Rant about SPECS!!!

[Aquila]

lol, my fault. Everything based upon an earlier design is obviously the same thing. Therefore all 2013 devices are clay tablets carved with fire hardened sticks and all buildings are obviously caves. Give us a break guys, were obviously not as adept at infinite regression based reductionism and the other misused logic traps that morons like to cling to. Based upon and similar to are not the same concepts as the same as.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Jeremy_Collinsworth]

I think you are acting like the CEO of Samsung

Because Samsung is making good choices for the customers and are owning the market? This is rant on specs, I can rant if I wish

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Aquila]

The SOC is not a bunch of Legos that get mashed together and dissected for each Lego's origin. Its a comprehensive computing system. Being the first, even with similarities, is still the first.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[anon(847090)]

Because Samsung is making good choices for the customers and are owning the market? This is rant on specs, I can rant if I wish

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

no because over here you are defending all of samsungs choices

 

[Ry]

Oh of course it is, I'm not saying the screen is bad at all. But seriously, if the technology exists to make it look sharper why not use it? They want the same amount of money for something that does have upgraded specs? I say Noooooo to that. I'm not saying the device is bad either, seriously you guys are warping my words. I'm pretty sure this thread is "rant on specs", or am I in the wrong place?

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

Diminishing returns.

 

[Jeremy_Collinsworth]

no because over here you are defending all of samsungs choices

Indeed I am, because they made good choices. HTC made excellent choices as well. Motorola? Ehh great software but lacking in hardware at least for the Moto X. Call me a Samsung fan boy, but they're owning the market. Once again, I'm not saying the Moto X is a bad phone, it's a great phone. It's just not something I would buy with the current options available

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[ajarnfalang]

You have an android device with krait 300s from prior to April? A key element of the soc explanation is that it is not modular. Either way, that would only be the end of what you're missing if it wasn't custom. By definition, a custom product is different than others. The first X8 mobile computing system went on sale this August. That makes it Q3 2013 tech. Your explanation still relegates the S4, One, G2 and Note 3 to being 2012 devices, in addition to the droids and x.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

We have them running 320 Adreno GPUs, which makes the comment "there is NO 2012 Technology inside" false.

The end.

 

[Strawdawg]

Motorola built the phone to give good battery performance which is a major complaint every time a phone comes out. They did not build if the guys that buy specs.

From all accounts the phone performs to the eye as well as anything out there...account of actual users, that is.

Science says the normal person cannot readily tell the difference on a 4.7" display between 720 and 1080. It appears that Moto was trying to achieve their goal to provide great performance and good battery life for the target audience. If you are a spec kinda guy, then this is not the phone for you and why it would concern anyone that buys specs is beyond to me. It has not been advertised as anything other than it is....

 

[ajarnfalang]

Oh of course it is, I'm not saying the screen is bad at all. But seriously, if the technology exists to make it look sharper why not use it? They want the same amount of money for something that does have upgraded specs? I say Noooooo to that. I'm not saying the device is bad either, seriously you guys are warping my words. I'm pretty sure this thread is "rant on specs", or am I in the wrong place?

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

It won't. Going from 720 to 1080p on a 4.7" screen is madness. The difference won't be noticeable by anyone and all you will be doing is draining the battery.

 

[Aquila]

We have them running 320 Adreno GPUs, which makes the comment "there is NO 2012 Technology inside" false.

The end.

I know that is your argument, you've been repeating versions of it all day. What we're trying to help you understand is the reason the argument is incorrect and how to correctly grasp the architecture.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[ajarnfalang]

The SOC is not a bunch of Legos that get mashed together and dissected for each Lego's origin. Its a comprehensive computing system. Being the first, even with similarities, is still the first.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

And it has an Adreno 320 GPU. Which was available last year on many phones.

The Moto X has it, therefore it has 2012 technology.

 

[Jeremy_Collinsworth]

Motorola built the phone to give good battery performance which is a major complaint every time a phone comes out. They did not build if the guys that buy specs.

From all accounts the phone performs to the eye as well as anything out there...account of actual users, that is.

Science says the normal person cannot readily tell the difference on a 4.7" display between 720 and 1080. It appears that Moto was trying to achieve their goal to provide great performance and good battery life for the target audience. If you are a spec kinda guy, then this is not the phone for you and why it would concern anyone that buys specs is beyond to me. It has not been advertised as anything other than it is....

I'm not saying it's a bad phone! I'm saying it's sub-par on specs! It was designed for battery life, everyone knows that. I'm just pointing out the specs. And this thread is rant about specs right? Exactly

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Smh. Circles. We're going in circles.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

 

[anon(847090)]

Indeed I am, because they made good choices. HTC made excellent choices as well. Motorola? Ehh great software but lacking in hardware at least for the Moto X. Call me a Samsung fan boy, but they're owning the market. Once again, I'm not saying the Moto X is a bad phone, it's a great phone. It's just not something I would buy with the current options available

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

isnt that your opinion?? then why r u arguing with someone who's opinion is that Moto is making a good choice.

dont push ur opinion to others. if you are happy with your choice so be it.

your spec rant is pointless. Moto X runs smooth and its all about experience just like iPhone with only dual core and 1 gb ram and iphone users think its superior.

 

[Jeremy_Collinsworth]

It won't. Going from 720 to 1080p on a 4.7" screen is madness. The difference won't be noticeable by anyone and all you will be doing is draining the battery.

The screen size for the Samsung galaxy s4 is 5 inches, not far off. It makes a difference. It's amazing how mad you guys get when facts are pointed out. It's like trying to tell a baby the TV isn't magic and you guys are defending it is

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Jeremy_Collinsworth]

isnt that your opinion?? then why r u arguing with someone who's opinion is that Moto is making a good choice.

dont push ur opinion to others. if you are happy with your choice so be it.

Well its not an amazing choice because it has sub-par specs. Back in circles again. Hasn't this been said before?

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[PogoTheMonkey]

i think the over all point is that the concept IS revolutionary, but hardware to cost ratio is a little unbalanced, i think if moto had opted for an "x10 computing system" using the same idea but a 600 series cpu with a lower clock speed for improved battery drain and maybe the razr hds 2530mah battery for good measure, and push the display the 5" at 720 then this thread wouldnt exist and ever one would be forced to shut up

but at the same time if google drops this on the play store for $349 of contract then everyone will have to stfu anyway, so heres to hope were all wrong

 

[Strawdawg]

Not sure how you can say it is sub par on specs. Every review says it has no lag and is very smooth. Even the game playing on it appears to be outstanding and it does not get hot when loaded down doing so.

it is subpar in your mind because you are trying to take a narrow view of what you consider a phone must have to be superior rather than considering how it performs. Nothing wrong with that. It puts you in a small percentage of the market place, I suspect but there is no problem with that either.

 

[anon(847090)]

Well its not an amazing choice because it has sub-par specs. Back in circles again. Hasn't this been said before?

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app

well its an amazing choice because it gives a superior experience unlike S4's lag

 

[Jeremy_Collinsworth]

Not sure how you can say it is sub par on specs. Every review says it has no lag and is very smooth. Even the game playing on it appears to be outstanding and it does not get hot when loaded down doing so.

it is subpar in your mind because you are trying to take a narrow view of what you consider a phone must have to be superior rather than considering how it performs. Nothing wrong with that. It puts you in a small percentage of the market place, I suspect but there is no problem with that either.

Once again, I'll explain it again. It's sub-par for the asking price. The screen is 720p instead of 1080p, the processor is outdated, the phone itself isn't amazing. It's fast certainly, I mean Its a good phone. Just not for the money they're asking. It's sub-par for the amount of money they're asking

Sent from my SGH-I747 using AC Forums mobile app