Final Words

When Motorola launched the 2014 Moto G I felt that it was something of a sidegrade rather than a straight upgrade. The larger display size wasn't accompanied by an increase in resolution, but it did come with improvements to color accuracy. The cameras also received an upgrade, and you got a microSD slot, but every other aspect of the device was unchanged. The 2015 Moto G really feels like the first major upgrade to the phone since the original version launched in 2013.

As far as design and build quality goes, if you're a fan of Motorola's industrial design you'll like the 2015 Moto G, and if you don't like it your mind isn't likely to be changed by it. I think the Moto G has a good feel in the hand and it's not as slippery as the Moto E because of the textured back. The flex around the edges is difficult for me to ignore though, especially when the less expensive Moto E with its non removable back feels much more solid as a result. The waterproofing is definitely a neat addition, but I think in most cases it's just a nice thing to have rather than a selling point. Once waterproofing is accompanied by the ability to use the display when it's really wet I'll be a lot more interested in it.

Speaking of the display, that's one of the areas of the Moto G that disappointed me. The improvement to brightness over the 2014 model is greatly appreciated, but it's still quite reflective and the capacitive touch sensors show up very easily in light which makes it difficult to use outdoors. The calibration also takes a hit in every respect, and unfortunately I would have to describe the 2015 Moto G's display as an overall downgrade from the 2014 model.

When it comes to performance, the 1.4GHz Snapdragon 410 paired with 2GB of RAM is a definite improvement over the 1.2GHz implementation with 1GB of RAM in the Moto E. In fact, CPU performance is almost as fast as devices that use the 1.5GHz version of Snapdragon 615 such as the Huawei P8 Lite. Unfortunately, the Adreno 306 GPU is not very fast to say the least, and that leaves a graphics performance gap between the Moto G and Snapdragon 615 devices. The Zenfone 2 is also a device to consider, with approximately the same price as the 16GB/2GB model of the Moto G, a better display, and significantly higher performance.

While the Zenfone 2 is definitely a faster device than the Moto G, it falls short when it comes to the quality of photos and videos. In fact, I think that the new rear camera in the Moto G is one of its most substantial improvements. IMX214 was a good camera sensor in the Nexus 6, and it's even more impressive to see in a device that starts at $179. Comparisons between the two devices definitely highlights a gap in ISP performance, particularly when examining video quality, but I think the Moto G has the best camera when compared to other mid range devices that I've used.

The last important aspect of the new Moto G to consider is its battery life. While it's certainly not as fast as a device like the Zenfone 2, it has outstanding battery life in a variety of scenarios. It's unfortunate that battery life in heavy CPU workloads is hampered by the high leakage of the 28nm LP process, but in the sort of tasks Moto G users will be performing the battery life is longer than any other mid range phone, and is often twice as long as the Zenfone 2.

This ends up presenting buyers with a choice. One can opt for the larger, faster Zenfone 2 with its better display, but they lose out on camera quality and battery life. If one chooses the Moto G, they sacrifice performance and display resolution for a smaller device with much longer battery life and a camera that is on a completely different level. While users all have different preferences for the features that are important to them, I think whether they choose the Moto G or a device like the Zenfone 2 depends on how much battery life they need.

In the end, I think as far as conventional mid range devices goes there's no competition for the Moto G. The construction and the camera are good, the performance is the best of an ARM device at this price point, and the battery life is amazing. If you feel that the Moto G's performance isn't fast enough for you then the Zenfone 2 is definitely a device to consider, but I think the Moto G strikes a good balance of performance, features, and battery life, and ends up being the best choice for the average buyer looking to buy a mid range smartphone.

Battery Life and Charge Time
Comments Locked

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • kmmatney - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link

    They are in the $115 - $130 range on Swappa (at least the Sprint version). Of course that is used - but the phones I've bought from Swappa all looked brand-new when I received them. You can also get a used Galaxy S4 for ~$130, and will come with 2 GB of RAM and 16GB of storgae, and will be faster.
  • Moto1 - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link

    Nope, sorry
  • amdwilliam1985 - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link

    Moto G 2015 will probably beat Galaxy S6 and Note 5 in general phone usage speed test, lol. So Galaxy S4 is probably not a good comparison to.
  • 3DoubleD - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link

    It is not clear in the charging section whether the Moto G is limited to 2.75 W charging internally, or whether it is because a 2.75 W charger was used (because it was shipped with one). Could one conceivably use a 5 W or 10 W charger and cut the charge time in half or a quarter? This is not clear. I honestly didn't know they made 2.75 W chargers, the smallest charger I've ever seen is 1 A @ 5 V.

    Also, how crippling is this GPU performance? From what I can tell, an Adreno 305 is about 1/4 of the speed of the Nexus 5 (2013) in offscreen testing with Basemark X. But this doesn't describe the context of what it is like to use an Adreno 306 device. Does the UI studder? Does video playback work flawlessly? Does it play most games? Are there any notable games it does not play?

    Also, I take issue with the comment that waterproofing is not a desirable feature because you can't use the display while wet. That is an insane comment to make! Most people would like some piece of mind that if their phone gets a little wet it won't become an expensive paper weight. That is a huge feature, especially considering the target market for this phone - a group that may likely be careless with their phone that it needs to be inexpensive and waterproof. So I'll say this in the comments since it wasn't said in the review: Motorola, good job making this phone waterproof.

    Lastly, I don't think Motorola was praised enough for adding a bigger battery at the cost of not decreasing the thinness of the device. Phone manufacturers frequently shift the balance the wrong way, and finally Motorola stepped up and did it right.

    Despite all of my question and critiques, I really appreciate the timely review! Thanks!
  • hans_ober - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link

    Yeah, nice to see Moto worked on the battery and didn't go for 'omg 7mm slim' type of device.
    Thick phone > dead slim paperweight.
  • Brandon Chester - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link

    1. It's just that the phone is shipped with a 2.75W charger. I will be listing a charge time using a 5W charging block, but to my knowledge there's no quick charge support so there's no additional advantage to using an even higher wattage QC 2.0 block

    2. You can play 2D games and very simple 3D ones like temple run, but there's not much hope for what one would call AAA mobile games. My big issue is the lack of GPU performance in mid range Android devices ends up limiting the availability and quality of those games on Android as a whole.

    3. At no point did I ever say that waterproofing was not a desirable feature, or anything of that sort. I said it's nice to have, but I don't think it's a selling point. There's no evidence that any significant number of consumers are buying devices specifically because they're waterproof, so I don't think my observation was incorrect.

    4. Not everyone shares the opinion that devices should get substantially larger to fit bigger batteries.
  • hans_ober - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link

    Thanks. Yeah, theres no QC 2.0 support, but using 5W and even 10W chargers has reportedly cut short charging time. No harm in adding QC 2.0 to the graph too; it will show max possible charge rate, with the phone as bottleneck.
  • Brandon Chester - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link

    I'm just trying to kill the phone's battery now so I can charge it.
  • hans_ober - Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - link

    Having a bad time? :)
  • hans_ober - Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - link

    Update on charging time?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now