out, you could potentially avoid buyer's remorse, or just snag a better deal on a current phone.

With the "X+1" coming out "soon", and rumors of the Nexus 6 floating around, I would try and hold off. Or, the OnePlus One if you can handle a bigger phone. Within your price range, and has a little better specs.

I personally never liked the Moto X, it was ergonomically and aesthetically a good phone, I am just a specs kind of guy. Moto's processor and 720p doesn't do it for me on paper when my Droid DNA from Nov, 2012 has 1080p. Just my two cents though.

I've never understood the specs people. Some of them act like specs are everything. The way I look at it is if the phone works well with no lag or glitches and it has stock android it is a good phone. I don't look at the spec sheet except to find out if the screen is too big (anything bigger than 5in), the size of the battery, and whether or not it has vanilla Android or some crappy skin. I see the Moto X as the best phone I've ever used, and I came to it from my higher specked Galaxy S4

Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Aquila]

I would agree with everyone thus far that indicated if you were buying a phone today that the X is still a very viable and capable device. The only caveat would be if you were thinking of buying a device in the next few months. In that case, I'd say let's look at the G3 and the X+1 first. Other than that, I'd be on the same Nexus vs X decision train and I bought the X twice.

 

[nessinhaw]

I've never understood the specs people. Some of them act like specs are everything. The way I look at it is if the phone works well with no lag or glitches and it has stock android it is a good phone. I don't look at the spec sheet except to find out if the screen is too big (anything bigger than 5in), the size of the battery, and whether or not it has vanilla Android or some crappy skin. I see the Moto X as the best phone I've ever used, and I came to it from my higher specked Galaxy S4

Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app

exactly! the Moto X wasn't made for specs whores but redefines the way Android can be optimized AND have interesting, innovative resources!

some pplz go "it's only a dual-core and only HD screen"...but it's still a powerful dual-core and it was already stated they chose HD over FHD for battery and gpu performance!

i mean...this phone is rly super fast and fluid, i find the amoled screen to be great, it lasts me 1 day of battery and it has cool, different resources...what else could i ask? lol

sent from my Moto X <3

 

[gunzkevin]

I've never understood the specs people. Some of them act like specs are everything. The way I look at it is if the phone works well with no lag or glitches and it has stock android it is a good phone. I don't look at the spec sheet except to find out if the screen is too big (anything bigger than 5in), the size of the battery, and whether or not it has vanilla Android or some crappy skin. I see the Moto X as the best phone I've ever used, and I came to it from my higher specked Galaxy S4

Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app

I'm not arguing whether or not it is a good phone, I am just stating how I feel. I like technology and I like having the latest and greatest. Just how I am. That said, I didn't say it was slow, I know they have a well optimized processor for battery and performance. But, the 720p screen kills it for me. I (and pretty much everyone) can see the difference between 1080p and 720p on the same screen size. The quality of 440ppi in a 1080p 5" phone, is still amazing to look at.

The material of the Moto X isn't the most expensive feeling either. (Yes I know it isn't the most expensive phone), but I like the feel of metal and glass ex. One M8, iPhone 5s, Xperia Z2 rather than plastic ex/ S3, S4, Moto X.

And I prefer larger phones. The added real estate is great for viewing movies and pictures, and in the case of the note, multitasking. I have larger hands so even the Note 3 can be managed one handed for simple tasks. Everything comes down to taste and preference, and that is why I'm glad manufacturers listen to everyone, and make phones accordingly.

I also like capacitive buttons rather than on screen buttons as is the google norm. They look much less tacky IMO, and don't take up home screen real-estate.
I know many disagree strongly, but like I said, everyone has their own opinion, no one is wrong.

 

[gunzkevin]

exactly! the Moto X wasn't made for specs whores but redefines the way Android can be optimized AND have interesting, innovative resources!

some pplz go "it's only a dual-core and only HD screen"...but it's still a powerful dual-core and it was already stated they chose HD over FHD for battery and gpu performance!

i mean...this phone is rly super fast and fluid, i find the amoled screen to be great, it lasts me 1 day of battery and it has cool, different resources...what else could i ask? lol

sent from my Moto X <3

You are in the market for a laptop.

Option 1 Has a quad core intel i7 processor with 8gb of DDR3 ram, and a 1080p 17" display, fed by a 4 cell lithium ion battery. Good for around 10 hours of battery.

Option 2 has a dual core intel i3 processor with 2gb of DDR3 ram, and a 720p 17" display, fed by a 2 cell lithium ion battery. Good for around 10 hours of battery.

They both perform similar for day to day tasks and you don't notice the differences, but when viewing HD videos, HD games, pictures, Option 1 is obviously stronger.

This is basically the scenario of the Moto X vs say the Xperia Z2

I would choose Option 1 for sure. Does that make me a "specs whores" (whatever that means), or just someone who thinks it would be more future proof, and rather have the extra horsepower under the hood, for when I am playing a 1080p video on my screen while running a virus scan among other things.

But that's why this world is so great, something for everyone's needs.

 

[Aquila]

You are in the market for a laptop.

Option 1 Has a quad core intel i7 processor with 8gb of DDR3 ram, and a 1080p 17" display, fed by a 4 cell lithium ion battery. Good for around 10 hours of battery.

Option 2 has a dual core intel i3 processor with 2gb of DDR3 ram, and a 720p 17" display, fed by a 2 cell lithium ion battery. Good for around 10 hours of battery.

They both perform similar for day to day tasks and you don't notice the differences, but when viewing HD videos, HD games, pictures, Option 1 is obviously stronger.

This is basically the scenario of the Moto X vs say the Xperia Z2

I would choose Option 1 for sure. Does that make me a "specs whores" (whatever that means), or just someone who thinks it would be more future proof, and rather have the extra horsepower under the hood, for when I am playing a 1080p video on my screen while running a virus scan among other things.

But that's why this world is so great, something for everyone's needs.

When the question is, "do you think a $1500 laptop is going to outperform a $400 laptop" - the answer is going to be yes for most people. The i7 etc device is going to be fairly average performing for mid-range laptops while the i3 version is going to stutter and putz around while the user wants to scream at the stupid lag machine they overpaid $400 for. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about two devices at very different price points and with very different philosophies that perform approximately equally in most aspects as they can be interpreted by humans and our measurement tools.

Here's the problem with applying that mindset to the X vs Z2, etc.... despite the Z2 being about 230% of the price of the X, the X isn't being out-performed. It's still one of the fastest to be updated devices, it's one of the fastest performing devices and it's the one of the few devices (the Z2 is another) that doesn't require users to worry about battery life - and it's doing this despite having a 31% smaller battery.

It is a little strange to compare last year's oddball to the Z2, which is very close to the top of the spec heap for early 2014, but one way of looking at the generational progression would be to evaluate if the 230% priced Z2 outperforms the X2 by at least 230% in order to justify that price and another would be to consider the actual proximate models, which would be the Z1 (they came out within 30 days of each other) and a third would be to compare their actual like offering device, which is the M2. Despite the S800 in the Z1, the Moto X and the Z1 perform very similarly and with the Z1 sitting around $500 and not available still on most plans, it'd be hard to justify it over the X unless one really wanted the water-resistance, that specific form factor or another differentiating feature. The M2 is outgunned thoroughly by the Moto G, so bringing it into the X's game is just silly, despite the M2 and the X being the same price. This leads us to conclude that the most apt comparison is the X2's Specs versus something else about the Moto X that clearly isn't on the spec sheet, yet leaves it among the top contenders in the mobile space despite several recent offerings from the giant OEM's. Isn't it strange almost to the halfway point that the top 3 devices in mobile (arguably, obviously opinions differ on exact rankings) were all released in 2013?

A parting thought on the same note... on paper if you just count cores and clock speeds, etc... the iPhone 5s is garbage. Why is it still out performing the giants of the spec world? The answer to that is two-fold and it is the same answer as to why the X8 in the Moto X consistently out-performs the S600 in the S4 (as an example) and the S800 (as another example) in the X1 on many tasks. I'd strongly recommend reading AnandTech's review on the X and the iPhone 5s regarding CPU and GPU performance.

I definitely understand your point, if the software was the same, the quality of components and kernel development, dalvik optimization, etc was the same and if the update cycles were similar - and if they were priced the same or in a justifiably value neutral manner and the only differentiation was a noticeable scaling of performance due entirely to hardware component decisions that rested in the count of cores and the number of pixels, then which is the better value? That answer would be obvious, but the market will fortunately never ask us to make that determination.

TL,DR - This question is ultimately more akin to asking whether a Lamborghini or a Porsche gets better gas mileage while both travel next to each other at 60 mph for the exact same length of time.

 

[BlueGoldAce]

When the question is, "do you think a $1500 laptop is going to outperform a $400 laptop" - the answer is going to be yes for most people. The i7 etc device is going to be fairly average performing for mid-range laptops while the i3 version is going to stutter and putz around while the user wants to scream at the stupid lag machine they overpaid $400 for. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about two devices at very different price points and with very different philosophies that perform approximately equally in most aspects as they can be interpreted by humans and our measurement tools.

Here's the problem with applying that mindset to the X vs Z2, etc.... despite the Z2 being about 230% of the price of the X, the X isn't being out-performed. It's still one of the fastest to be updated devices, it's one of the fastest performing devices and it's the one of the few devices (the Z2 is another) that doesn't require users to worry about battery life - and it's doing this despite having a 31% smaller battery.

It is a little strange to compare last year's oddball to the Z2, which is very close to the top of the spec heap for early 2014, but one way of looking at the generational progression would be to evaluate if the 230% priced Z2 outperforms the X2 by at least 230% in order to justify that price and another would be to consider the actual proximate models, which would be the Z1 (they came out within 30 days of each other) and a third would be to compare their actual like offering device, which is the M2. Despite the S800 in the Z1, the Moto X and the Z1 perform very similarly and with the Z1 sitting around $500 and not available still on most plans, it'd be hard to justify it over the X unless one really wanted the water-resistance, that specific form factor or another differentiating feature. The M2 is outgunned thoroughly by the Moto G, so bringing it into the X's game is just silly, despite the M2 and the X being the same price. This leads us to conclude that the most apt comparison is the X2's Specs versus something else about the Moto X that clearly isn't on the spec sheet, yet leaves it among the top contenders in the mobile space despite several recent offerings from the giant OEM's. Isn't it strange almost to the halfway point that the top 3 devices in mobile (arguably, obviously opinions differ on exact rankings) were all released in 2013?

A parting thought on the same note... on paper if you just count cores and clock speeds, etc... the iPhone 5s is garbage. Why is it still out performing the giants of the spec world? The answer to that is two-fold and it is the same answer as to why the X8 in the Moto X consistently out-performs the S600 in the S4 (as an example) and the S800 (as another example) in the X1 on many tasks. I'd strongly recommend reading AnandTech's review on the X and the iPhone 5s regarding CPU and GPU performance.

I definitely understand your point, if the software was the same, the quality of components and kernel development, dalvik optimization, etc was the same and if the update cycles were similar - and if they were priced the same or in a justifiably value neutral manner and the only differentiation was a noticeable scaling of performance due entirely to hardware component decisions that rested in the count of cores and the number of pixels, then which is the better value? That answer would be obvious, but the market will fortunately never ask us to make that determination.

TL,DR - This question is ultimately more akin to asking whether a Lamborghini or a Porsche gets better gas mileage while both travel next to each other at 60 mph for the exact same length of time.

Well put....


And with that, it is still worth getting.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

 

[Aquila]

To be fair to the Z2 - it's a monster of a device for people that can get it on their service, etc.

This person has a point: http://forums.androidcentral.com/sony-xperia-z2/389095-sony-xperia-z2-perfect-smartphone.html

 

[oldDummy]

.....I posted this prior. Think it's worth repeating.........
.

Moto X is Smartphone D
[Smokes everything out there]

Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test

Read more: Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech

 

[gunzkevin]

When the question is, "do you think a $1500 laptop is going to outperform a $400 laptop" - the answer is going to be yes for most people. The i7 etc device is going to be fairly average performing for mid-range laptops while the i3 version is going to stutter and putz around while the user wants to scream at the stupid lag machine they overpaid $400 for. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about two devices at very different price points and with very different philosophies that perform approximately equally in most aspects as they can be interpreted by humans and our measurement tools.

Here's the problem with applying that mindset to the X vs Z2, etc.... despite the Z2 being about 230% of the price of the X, the X isn't being out-performed. It's still one of the fastest to be updated devices, it's one of the fastest performing devices and it's the one of the few devices (the Z2 is another) that doesn't require users to worry about battery life - and it's doing this despite having a 31% smaller battery.

It is a little strange to compare last year's oddball to the Z2, which is very close to the top of the spec heap for early 2014, but one way of looking at the generational progression would be to evaluate if the 230% priced Z2 outperforms the X2 by at least 230% in order to justify that price and another would be to consider the actual proximate models, which would be the Z1 (they came out within 30 days of each other) and a third would be to compare their actual like offering device, which is the M2. Despite the S800 in the Z1, the Moto X and the Z1 perform very similarly and with the Z1 sitting around $500 and not available still on most plans, it'd be hard to justify it over the X unless one really wanted the water-resistance, that specific form factor or another differentiating feature. The M2 is outgunned thoroughly by the Moto G, so bringing it into the X's game is just silly, despite the M2 and the X being the same price. This leads us to conclude that the most apt comparison is the X2's Specs versus something else about the Moto X that clearly isn't on the spec sheet, yet leaves it among the top contenders in the mobile space despite several recent offerings from the giant OEM's. Isn't it strange almost to the halfway point that the top 3 devices in mobile (arguably, obviously opinions differ on exact rankings) were all released in 2013?

A parting thought on the same note... on paper if you just count cores and clock speeds, etc... the iPhone 5s is garbage. Why is it still out performing the giants of the spec world? The answer to that is two-fold and it is the same answer as to why the X8 in the Moto X consistently out-performs the S600 in the S4 (as an example) and the S800 (as another example) in the X1 on many tasks. I'd strongly recommend reading AnandTech's review on the X and the iPhone 5s regarding CPU and GPU performance.

I definitely understand your point, if the software was the same, the quality of components and kernel development, dalvik optimization, etc was the same and if the update cycles were similar - and if they were priced the same or in a justifiably value neutral manner and the only differentiation was a noticeable scaling of performance due entirely to hardware component decisions that rested in the count of cores and the number of pixels, then which is the better value? That answer would be obvious, but the market will fortunately never ask us to make that determination.

TL,DR - This question is ultimately more akin to asking whether a Lamborghini or a Porsche gets better gas mileage while both travel next to each other at 60 mph for the exact same length of time.

Well lets not get things out of proportion. The Z2 is not almost 4 times as much money as the Moto X. ~$640 for the Z2, and ~$350 for the X 16gb.
The Z2 is ~182% the price of the X. (The Z2 is $699.99 CA = ~$640)

For 82% money, you are getting a glass and metal constructed phone, waterproof to 3 meters for an hour, 1080p 5.2" screen, 20.7mp camera that can shoot video at 4K HD (underwater!!!!), and a near stock android interface. Even ignoring the internals, it sounds like it is worth it to me. But like I have been saying. I am not arguing whether the Moto X is a fast phone, I just said I personally would not buy one. I think it is cheap looking, and specs are important to me.

Everyone has their preference.

 

[gunzkevin]

.....I posted this prior. Think it's worth repeating.........
.
View attachment 117325
Moto X is Smartphone D
[Smokes everything out there]

Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test

Read more: Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech

I'll quote that test too.

"Those other devices include the Samsung Galaxy S4, Samsung Galaxy Note II, HTC One and LG G2, which were tested over the 700 MHz Band 17 used by AT&T (NYSE:T). The Moto X was tested on 700 MHz Band 13, used by Verizon Wireless

Read more: Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
Subscribe at FierceWirelessTech"

Considering the Moto X is the only phone not tested on AT&T, I don't take these results seriously.

It could be that much faster, but because the test was flawed by using two different bands from two different providers, with different towers, I don't know for sure.

 

[Aquila]

Well lets not get things out of proportion. The Z2 is not almost 4 times as much money as the Moto X. ~$640 for the Z2, and ~$350 for the X 16gb.
The Z2 is ~182% the price of the X. (The Z2 is $699.99 CA = ~$640)

For 82% money, you are getting a glass and metal constructed phone, waterproof to 3 meters for an hour, 1080p 5.2" screen, 20.7mp camera that can shoot video at 4K HD (underwater!!!!), and a near stock android interface. Even ignoring the internals, it sounds like it is worth it to me. But like I have been saying. I am not arguing whether the Moto X is a fast phone, I just said I personally would not buy one. I think it is cheap looking, and specs are important to me.

Everyone has their preference.

Yep, I don't think we agree on the point either of is making, just about the analogy The price I saw was via https://www.google.com/search?q=xpe...hrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=xperia+z2&tbm=shop where they're all right in the $800 range, so that's what I used but it doesn't change too much whether we're talking 180% or 230% - realistically, I don't think we're considering a $50-100 price difference the main point but knowing it can be had for $100 less is even more of a point in favor of the Z2. It's definitely an awesome phone. It's ringing a lot of bells and making a huge effort not to fall down in the same pitfalls some other OEM's catch when they're trying the same game. I'm definitely impressed with it.

 

[RavenSword]

Hmm. I might as well wait and see what the new phones like. I should probably save for a bit anyway. Thanks for all the advice guys

 

[oldDummy]

I'll quote that test too.

"Those other devices include the Samsung Galaxy S4, Samsung Galaxy Note II, HTC One and LG G2, which were tested over the 700 MHz Band 17 used by AT&T (NYSE:T). The Moto X was tested on 700 MHz Band 13, used by Verizon Wireless


Considering the Moto X is the only phone not tested on AT&T, I don't take these results seriously.

It could be that much faster, but because the test was flawed by using two different bands from two different providers, with different towers, I don't know for sure.

.
Michael Thelander, Signals Research's founder and CEO, said use of different bands did not cause differences in the devices' performance, given that Band 13 and Band 17 are fairly close together on the spectrum chart. "I'm confident that if we had tested a Moto X phone that supported Band 17 in Band 17 that the results would be largely the same," told FierceWirelessTech.


.
Careful about believing any post nowadays.
I agree. However:
It is what it is.
The graph speaks for itself.

.

 

[Ry]

I'll quote that test too.

"Those other devices include the Samsung Galaxy S4, Samsung Galaxy Note II, HTC One and LG G2, which were tested over the 700 MHz Band 17 used by AT&T (NYSE:T). The Moto X was tested on 700 MHz Band 13, used by Verizon Wireless

Read more: Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech Google's Moto X tops LTE network connectivity test - FierceWirelessTech
Subscribe at FierceWirelessTech"

Considering the Moto X is the only phone not tested on AT&T, I don't take these results seriously.

It could be that much faster, but because the test was flawed by using two different bands from two different providers, with different towers, I don't know for sure.

Agreed.

Posted via Android Central App (Moto X)

 

[macnuss]

moto x

Is It still worth buying.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[ScottMGS]

Re: moto x

Yes.