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
apertotes - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link
No, I do not. There are two sides here. Some say Samsung sells because of marketing, some say Samsung sells because they understand better what the consumer wants (micro-sd, removable batteries, etc.). Neither side is backing their arguments with any proof at all.uhuznaa - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link
Well, the fact remains that you can hardly view any review of a competing product on Youtube without a Samsung ad being forced down your throat before it. They must be spending a hell of a pile of money on that.apertotes - Thursday, December 19, 2013 - link
So? Is it less of a fact that Samsung high end devices keep a micro-sd slot and removable battery?Bob Todd - Friday, December 20, 2013 - link
Yes it is, for the simple undeniable truth that enthusiasts make up a tiny sliver of this market (just like is true for most markets). We (enthusiasts) are closer to a rounding error on their financial statements than an overwhelming majority. For every user who clamors for removable batteries or the ability to flash a custom kernel to overclock their phone, there are 95 others who just walk into the store and buy whatever cool phone they saw on TV, or whatever their friends use, or whatever the guy at the counter steered them toward. Samsung could bring the Galaxy S5 to market with sealed batteries and no expandable storage and it would still be the single best selling Android phone by an enormous margin. I have no idea why you are so hell-bent on convincing others, or deluding yourself, that the % of people that really care about these things (or read blogs like Anandtech clamoring for in-depth SOC analysis) make up more than a puddle vs. the ocean of people who DGAF.metayoshi - Friday, December 20, 2013 - link
The guy behind the counter is definitely a major factor, and I believe Samsung dedicates some of their money into that. I remember my sister was due for an upgrade from her Verzion Galaxy Nexus, and I convinced her to buy a G2 and even linked her the mini review from this site. She told me battery life and a good camera were priority, and to me, it was a no brainer.In she walks into the Verizon store, and boy was the guy trying hard to sell the GS4. I told her, the LG has essentially the same features as the GS4 down to the gimmicky camera features, but the camera quality (OIS), and the 3000 mAh battery is much better than what the GS4 will deliver. If I wasn't there, there is no doubt in my mind that my sister would have a GS4.
So yeah... for the people that just don't know what all of their options are, and they go to the phone salesmen for the "expert" advice, which makes up the majority of people, what they're really getting is the phone that the employees are getting paid the most money to sell, which, in my case, was definitely the GS4. After that experience, there is no doubt in my mind that Samsung is giving extra commission to employees who sell these Samsung phones.
shaduck007 - Saturday, January 4, 2014 - link
At Best Buy, I always ask the Intel specialist his opinion.apertotes - Monday, December 23, 2013 - link
That is simply not a fact. That is your poorly reasoned opinion. Facts are:1. Samsung invests a lot of money in advertising and marketing.
2. Samsung's phones have micro-sd and removable battery.
Unless you work as a high level Samsung employee, there is no way to know which of those facts affect sales in a more powerful way.
bhima - Monday, December 23, 2013 - link
iPhones have literally ZERO of those features listed in number 2. They sell by the truckload. Bob Todd is spot on and said it best, Anandtech readers/tech enthusiasts make up a rounding error in the financial statements of these companies.apertotes - Tuesday, December 24, 2013 - link
and that is why HTC did not sell that much. They can't compete on features with Samsung, they are competing with iPhones. And nobody can beat Apple in their own turf. At least Motorola is pricing the G way below.Now, Apple says a truckload of iphones without removable storage or batteries. That is completely true. But Apple is on a league of its own. Neither better nor worse. Simple different. Apple users do not care that much about raw power or features. Also, Starbucks, trendy, hipster, instagram.
boeush - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
"3-4 GB of music" is about 1000 songs."In crappy 64 kbps bit rate, maybe. Personally, I don't do crappy when it comes to my music: all my stuff is ripped to CD-quality at a minimum, and lossless (FLAC) when possible. For instance a single anthology collection for a single band that I have currently on my phone, takes up nearly 10 GiB.