Moto X Review
by Brian Klug on August 26, 2013 1:30 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Qualcomm
- MSM8960
- Motorola
- Android
- Mobile
- Android 4.2
- Moto X
Final Thoughts & Conclusion
Prior to the Moto X, since being acquired by Google, the execution strategy for Motorola wasn't entirely clear. Google talked about there being a firewall between the two companies, and Motorola described its own situation as being analogous to YouTube's. The first result of that strategy is effectively a re-launch of the mobile part of Motorola, and its first device, the Moto X.
I finish the Moto X review feeling very differently about the device than I did initially, in a positive way. I have to admit that I went into the Moto X review very skeptical for a few reasons. Initially the amount of hype surrounding the Moto X was somewhat off-putting, as if many expected the Moto X to instantly eclipse Nexus and all other Android phones entirely because of the Google involvement. The second thing was the weird octacore messaging and dilution of the word "core" even further, and the SoC choice itself, but I understand better now the choices behind that platform and messaging. While there's still no getting around the fact that having a dual core SoC in a world of quad core devices is difficult to explain away, in this case having 8960Pro with two CPU cores helps Motorola run them at higher frequency more of the time versus the throttling that goes on with current 28nm LP quad core parts. The other performance aspect is obviously how using F2FS helps the Moto X have comparatively very fast random read and write performance, and storage I/O will start to become a big consideration for performance.
The features Motorola has enabled through the addition of a TI MSP430 for sensor fusion (its contextual awareness processor) and TI C55x family DSP (its natural language processor) are indeed major unique and novel features for the Moto X. Active display is probably my favorite feature out of the things enabled by the X8 Mobile Computing System and the combination of these two extra TI components (err... "cores"). It's useful for quickly being able to just glance at what's new or why your phone vibrated in your pocket, or if it even vibrated at all. It also is perhaps one of the best uses of AMOLED I've seen, for doing something other than just displaying a clock and battery status when the phone is in standby.
The other two features are novel but not something I can't live without. Touchless control works, but I still think that if you're within speaking distance of your Moto X you probably could just pick up the phone and use it. The upside is that the feature doesn't affect battery life (I tested with it enabled and disabled) and can be convenient, the downside is that activate on voice still has some false positives. Likewise, the camera activation gesture definitely has some false positive issues and occasionally presents me with a gallery page full of photos of the inside of my pocket. Launching the camera that way is more natural than I thought it would be, so I still use it, but occasional activation in your pocket is just something to be wary of.
Including a primarily stock UI is also a huge step in the right direction, and perhaps the most positive result of the Google interaction. With Android 4.x, the platform really doesn't need much custom tailoring and smoothing over except for the camera UI. Being able to use the stock UI makes the Moto X feel almost like the Google Play edition HTC One and SGS4 I was used to before switching to the Moto X. The ability to use the stock UI will be a huge selling point for users who are on CDMA networks (and refuse or unable to switch) and can't use a Nexus or GPe phone.
The Moto X is an interesting flagship product thanks in part to its smaller size and shape. There's a market out there for a flagship smartphone that isn't gigantic, and at present it's really served almost entirely by the iPhone. While I have gotten gradually used to larger and larger phones, I have to admit it is refreshing to use the Moto X and I have an easier time doing one-handed swipe typing on the Android keyboard and navigating around apps. The rounded shape and lack of cheap-feeling glossy plastic really helps the Moto X feel like a premium smartphone.
The Moto X is without a doubt the closest thing we have in the Android handset space to a smaller flagship device - one that isn't positioned as a midrange phone against a larger hero device. I've described the Moto X as being on the smaller side, but it still includes a relatively large 4.7-inch display, the Moto X just wastes less of the space around that display.
While Motorola suffered a few hiccups with Moto Maker and getting our Moto Xes out on time, I have no doubt the build-your-own customization aspect of the device will be very popular. I'm very pleased with how my device turned out, and having something which looks different, and I specified, really does make me want to use it more. I'm still more excited about the upcoming wood-backed options as well, I just wish they were available at launch and not coming some time in Q4 2013.
The camera on the Moto X nails it on paper – it's a comparively big sensor, with 1.4µm pixels instead of the 1.1µm kind that has been the industry trend, and F/2.4 optics. In practice however the Moto X camera has somewhat bimodal behavior – it can be good, it also can be bad, and a lot of that comes from the clear pixel color filter array which trades off some resolution for sensitivity and introduces color artifacts. In bright scenes I saw some great results from the Moto X camera, but indoors and in darker scenarios the device seems to use different processing that changes behavior entirely. Motorola deserves credit for doing something different, however.
The Moto X does a lot of things right – the size, shape, stock UI, customization. I enjoy using the Moto X a lot more than I thought I would, and think Motorola hit a home run with the Moto X in the size and shape department. Its only Achilles heel is its price, which comes in at $199 on a 2 year contract and $579 off contract at AT&T. There's still no word on Google Play edition or Developer Edition pricing, but I expect they'll be around the same. I still feel like that's too high considering the platform choices, although I expect the Moto X will come down in price pretty rapidly once MSM8974 phones start hitting the market. At the right price the Moto X could be a very big deal, almost disruptive. It's just a matter of getting it there.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
105 Comments
View All Comments
smitty123 - Monday, August 26, 2013 - link
" You have to also be close by, Moto X isn’t going to turn on when you’re across a big room, for example. In addition I’ve noticed that for some reason there are some odd false positives."i don't like to feel like my spied on.
So to me it just sounds like we have a new thing to test: the distance at which the phone can hear us.
Not hear the magic phrase, just how far from us it can still hear us with its 3 mics. forget the "it can't understand us" i'm not testing if it can recognize words, i'm just not comfortable knowing if it can record conversations that a human, nsa for example, can understand. with obama going for the warantless conversation recording, let's just say, this isn't a phone i'd want near me.
That old big brother spying thing is here, i think in the interest of privacy, we need to know these things before buying the phone.
i for one will never get an xbox one just for that reason.
good luck but i'm going back to good old rotary phones lol
flyingpants1 - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link
All phones can do that, genius.AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
Does the UI have lag between Android menu screens? Is the touch-screen at least as responsive as every Iphone to come out?I'm guessing there's still plenty of UI lag. In the future, UI's will be instant.
eallan - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
It's pretty responsive, I've had some hiccups and frame rate drops though.Honest Accounting - Monday, September 16, 2013 - link
In the general UI or specific applications?Krysto - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
Maybe it got offset by the last-gen AMOLED tech. Here's the thing. If you're going to argue for efficiency, then don't just use an "old panel". Obviously that won't help. You need to use the latest technologies, the most efficient ones, and THEN lower the resolution and the clock speed of the CPU and GPU.So let's say the latest AMOLED is 2x more efficient than the n-1 before it, at the same resolution. But at 1080p (2x more pixels) it uses just as much power compared to the 720p one. Then I want the latest AMOLED with 720p, to benefit from that improvement in efficiency. If I use the old one with 720p, or the new one with 1080p, then I won't see any improvement in battery life.
Same for the CPU and GPU. Let's say Motorola wanted to hit the performance target of S4 Pro, in both CPU and GPU. Great. But to gain extra efficiency, it would've been ideal to use the S800's CPU at 1.5/1.7 Ghz (instead of 2.3 Ghz), and Adreno 330 at half the clock speed (to match Adreno 320's performance).
That's how you get the extra efficiency. We don't really see new phones that are much better in power consumption than last year's models, because the OEM's keep pushing for performance or resolution or whatever, which completely cancels out whatever efficiency gains they might've had.
But this is our fault, too. Because we keep caring about benchmarks and who's e-penis is bigger, to the point where the OEM's have the incentive to cheat on these benchmarks, to get good PR from it.
If we really want to see better battery life, then act like you don't care about performance anymore (because it has gotten good enough anyway), and ask for 2-day battery life (then heavy users might finally get a full day).
Impulses - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
The whole efficiency line on Motorla's part is probably half marketing spin anyway, I'm sure cost and logistics played as large a role into the component selection as efficiency, even features (the active display stuff would've been impossible w/more common LCD displays, etc). At the end of the day, the only phones that have made monumental battery life strides have been their MAXX editions, by just packing a much larger battery... It seems current gen phones often catch up to last gen MAXX phones in one or two tests tho.If they were really trying to go for battery life above all they'd not only sacrifice some performance but some device thickness, and introduce a phone w/a MAXX-like battery as the only SKU w/no smaller battery model below it. I'm surprised more OEMs aren't putting out slightly thicker phones at times w/3,000mAh batteries like Moto, like not even one OEM has...
michaelljones - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
Brian, Anand,I know I'm commenting awfully low in this list to get seen, but I'd like to see a little more love for Windows phone in some of your comparison graphs. Throw in at least a token Lumia please (or more if you like!)?
I'm a happy Windows Phone user (like many I think), but I have no way to quantitatively compare my Lumia 928 to any of the other handsets. With cameras that kick ass, I can't see how they aren't a comparable discussion.
teiglin - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
Two Lumias feature prominently in the camera section, and more are in the full gallery of camera comparison shots. I mean, yeah, Brian clearly knows that Nokia kicks everyone else's cameras in the nuts, and it shows.Beyond that, where do you want to see the Lumias? I don't think Brian ever got a working Windows Phone battery life test because of screen timeout issues (not to mention the absence of precision brightness controls makes it hard to compare to controlled 200 nit settings), so that leaves javascript benchmarks and display quality. I guess those would be nice to see in the appropriate charts.
michaelljones - Tuesday, August 27, 2013 - link
No mention on the screen page of any other Lumia devices and their types or quality of screens, only a host of Androids and a Apple. No CALMAN data.No speaker phone comparisons. The 928 Nokia crows all about the speaker phone for crying out loud. I want to know if it's really that good or if it really sucks that bad comparatively speaking.
No call time and battery tests. The call time is an open freakin phone call for crying out loud. I could have done that on my StarTac in 1997. Also no charge time comparison, despite the fact that there are a half dozen apps in the Windows Store that will measure this.
I believe several of the tests used in the CPU test are browser tests, and run just fine on a Lumia.
Last I knew GFXBench ran on Windows Phone, yet it's nowhere to be seen in the graphs. (maybe it's pathetic, but at least show it). http://gfxbench.com/result.jsp?site=dx
The camera section DOES have some pics from the Lumias, but fails to mention anything about them in the discussion, nor mention that Brian has them and that reviews are coming, etc. etc. other than an oblique reference to how he likes having access to the controls of the camera ala Lumia 1020. (and no mention of how the 1020 mops everything in the photo comparison as has been widely crowed with every other smart ass smart phone before this i.e. iPhone 5). Also no mention if those 1020 pictures are full 45MP or cropped ones.
I'm not asking for a chart that takes away from the phone in question by any means. I'm just asking for a fair and balanced view of the current Windows Phone offering(s) comparatively speaking. WP has it's own benefits and it's own downfalls, and I'd like to see them compared to others in an honest way.
See http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Nokia-Lumia-925-... as an example (granted it's in German, but the charts prove my point that these comparos could be a bit more balanced and not 9 Android phones against 1 iPhone and NO Windows Phone)