POST A COMMENT

37 Comments

Back to Article

  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    "5MP (2592 х 1944) Rear Facing w/ 1.4m pixels"
    1.4m pixels, so the device is at least 3.6 km wide and 2.7km tall, huh? :D I take it! Best low light pictures ever! :P

    As for the E, for the 20€ I can save it doesn't seem worth the substantial down grade in specs. If it were 99€, that would be a different discussion. But 20€ savings for giving up the 720p display, getting a smaller display, half the cores and no front facing camera? You must really need the mSD slot and like the smaller size to go for that.
    Reply
  • Brandon Chester - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Thanks for catching that. Chart fixed.

    As for the pricing situation. I feel like the Moto E is going to end up selling below Motorola's recommended pricing of $129 and the gap in price will end up being a bit larger. If the gap between the G and the E tends toward something like $50-ish dollars there's definitely appeal, especially in emerging markets.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    If that happens (50-ish €/$ price difference), yeah, there would be appeal to the E, not only in emerging markets. :) Reply
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    To be fair, for someone who corrected "1.4m" pixels, you wrote milliSD instead of µSD ;)

    Although I know that's basically accepted. Wrong, but accepted!
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Since we aren't dealing with scientific units, I use m as an abbreviation of micro. Confusing maybe, but not wrong. Reply
  • dyc4ha - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link

    It is wrong because it is not "mSD", it is "microSD". People just understood your "mistake". It is analogous to using "cuz" in instant messaging and I think that's the point prioraodkill is trying to make. Reply
  • mkozakewich - Saturday, May 24, 2014 - link

    Also of note is that miniSD still exists here and there. Reply
  • celestialgrave - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Why is that outside of Apple you have to go big to get high-end internals? Hate that to get a phone in a size I prefer (such as this Moto E) I have to sacrifice features and performance. I'd say 4.3" is about as big as I want to go but could see going for 4.5" if it meant a better phone but nothing bigger. Reply
  • jimbo2779 - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    I couldn't agree more. It really annoys me that to get a decent phone that isn't an iPhone you have to get a phone that is approaching 5in or above. Reply
  • coder543 - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Honestly people, the Moto G is an excellent phone with only a 4.5 inch display. The only complaint I have about mine is the camera, which is subpar. Everything else is rather pleasant. But, that said, the size of the phone isn't nearly as affected by the size of the display as you think. The Moto X was nearly the same size as an iPhone, and it has a 4.7 inch screen! The iphone has massive bezels. Reply
  • Spoelie - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Didn't anyone notice that the Moto X is actually sized sensibly compared to the others? It's lighter and thinner than both G and E, has the same width as the G and E, while the G is just as tall.

    Only the E is smaller _in one dimension_: it's 5mm less tall, not quite what you would expect for the reduction in screen size (and other specs)
    Reply
  • coder543 - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Yep. If we look at volume, (multiplying out W x H x D and ignoring the curvature, which would only emphasize my point if taken into account), the Moto X is by far the smallest. The Moto X is at least a 10 to 15 percent reduction in volume compared to the other two devices, and volume is what you're gonna feel in your pocket, not screen size. That 4.3 inch screen everyone is pining for is paired with a phone larger in your pocket than the 4.7 inch Moto X. Reply
  • ciaphuas - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    The Moto X, with its 4.7' sceen, has very small bezels making it feel like a smaller phone. The iPhone has huge bezels which is a waste of space. Reply
  • okashira - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    The iphone needs its large bezels to make room for the "magic," under neath. Reply
  • Spuke - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Because no one wants one that's why. BUT the Sony Experia Z1 Compact is pretty much what those two people that are asking for that kind of phone is. Snapdragon 800 with a 4.3" screen. You're welcome! Reply
  • Impulses - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Actually, I was torn between a Nexus 5 and a Moto X and the latter's smaller size was a big part of the reason... Ultimately went with the N5 for the newer hardware and Sprint Spark, but it was close. Reply
  • phoenix_rizzen - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Actually, it's because no one offers one! You can't buy what isn't for sale.

    A lot of people want smaller phones with flagship internals. A lot of people want qwerty sliders with flagship internals. But, nobody offers those, so nobody can buy them, so everyone is forced to settle for either monster phones with skookum internals, or small phones with crap internals.
    Reply
  • Spuke - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Ever heard of demand? The phone makers make big screen phones because people WANT them. Screens started small and got bigger and people kept buying. If people wanted small screens, en masse, then the initial big screens would've flopped and the manufacturers would've kept them small. What you say makes ZERO sense. Reply
  • rish95 - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    That's because they give us no options. I bought a 4.0" phone in mid-2011. All of my Android flagship upgrade options in mid-2013 had much bigger screens.

    The Moto X was 4.7", the HTC One was 4.7", the Nexus 4 was 4.7", S4 was 5.0".

    I'm not going to "upgrade" to a phone with a junk SoC like the S4 Mini, so I had no choice but to buy a phone with a big screen.

    These phones are selling because there aren't any options. People aren't just going to say "Fuck it, I'll keep my Galaxy S" when their contracts are up.
    Reply
  • Trixanity - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Sony Xperia Z1 Compact? Reply
  • Ty4on - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Don't use screen size to judge how big a phone is. The Moto X is lighter and barely any wider than the Moto E. Same story with the Z1 Compact despite again a much smaller screen. Reply
  • guantaco - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    I feel the same. Look at dimensions of a phone and then draw some good conclusions. Besides the z1 compact can be bought anywhere but the US which is a shame. Reply
  • grahaman27 - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    suprisingly, the z1 compact and the moto x are the exact same size dispite the .4" screen difference. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    But I wouldn't call the Moto X flagship or high end even when it launched. Dual core and 720p screen kills it in that regard. Reply
  • Ty4on - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Anandtech reported that the Moto X' "dual core" beat the quad core flagships at the time in CPU perf. The GPU also did really well thanks to only having to render half as many pixels.
    Hopefully the updated Moto X will be good as well.
    Reply
  • Klug4Pres - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link

    Yes, it's really only the dodgy camera, the slightly questionable battery life, lack of SD card and the uncertain future of support under Lenovo that is holding me back from the X. Otherwise, it has a nice balance of specs, and a sensible form factor. Reply
  • Myrandex - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    The 520 isn't big in my opinion. The internals aren't as good as this, but it is much older in terms of Mobile Phone life and the OS doesn't use the resources in the same way as this one. But I know what you mean. Its a shame when Samsung and HTC make "mini" versions of their high end handsets A.) they make the internets subpar to the standard edition and B.) they are the same size as full sized large handsets from a year ago or so (I've never considered a 4.3" ~ 4.5" screen small, unless I've been using a 6" phablet then pick up a 4.5" screened device). Reply
  • Arnulf - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    How will Moto E compare to the likes of ZTE Open C ? It has 512 MB more RAM and similar specs otherwise, yet costs whopping 30% more and we don't even know whether the dual SIM version will become available in western markets at all (chances are that - just like Moto G - only single SIM version will be available to most of us). Reply
  • grahaman27 - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    well, for starters, its a real smartphone with android rather than firefox OS, thats worth the extra alone. but it also comes with a bigger, higher res screen, better battery, more ram, better camera, and you can get it on sites other than ebay. worth the extra 30. Reply
  • Guspaz - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Except the Moto E is going to sell for $179 CAD, which is dumb, because the Moto G sells for $150 CAD.

    Why would anybody buy the Moto E when the higher-end Moto G is cheaper?
    Reply
  • rseiler - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    A G for $150 in Canada? Maybe you mean with a contract? If so, that's not a straight comparison. Reply
  • Brandon Chester - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Nope you can get it $150 outright on Virgin Mobile prepaid. Sometimes if you're lucky you can can a refurb from Koodo/Telus for $75 too. Reply
  • rseiler - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link

    Right, I forgot about the 8GB version that doesn't work on some carriers (even if unlocked), since I'd been looking at the 16GB one (that works on all carriers) for so long. That one's even $200 on Amazon.com (not that Canadians can order from there). Reply
  • CrystalBay - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Motorola seems to be marketing this phone as a semi rugged phone. I think that has something to do with its dimensions. Reply
  • rseiler - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Probably worth adding to the chart: no camera flash Reply
  • PubFiction - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    Killing the dumb phone has nothing to do with the cost of phones. Afterall almost anyone can get a smart phone free on contract and low end smart phones of this caliber are easily less than $100 on ebay or craigs list.

    The problem is that carriers will not activate smart phones without data plans. So what good is a super cheap smart phone?
    Reply
  • wumpus - Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - link

    From what I can tell (not yet a customer), Republic Wireless carries the Moto G (and presumably will carry the E soon) and has some seriously low cost data plans. $10/month voice only (data from wifi) or $25/month voice & data (throttling after 6G/month data, aggressively uses wifi). Other gottchas:
    VOIP phone (I expect to see more of this), uses data not voice. Expect some wierdness.
    Locked phone. Between the voip and the aggressive wifi use, the phone isn't standard. I don't know if rooting it and using CyanogenMod is an option, but I wouldn't count on it.
    WiFi use. If this is a problem, don't use Republic. The system is built on cheaping out on wireless use, so don't try to get around it. You get certain amount of leeway in the 6G limit, but only so much.

    The only other data plan that looks less than predatory is from of all places, Tracphone (I think, might be a walmart specific plan). While there is very little else to recommend about tracphone, they sell data in 2G chunks (which didn't expire the last I looked). The big catch is that while they claim to let you "bring your phone", don't count on being able to find an unlocked *and* *useable* CDMA phone (maybe you can get a moto E CDMA+LTE unlocked and free to use yet, didn't look plausible). Right now they are using phones that just can't compete with the new Moto E&G phones.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now