Motorola Moto G Review
by Brian Klug on December 18, 2013 2:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Motorola
- Mobile
- *VA
- Cortex A7
- snapdragon 400
- Moto G
Making an affordable smartphone for the masses that aren’t willing to spend the dime on flagship-tier devices is a pitch I’ve heard a few times. Usually the device starts out great, but software support ends up being negligible from the start, or the device has serious caveats in actual practice. The number of mid to low end phones I’ve seen which promised to be halo devices of the mass market but are stuck running the same software they launched with could fill a few desk drawers.
I’ve been using Moto G as my daily driver since getting it, and absent a few features (camera, LTE, always on voice and display tuning), the device is surprisingly close to offering a similar kind of experience as the Moto X. Form factor is roughly equivalent, it’s like a Moto X that has put on a few pounds and a few millimeters around the edges. The physical differences aren't huge, and I'm glad that Motorola didn't sacrifice anything major by adding removable back shells.
On the display side I'd actually opt for an LCD over AMOLED to begin with for power reasons, although with emphasis on calibration. Resolution and contrast is excellent on the Moto G. I miss the camera activation flick gesture from the Moto X, and to a lesser extent the always on voice activation, but trading those off in favor of a lower price point makes a lot of sense given their reliance on extra dedicated silicon and more expensive display.
The previous generation of Snapdragon 400-based phones that I played with for some reason never really was fast enough to smooth over the demanding parts of Android 4.x. The four Cortex A7s and Adreno 305 in MSM8x26 seem competent enough to run Android at a decent clip without hesitation or dropped frames. I’d wager Motorola’s continued use of F2FS which started with the Moto X also helps the system feel speedy and storage I/O competitive. The storage sizes available are comparatively small at 8 and 16 GB, and given the small price delta between the two there's really no reason anyone should opt for the smaller of the two. I'm eager to see how much the Android 4.4 KitKat update improves memory occupancy on the Moto G, since occasional app suspension is my only usability complaint on Moto G.
The Moto G grew on me considerably in the time I've spent with it, just like Moto X did before it. The question is ultimately whether the Moto G delivers a good overall experience for the price – I'd argue it definitely does.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
uhuznaa - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Even my 8 GB Nexus 7 has a two GB left. Lots of storage is convenient for the lazy and the horders, but in now way something that makes or breaks a device for "normal" use. "3-4 GB of music" is about 1000 songs. Yeah, more is better, always, but don't make this into more of a limitation than it actually is. Most people don't care very much anyway.apertotes - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
a tablet is not at all like a phone. a tablet sits at home mostly, with WiFi and instant access to hundreds of online services. A phone goes with you everywhere, even places without -gasp- internet. And most people care, indeed, and that is why they buy galaxies instead of ones.Bob Todd - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Do you have any proof that the majority of Galaxy S* buyers do so because of micro-SD or removable batteries? Survey data from a reasonable cross section of buyers? I like both of those features, but the idea that it is the main driver of Samsung's success with that line doesn't seem to be grounded with any facts. I'd assume marketing plays the biggest role, along with actually building a solid brand behind it (one high end line available on most major carriers updated once per year). Yes some % of users care a great deal about removable storage and removable batteries, but if you think that's the secret to their success I think you are deluding yourself. And I'm almost sorry I responded at all to the inevitable whining about removable storage. There are other cheap devices that offer those features, be happy that a quality option is available at this price point.apertotes - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Well, HTC thought the same last year, after their beautiful HTC ONE X beat the Galaxy S3 in every review, but lost badly on sales. "It's the marketing!". They lost another good year blaming marketing, and now are even in worse situation than a year ago. Or do you want to convince me that HTC is not a strong brand? Or Blackberry, for what it is worth.Yes, Samsung sells lots of Aces very cheap, but S3 and S4 and Notes are not cheap. And they outsell almost the rest of high end android devices combined. I really do not think that Samsung is that good at marketing.
Impulses - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Nope, HTC isn't a very strong brand outside of tech enthusiasts. Samsung/Galaxy is a lot more easily recognized... I had three HTC phones in a row (all the EVOs), very early random people would ask me if they were "the new iPhone" (never mind the massive size difference). Later on most friends would ask "did you get a Galaxy?" when they'd see I have a new phone, never mind it says HTC front and center...Samsung is ABSOLUTELY that good at marketing, have you watched network TV or looked at print magazines lately? Geeks may not do that much anymore but the general public does and Samsung's ad campaign is all over that media, it's impossible to ignore.
sajara - Saturday, December 21, 2013 - link
Indeed you're absolutely right. Samsung is a very powerful brand just about everywhere due to marketing. That, produces free publicity through brand awareness and then word of mouth. Even in the Dominican Republic a (developing country) where i go regularly, a sacred Blackberry land, is buying in bulk Galaxy(s) and why? Huge billboards everywhere and all 4 carriers selling just about every model.sajara - Saturday, December 21, 2013 - link
I was referring to Impulse's post btw...Bob Todd - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Again, what proof do you have to the contrary? Like I said, I'm sure some % of their user population does buy the Galaxy line _specifically_ for micro-SD and a removable battery. But I'd put a decent chunk of change on the size of that % being 1 in every 5 buyers or less. You think all those buyers of a mainstream device (who have no idea what SOC is in their phone or even what a SOC is) are walking into their carrier's stores with a 64GB micro-SDXC card full of stuff? There is a lot more to the success of the Galaxy line than removable batteries and expandable storage.apertotes - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
I do not need to give any proof at all. I am not in the industry, and I could not care less. But it is funny watching people that should really know about this stuff (like HTC spokesperson) blame it all on marketing time after time, and get worse results every year.Also, HTC is a very strong band. A few years ago it was almost a synonym of smartphone, and they also spend a lot of money on advertising and sponsorships.
Anyway, do you have any proof that micro-sd cards are not a strong reason behind massive galaxy sales?
martajd - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
"I don't need to give any proof." Yeah, you do