The Moto E (2015) Review
by Brandon Chester on April 21, 2015 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Motorola
- Mobile
- Moto E (2015)
Final Words
It wasn't that long ago that I recommended buyers looking for inexpensive smartphones avoid Android devices in favor of Windows Phone. While this may sound strange, at the time it was a reasonable way of thinking. Although Windows Phone has a limited application selection, the users who were interested in low-end devices were typically not heavy app users. Inexpensive Windows Phone devices also performed much better, with competing Android devices providing a slow and jerky interface, and ultimately a poor experience. With Android Lollipop and new budget devices like the Moto E, my opinion about the quality of low end Android devices has changed.
Although the Moto E is not a flagship smartphone, it is a very important product in Motorola's portfolio. With much of Android's growth coming from emerging markets, having a solid budget smartphone is a necessity for Android phone manufacturers. I think the Moto E represents a good value proposition for customers, and I think it provides a more than satisfactory experience. Low end Android devices are no longer painfully slow, and with Motorola providing a version of Android that is nearly the same as Google's stock Android there's no issues with bloated software bogging down the device.
When building a smartphone that targets a low price, sacrifices will inevitably be made to drive down the cost for the manufacturer and the consumer. I think Motorola has chosen the right areas to make concessions with the Moto E. The areas where the Moto E definitely stumbles are its WiFi performance and its camera. The WiFi is limited to 802.11n, and the camera takes acceptable photos only when given very generous lighting. However, by reducing costs with the camera and the WiFi, Motorola has been able to maintain quality in every other respect. The Moto E doesn't fall short of Motorola's standards for design and build quality, and it packs the fastest CPU you can get at this price point. The Snapdragon 410 model even has support for LTE which is often a feature you give up with products at this price. While the display is not as nice as the 1280x720 one on the Moto G, it's still decently sharp and has surprisingly good color reproduction.
As for the competition, I don't know of much. The Moto E is priced at $149, and in many markets I don't think the Moto E really has any competition at that price point. While there are cheaper options, the concessions to reach an even lower price point really start to damage the user experience.
Looking toward the future, there are a few things Motorola should strive for if they are possible at the Moto E's price target. I would really love to see the next version move to a 1280x720 display, although since that is a point of differentiation between it and the Moto G we may never see that happen. Continued improvements to the camera will also be appreciated, and I think faster WiFi will be a must on the next model. If not 802.11ac, then at least 5GHz 802.11n. Right now Motorola has a really solid offering, and it's a phone that pretty much anyone will be able to afford. The next billion people in the world who become connected will undoubtedly be doing it via their smartphone, and Motorola is well positioned to be a big player in that market with phones like the Moto E.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
Hubb1e - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
While the camera performance is pretty meh, I really don't see how you can complain about 802.11n being a downside. AC wireless is nowhere near ubiquitous and N is surely fast enough for low end users. AC is decidedly a high end feature in phones and even computers these days. Most users of this phone probably still have wireless G in their homes or coffee shop hotspots which I would argue is still plenty of speed for a phone with a low end mobile chipset.hans_ober - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Yeah, it makes more sense to upgrade the cameras to 8MP/2MP than to switch to 802.11ac.Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
The E makes the much more expensive but slower G seem a bit expensive. Is Moto planning a new G?Cryio - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
"It wasn't that long ago that I recommended buyers looking for inexpensive smartphones avoid Android devices in favor of Windows Phone."" With Android Lollipop and new budget devices like the Moto E, my opinion about the quality of low end Android devices has changed."
While all these may be true, the Lumia 640 is a true challenger. There are still reaasons to recommend the 640 over this.
sprockkets - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Problem is what is the price, and two, it's a 5 inch phone. It was made to compete with the Moto G, not the Moto E.Currently I find WP to be great at first, but after a few days of trying again WP with the Lumia 635, it just flat out tries to annoy me. Today's annoyance is opening up the weather app goes to the store telling me there is a pending update. Then it disappears to the home screen. Before that when I told it to update all apps, it updates 16 out of 26. Why does the next 10 have to have me tell it again to download and install?
After the update it took two tries to open the weather app as it keeps crashing to the home screen.
The camera on it works good for pictures, but is utterly useless at night for video. Why can't they allow exp control for video?
Also learned they won't issue GDR1 or 2 updates for WP8.1 since it will go to WP10. Too bad the latest build is a buggy mess.
BMNify - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
You seem to have a defective Lumia 635, get it replaced, never seen or used such a buggy Lumia, Even the old and humble Lumia 520 performs much better than what you describe.Kakti - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
I bought this phone about two weeks ago from Best Buy - it's $79.99 for the Verizon one with NO contract. Not $120, not $150. $80 bucks. I can buy six of these for the same price as a new galaxy.The size of the phone is perfect, the screen is very nice, and due to the low resolution (compared to flagship phones), the battery actually lasts a really long time. Charging is fast and mine did come with a charger.
I've already recommended this phone to several family members and friends who are sick of 2 year contracts, gigantic phones that don't fit in your pocket, etc. Yes the camera sucks, no it doesn't beat a flagship in bench tests. But I don't run benchmarks, I have maybe 5-6 apps open at once and it has never slowed down or locked up on me.
Honestly if you're looking to save money and not have a laptop jammed into your pocket, take a look at this. The only reason I didn't get the Moto E last year was it didn't have 4G and we don't know how long until the 2015 Moto G comes out. 80 bucks no contract is pretty hard to beat.
BMNify - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
No contract does not mean Unlocked, it is still a Verizon locked phone and that is why you are getting for a lower price. As long as people keep buying locked phones from Carriers they cannot and should not complain about software updates. You become a carrier slave and slaves don't ask.sonicmerlin - Wednesday, April 22, 2015 - link
If it runs on Verizon's LTE then it comes unlocked.RealTheXev - Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - link
I'm pretty sure all Verizon phones on LTE come unlocked. It sucks because some bands that it would normally access will probably require hacking (whenever that might happen), but all of my Verizon LTE phones are unlocked by default.