The $179 Moto G hits the US early(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
The $179 Moto G hits the US early
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57613701-94/moto-g-launches-in-us-on-motorola-site-ahead-of-schedule
101 comments
$179 no contract android phone that doesn't suck is going to be very tempting, especially now that Straight Talk, Net 10, Virgin Mobile, etc. are starting to gain in popularity in the US.
> are starting to gain in popularity in the US.
You know this is a joke, right?
they all have to lease band from the 2 big ones. The government does not allow them to build a network even if they had the money.
The only reason they exist is to scrap the bottom end of the market. the moment the market shifts to them, the 2 big ones will raise their network use prices to the point it is cheaper to use them than the small ones.
You know this is a joke, right?
they all have to lease band from the 2 big ones. The government does not allow them to build a network even if they had the money.
The only reason they exist is to scrap the bottom end of the market. the moment the market shifts to them, the 2 big ones will raise their network use prices to the point it is cheaper to use them than the small ones.
The spectrum sales carried with them severe restrictions on the prices AT&T and Verizon could charge to MVNOs, precisely to prevent that situation.
they can't even protect us about overcharges on client accounts, what about overseeing that they are providing a decent service to those rented networks?
not to mention the good old lowering of their price until they've killed competition, again.
not to mention the good old lowering of their price until they've killed competition, again.
They do police overcharges and excess billing; both AT&T and Verizon have paid massive fines for this in the past decade.
The agency is not responsible for policing quality of service--that is a function left to the market. Nor does the agency simply get to decide that it will police quality of service--it must be granted that authority by Congress.
The agency is not responsible for policing quality of service--that is a function left to the market. Nor does the agency simply get to decide that it will police quality of service--it must be granted that authority by Congress.
They don't have to.
There are 2 "little ones" they can buy from (and often do without telling folks. Lots of Straight Talk / Net10 / TracFone devices buy from Sprint or T-Mobile without explicitly telling you)
While these smaller carriers aren't always a great replacement (in a lot of areas, for a lot of reasons) they provide enough competition to work well most of the time.
For instance, both AT&T and Verizon now offer $60/month prepaid plans for smartphones with LTE data.
That didn't exist a year ago. If AT&T had been able to kill T-Mobile, it probably never would have happened.
There are 2 "little ones" they can buy from (and often do without telling folks. Lots of Straight Talk / Net10 / TracFone devices buy from Sprint or T-Mobile without explicitly telling you)
While these smaller carriers aren't always a great replacement (in a lot of areas, for a lot of reasons) they provide enough competition to work well most of the time.
For instance, both AT&T and Verizon now offer $60/month prepaid plans for smartphones with LTE data.
That didn't exist a year ago. If AT&T had been able to kill T-Mobile, it probably never would have happened.
For instance, both AT&T and Verizon now offer $60/month prepaid plans for smartphones with LTE data.
And T-Mobile offers a $30 prepaid plan with LTE data, though they don't try very hard to advertise it.
And T-Mobile offers a $30 prepaid plan with LTE data, though they don't try very hard to advertise it.
I doubt MVNO's would ever lease bandwidth from the big ones without taking into account their long term growth forecasts - I imagine they've got 5/10/20 year agreements in place with provisions for expansion at fixed rates - it's only if they begin to eat away at their quotas that they may change their fees / structure or and/or purchase more from the original network operator.
I'm a long time tmobile customer currently on a prepaid plan. I love it and tell anyone who will listen to switch if they live in a good coverage area.
yeah, if they live in a covered area and do not have expectancy of walking around with their phones.
spoken from experience... i'm still enduring it out of longer term view (hope?) but it is though.
spoken from experience... i'm still enduring it out of longer term view (hope?) but it is though.
Virgin Mobile sucks. I've been on their network for about 2.5 years now. Coverage is poor and data speed is terrible. The only good thing is that it's cheap but it seems like T-Mobile is cheaper and better.
Also, one other thing - their customer service told me that I wouldn't be able to use an unlocked Nexus 4 on their network - so make sure your phone is usable with them before buying one.
I myself am planning to get myself either a N5 or a MotoG and switch to T-Mobile.
Also, one other thing - their customer service told me that I wouldn't be able to use an unlocked Nexus 4 on their network - so make sure your phone is usable with them before buying one.
I myself am planning to get myself either a N5 or a MotoG and switch to T-Mobile.
Both my parents were on virgin mobile and my mom couldn't stand it. Dropped calls, text messages that were never received, and there were a lot of dead zones. I switched my plan on t-mobile to a family plan and brought them on. They've been really happy with it so far.
I'm a Virgin user, and I testify that it is cheap and has terrible 3G speed. I'm excited to upgrade to the Moto G.
If you're looking for an even cheaper backup phone, take a look at the Nokia Lumia 520 - recently cut in price from $99 to $69 off-contract:
http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-520-GoPhone-AT/dp/B00E4504...
Yes, I know it's Windows Phone but it's staggeringly cheap for a perfectly good phone.
http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-520-GoPhone-AT/dp/B00E4504...
Yes, I know it's Windows Phone but it's staggeringly cheap for a perfectly good phone.
It's definitely a big step down from a Moto G though. A Moto G could have been a flagship-level phone a year and a half ago...
Oh, for sure. But it's still a very capable phone - my point was more that if the price is your number one concern then there are cheaper-still options. I'm tempted to buy one just to have around as a backup / to play with Windows Phone.
Isn't that thing locked to AT&T - the Moto G is unlocked.
T-Mobile sells it as well around the same price (I bought one to have a Win8 developer phone). I know if you use 6 months of prepaid service with them, you can unlock it afterwards without issue.
>Windows Phone
>perfectly good phone
You've lost me here.
>perfectly good phone
You've lost me here.
yeah lol M$ am i rite
Have you tried one?
Have you tried one?
Spec for US GSM model doesn't list 2100 band, which makes the 1700 band kind of useless. It's only needed for T-Mobile HSPA+ which is on 1700/2100 or 1900/2100 if you're in a re-farmed area.
I'm hoping that's an error, because otherwise this phone will be limited to 2G speeds on T-Mobile.
I'm hoping that's an error, because otherwise this phone will be limited to 2G speeds on T-Mobile.
> otherwise this phone will be limited to 2G speeds on T-Mobile.
I'm not sure what your reading, perhaps it's been changed.
T-Mobile HSPA+ is fully supported on both bands on the US GSM Moto G phone, according to the spec sheet on their website at http://www.motorola.com/us/consumers/moto-g/Moto-G/moto-g-pd...
(It explicitly mentions PCS 1900 support, so AT&T HSPA+ and new T-Mobile HSPA+ works, and it explicitly mentions AWS 1700/(2100) support, so old T-Mobile HSPA+, Wind, Mobilicity, ect will also work)
I'm not sure what your reading, perhaps it's been changed.
T-Mobile HSPA+ is fully supported on both bands on the US GSM Moto G phone, according to the spec sheet on their website at http://www.motorola.com/us/consumers/moto-g/Moto-G/moto-g-pd...
(It explicitly mentions PCS 1900 support, so AT&T HSPA+ and new T-Mobile HSPA+ works, and it explicitly mentions AWS 1700/(2100) support, so old T-Mobile HSPA+, Wind, Mobilicity, ect will also work)
Where do you see that?
When I click that link, I see this for frequency band support:
US GSM Model: GSM/GPRS/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz) UMTS/HSPA+ up to 21 Mbps (850, 1700 (AWS), 1900 MHz)
Doesn't mention the 2100 band at all, either PCS or AWS. 2100 is only listed for the international model, which lacks the 1700 AWS band.
Is there a link to a more detailed spec sheet?
The Motorola Razr i I am using now works with PCS on T-Mobile, but also explicitly lists the 2100 band, which I believe is required for T-Mobile HSPA+: http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_razr_i_xt890-4998.php
When I click that link, I see this for frequency band support:
US GSM Model: GSM/GPRS/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz) UMTS/HSPA+ up to 21 Mbps (850, 1700 (AWS), 1900 MHz)
Doesn't mention the 2100 band at all, either PCS or AWS. 2100 is only listed for the international model, which lacks the 1700 AWS band.
Is there a link to a more detailed spec sheet?
The Motorola Razr i I am using now works with PCS on T-Mobile, but also explicitly lists the 2100 band, which I believe is required for T-Mobile HSPA+: http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_razr_i_xt890-4998.php
> Doesn't mention the 2100 band at all, either PCS or AWS.
AWS is the proper notation, and that's the phrase your looking for when looking for T-Mobile USA phones. When Motorola claims it supports "AWS", they're explicitly telling you that T-Mobile USA HSPA+ works on both bands.
You won't see "1700/2100" often listed on USA phones, specifically because of the problem you just mentioned -- the 2100 band is used unpaired internationally, so it's confusing to see it listed twice, especially when those two uses are completely incompatible.
AWS is the proper notation, and that's the phrase your looking for when looking for T-Mobile USA phones. When Motorola claims it supports "AWS", they're explicitly telling you that T-Mobile USA HSPA+ works on both bands.
You won't see "1700/2100" often listed on USA phones, specifically because of the problem you just mentioned -- the 2100 band is used unpaired internationally, so it's confusing to see it listed twice, especially when those two uses are completely incompatible.
OK - That's confusing, but it sounds confusing either way. The difference is whether it can only receive on 2100 or also transmit.
Also a bit disappointing, because I'm about to travel to the UK and Europe, and it would be awfully nice to have proper support on all bands. I guess that's another selling point for the Moto X.
Also a bit disappointing, because I'm about to travel to the UK and Europe, and it would be awfully nice to have proper support on all bands. I guess that's another selling point for the Moto X.
I thought T-Mobile was quickly moving LTE to AWS (1700/2100) and HSPA+ to PCS (1900)? That would mean that this phone would work as fast as possible in any "re-farmed" area, which I think is most of them at this point.
They are, and the international version of the Moto G will have HSPA+ in refarmed areas, and EDGE service elsewhere.
My Motorola Razr i has the same band support as the international Moto G, and I get HSPA+ in a lot of places in Boston but not all. Whereas my wife's penta-band Galaxy Nexus gets HSPA+ everywhere.
What's confusing is that the US GSM version has the 1700 band, but not the 2100 band, and T-Mobile to my knowledge requires 1700/2100 (everywhere) or 1900/2100 (areas that have been refarmed for iPhone support).
My Motorola Razr i has the same band support as the international Moto G, and I get HSPA+ in a lot of places in Boston but not all. Whereas my wife's penta-band Galaxy Nexus gets HSPA+ everywhere.
What's confusing is that the US GSM version has the 1700 band, but not the 2100 band, and T-Mobile to my knowledge requires 1700/2100 (everywhere) or 1900/2100 (areas that have been refarmed for iPhone support).
I think you're right but it's confusing as to what exactly is happening and the effect on devices...
https://support.t-mobile.com/thread/39361?start=0&tstart=0
https://support.t-mobile.com/thread/39361?start=0&tstart=0
The US GSM model appears to trade WCDMA on Band 1 (2100 MHz) for Band 4 ("AWS" 1700 Tx/2100 Rx). Global GSM includes Band 1 since that's a very popular band internationally, but doesn't have Band 4.
Keep in mind, T-Mobile USA is predominantly Band 4 for WCDMA and LTE, and Band 2 (1900 MHz) with at most a single WCDMA carrier in markets for roaming, iPhones, and improved in-building coverage.
So no, it isn't useless to T-Mobile, and won't be limited to 2G speeds. There's no Band 1 (2100 MHz) deployed inside the USA. Band 4 tried to align itself with Band 1, but manages only to align some of the downlink (tower->handset) spectrum (2110 to 2170 MHz for B1, 2110 to 2155 for B4), the uplink/duplex spacing is entirely different (this is the 1700 MHz "band"), 400 MHz below downlink for B4 as opposed to 190 MHz below it for B1.
Keep in mind, T-Mobile USA is predominantly Band 4 for WCDMA and LTE, and Band 2 (1900 MHz) with at most a single WCDMA carrier in markets for roaming, iPhones, and improved in-building coverage.
So no, it isn't useless to T-Mobile, and won't be limited to 2G speeds. There's no Band 1 (2100 MHz) deployed inside the USA. Band 4 tried to align itself with Band 1, but manages only to align some of the downlink (tower->handset) spectrum (2110 to 2170 MHz for B1, 2110 to 2155 for B4), the uplink/duplex spacing is entirely different (this is the 1700 MHz "band"), 400 MHz below downlink for B4 as opposed to 190 MHz below it for B1.
Thank you for the thorough explanation. I see the difference now between full 2100 support and receive-only 2100 support.
A little disappointing, since I'm about to travel to the UK and Europe, and it would be awfully nice to have WCDMA everywhere. I guess that's another selling point for the Moto X, or I could just deal with T-Mobile's PCS support.
A little disappointing, since I'm about to travel to the UK and Europe, and it would be awfully nice to have WCDMA everywhere. I guess that's another selling point for the Moto X, or I could just deal with T-Mobile's PCS support.
[deleted]
God dammit, just once I thought we Canadians won. When I first heard the news - Brazil, Canada, etc. not US? I was happy to hear we'd be getting it first.
Now?
Now it's $200 freaking dollars to get a locked Moto G from Koodo while the Americans get the proper price unlocked.
Why do you hate Canada, Google?
Now?
Now it's $200 freaking dollars to get a locked Moto G from Koodo while the Americans get the proper price unlocked.
Why do you hate Canada, Google?
From the article: "Neither the Moto G nor Moto X are sold in China, a result of the Chinese government's ban on Google services, which flow into its phones."
I don't understand this statement. All Android phones can have Google services; just add your google account in the settings. Is this feature disabled on Chinese Android phones?
It seems like China would be a natural market for such an inexpensive handset from a well known maker.
I don't understand this statement. All Android phones can have Google services; just add your google account in the settings. Is this feature disabled on Chinese Android phones?
It seems like China would be a natural market for such an inexpensive handset from a well known maker.
I don't know the Chinese market, but I do know that there are Chinese forks of Android that swap Google search out for local competitors. A quick Google search shows Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba all have Android forks.
Then again, MIUI is popular there, and I think that retains Google Search compatibility, so there Google ban seems to be more nuanced. Perhaps it's simply that Google-owned companies don't do business in China proper because they don't want to data-share with the Chinese government, so Motorola can't formerly enter that market (and Chinese Android phones use Hong Kong datacenters).
Then again, MIUI is popular there, and I think that retains Google Search compatibility, so there Google ban seems to be more nuanced. Perhaps it's simply that Google-owned companies don't do business in China proper because they don't want to data-share with the Chinese government, so Motorola can't formerly enter that market (and Chinese Android phones use Hong Kong datacenters).
Google's "Apps for Android" are not part of Android, but a propritary software suite. That the Chinese government banned Google services means companies making an android-based operating systems are not allowed to license Google's app suite. So in the final OS there is no way to add your Google account. The feature is not "disabled", it is simply not part of the software.
Google Play is blocked at the national firewall level in China, along with Google+ and Docs. And no doubt other services.
Android phones in China use a fork of AOSP which doesn't have Google services.
This is a good thing, look at 4.4, it's horrible with Google+ and Hangouts replacing SMS...
You're free to download whatever MMS app you want from Google Play.
Are you free to delete the Google apps? No, they're protected by the system. You have to be root to remove them.
You're perfectly free to disable them, which accomplishes the same thing as far as the user is concerned. The fact that the /system partition is mounted read-only for security and ease of system updates means you can't really delete them, but it also means you can't use that space anyway, so the ability to delete wouldn't be useful.
I read it as the Chinese government has banned Google services. Since Google phones have the services baked in the phones are also banned.
There are already tons of cheap android phones in China. With Chinese brands trying to become a well known maker.
Marketing & publicity plays a huge role. Google doesn't push Nexus brands that well outside US. Not sure how they'll handle Moto. At the price point, it simply blows away phones that cost upto $500.
But, Google/Motorola needs to do a better job in educating people that they are getting almost everything (especially in markets that lack 4G service). There's little reason to look at other brands even if you are willing to spend twice as much.
But, Google/Motorola needs to do a better job in educating people that they are getting almost everything (especially in markets that lack 4G service). There's little reason to look at other brands even if you are willing to spend twice as much.
Wow, incredible price point. Well done, Motorola. I'm perfectly happy with my Nexus4, but I almost want to buy a Moto G just because.
Finally, a flagship-worthy phone that lasts for a day!
I think there's a major discrepancy between performance and battery abilities in the current flagship market. Specs are being beefed up with little care for power consumption.
Moto G cuts the crap and gives us a full day experience on a quite capable hardware with great screen. I'll take two.
I think there's a major discrepancy between performance and battery abilities in the current flagship market. Specs are being beefed up with little care for power consumption.
Moto G cuts the crap and gives us a full day experience on a quite capable hardware with great screen. I'll take two.
Not necessarily a surprise: holiday shopping is days away, and anyone looking to upgrade ought to consider the Moto G.
Not too many people get pre-paid smart phones. The plan choices are pretty thin on the GSM side. You've basically got T-Mobile or Straight Talk, depending on the network coverage in your area.
Chicken and egg problem. There are no (few) pre-paid data plans because there were no (few) contract-less phones. Now one end of the equation seems to be loosening up, the other can be expected to follow.
There are actually more pre-paid plans than post paid plans. Not as well advertised of course but of the top of my head:
Ptel,
Straight Talk,
Virgin,
Boost,
Revol,
Metro,
H20,
Page Plus
T-Mobile's prepaid plans are pretty wonderful, though.
If you have infinite money and need 50Mbps wireless access anywhere in the US, then of course you get Verizon. But if you just want a phone that works in major cities, then T-Mobile can't be beat. (I've used both, and I did love my unlimited data on Verizon through my employer. But T-mobile is half the cost and just as good for how I use my phone.)
If you have infinite money and need 50Mbps wireless access anywhere in the US, then of course you get Verizon. But if you just want a phone that works in major cities, then T-Mobile can't be beat. (I've used both, and I did love my unlimited data on Verizon through my employer. But T-mobile is half the cost and just as good for how I use my phone.)
AT&T also has an option, called AIO Wireless. There are many other smaller players that are either T-Mobile or ATT MVNOs.
The AIO Smart plan is $10 more per month than a better plan from Straight Talk (on the same network).
$5 in most places as tax is included in AIO.
Also, does Straight Talk offer LTE as well? I think AIO comes with LTE. I also liked AIO's $70 plan as Straight Talk is limited to 2.5GB of 4G data on the unlimited plan.
(I use Straight Talk but was thinking about getting Nexus 5 which comes with LTE)
Also, does Straight Talk offer LTE as well? I think AIO comes with LTE. I also liked AIO's $70 plan as Straight Talk is limited to 2.5GB of 4G data on the unlimited plan.
(I use Straight Talk but was thinking about getting Nexus 5 which comes with LTE)
Yes, people on r/nexus5 are saying they got LTE activated without much issue.
I'm planning to switch to ST when my AT&T contract expires.
I'm planning to switch to ST when my AT&T contract expires.
And GoPhone. There's plenty to choose from.
I'd jump on this if it was LTE. I'm grandfathered into an unlimited plan on verizon. I'm going to have to buy a phone outright to keep that going, but I'm addicted to 4G. I've had it for 3 years and I can't go back. Hopefully a revised edition isn't too far out.
Check out the transfer upgrade trick. I used it to keep my grandfathered unlimited data plan on Verizon while getting a new phone at the subsidized price a month or two ago.
AFAIK LTE brings added licensing costs (and requires a different chip) so it might not be as cheap if it does appear
Even if it had LTE, it lacks CDMA voice.
Huawei makes pretty good (Android) phones in that price range too, if you spend ~250 you get a "high end" (spec wise) one. From what I can tell, their build quality is good too.
I wonder if Republic Wireless will get on this since they offer the Moto X for $300 which they subsidize a bit.
Seem that Moto G is better fit for them as they are going for the lower end of the market.
Seem that Moto G is better fit for them as they are going for the lower end of the market.
Agreed. Republic really raises the bar on cheap plans. Though I'm kind of pissed that they went from a super low end phone (with a 3 year old OS) as their only offering, the Defy, to a moderately high end phone, the Moto X. Not to mention the the plans are cheaper for the expensive phone. I was an idiot and bought the cheap phone before I realized the Moto X was coming out.
Isn't Republic Wireless a Sprint MVNO? So they'd need to wait for the CDMA version, right?
Good news for all the GSM based MVNOs. Being able to offer a phone sub $200 that is not quite cutting edge but near enough for most people give even more reason to skip contracts.
Bought one just to have as a spare/beater/toy-around phone, even though I just went from a N4 to an N5. This price point is what the US has been needing.
I've never owned a smartphone before and I'm currently on an AT&T plan with no data. Could I use a Moto G?
I think they might be shooting themselves in the foot - I mean what's the consumer benefit of upgrading to Moto X?
Google/Motorola aren't in the game of trying to upsell customers to higher-end hardware. In the end, Google needs to own low-end smartphone marketshare and it needs to make those customers happy; low-cost, happy-UX smartphones are the future.
Also, treat the Moto X like the Model S/iPhone 1/whatever; a who-cares-the-price-let's-make-something-awesome-to-get-started.
Also, treat the Moto X like the Model S/iPhone 1/whatever; a who-cares-the-price-let's-make-something-awesome-to-get-started.
LTE and better screen are two most obvious.
I cant imagine buying a non-LTE phone today. I currently have the HSPA N4 and after playin with a couple LTE phones, its almost night and day. It feel more like I'm on wifi than a cellular wan. HSPA in Chicago barely gets me 5mbps with lots of latency and this weird 2-5 second lag where the request is made but no data is sent.
LTE's responsiveness, even if its at the same 5mbps bandwidth, is something of game changer.
With the nexus 5 at $350 right now, not sure why I would bother with either.
I cant imagine buying a non-LTE phone today. I currently have the HSPA N4 and after playin with a couple LTE phones, its almost night and day. It feel more like I'm on wifi than a cellular wan. HSPA in Chicago barely gets me 5mbps with lots of latency and this weird 2-5 second lag where the request is made but no data is sent.
LTE's responsiveness, even if its at the same 5mbps bandwidth, is something of game changer.
With the nexus 5 at $350 right now, not sure why I would bother with either.
> With the nexus 5 at $350 right now, not sure why I would bother with either.
Well this is almost half the price... so there's that. This is more of a competitor for the Nexus 4, if Google was still selling that (not sure why they chose not to).
Well this is almost half the price... so there's that. This is more of a competitor for the Nexus 4, if Google was still selling that (not sure why they chose not to).
Exactly, half the price of a Nexus 5 with way better than half the performance. At this price point, I'll be buying a Moto G just for the hell of it - much like I bought the original Optimus V.
As far as the 4, I think they stopped manufacturing it - the sale earlier was them clearing out the remaining stock. That seems to be status quo for Nexuses.
As far as the 4, I think they stopped manufacturing it - the sale earlier was them clearing out the remaining stock. That seems to be status quo for Nexuses.
This device isn't even primarily targeted at the US or other developed economies. Its intended for price-sensitive consumers in developing nations where LTE isn't even available.
The GP was asking about the Moto X and why one would pick the cheaper phone. My comment is a reply to that. Yes, in a country that is a decade away from LTE its a good fit. But in the West? Might as well spring for the X or the N5.
Well, I live in a developed nation with LTE, yet I barely use mobile internet, since Wifi is essentially everywhere in urban zones.
In France to take advantage of LTE I'd have to double the price of my subscription. The difference between HSPA+ and LTE is not worth that much for me.
In Austria it's about 4 times the price of a HSPA+ connection. LTE is not expected to get any mass adoption until 2016 or so. I read in Germany they are a bit faster. If you want to sell phones in Europe, LTE is not a relevant technology right now.
$350 is almost twice the price. I agree that I would rather have the Nexus 5 (and do), but I'm really into these kinds of things. Even if you don't give a crap about phones, you can probably drop $179.
Funny, I'm of the opposite opinion. I don't really feel it's worth it (yet) due to battery drain. I'm running my nexus 5 in 3g mode to extend battery life and it makes a huge difference. Things might take a second longer to load but for most of the day I'm on Wi-Fi anyway that the extra battery life is well worth it for me.
My Moto X routinely gets well in excess of 24 hours battery life with LTE on.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rsykvxftze1izdm/2013-11-21%2014.30...
On a day with a bit more screen time:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/428tbqi5jkspbkj/2013-11-25%2001.18...
Coming to this from a Galaxy Nexus where I literally had to carry two spare 2100mAh batteries to get through a full day has been a game changer for me.
Motorola did an amazing job optimizing power usage on this thing.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rsykvxftze1izdm/2013-11-21%2014.30...
On a day with a bit more screen time:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/428tbqi5jkspbkj/2013-11-25%2001.18...
Coming to this from a Galaxy Nexus where I literally had to carry two spare 2100mAh batteries to get through a full day has been a game changer for me.
Motorola did an amazing job optimizing power usage on this thing.
Work pays for your phone and phone bill, but it's locked in the USA so you can't take it with you on vacations. You want a phone because of things like maps, transit directions, dictionaries and such, but you know you will only use it for your vacation, so you don't need the extra features.
> With the nexus 5 at $350 right now, not sure why I would bother with either.
The N5's apparently abysmal battery life?
The N5's apparently abysmal battery life?
I would have agreed about the abysmal battery life if I only have a day’s worth of experience, playing around with it a lot more than I would usually, which is what a lot of anecdotes on the battery life are.
Read reports from N5 users now and you’ll find the battery life is nowhere near abysmal when tested against the conditions one would put with a phone they use normally.
I was one of those that lambasted the battery life when I first got it. But now at the end of the day my battery life barely dips below 50% and I use mine a fair lot.
Read reports from N5 users now and you’ll find the battery life is nowhere near abysmal when tested against the conditions one would put with a phone they use normally.
I was one of those that lambasted the battery life when I first got it. But now at the end of the day my battery life barely dips below 50% and I use mine a fair lot.
You don't have to read reports, you can look at real tests: http://blog.gsmarena.com/nexus-5-grinds-through-our-battery-....
The nexus 5 gets 4:45 of LTE browsing. The Moto X is 8:17, and the Moto G is supposed to be even better (though GSM Arena hasn't tested it yet).
The nexus 5 gets 4:45 of LTE browsing. The Moto X is 8:17, and the Moto G is supposed to be even better (though GSM Arena hasn't tested it yet).
The G can't do LTE, so any comparison would make no sense.
I unplugged my N5 this morning at around 07.00, it's now 16.30 and I'm on 80%. Did some web browsing on the train into work, have been messaging on and off all day. Lowest I've seen on a weekday for me was about 40% by the time I go to sleep.
Admittedly I tried some games on Sunday (Real Racing 3 and PvZ2) and the battery drained much faster, but the same happens on my ipad mini so it wasn't unexpected.
Admittedly I tried some games on Sunday (Real Racing 3 and PvZ2) and the battery drained much faster, but the same happens on my ipad mini so it wasn't unexpected.
I just bought a G2, which looks like the Nexus 5's older brother. Battery life is amazingly excellent: it's not uncommon for me to go to sleep with 45-50% remaining.
The number one reason I didn't buy an N5 was the 2300mAh battery, versus the G2's 3000. I think it was the right choice.
The number one reason I didn't buy an N5 was the 2300mAh battery, versus the G2's 3000. I think it was the right choice.
I was reading the battery life thread the other day in /r/android on reddit and saw mostly positive statements.
The battery life on mine is excellent, better than any smartphone I've ever owned by a solid margin.
Granted I am upgrading from a 2 year old Galaxy Nexus that would fully drain in a few hours, but I am quite happy with the N5 battery life. The only way I don't make it through a full day is if I play A LOT of Plants vs. Zombies 2.
I feel Moto G will look like an outdated phone in an year.
Hear Hear:
google just entered the subsided device game!
just like microsoft tried to kill competition by taking a loss on xbox. google via the acquired motorola mobility is probably taking a loss to sell you a 720p screen phone with NO SD CARD. the info site tells you in 7 different places that you get 50GB of free google drive.
google wants your data pretty bad.
google just entered the subsided device game!
just like microsoft tried to kill competition by taking a loss on xbox. google via the acquired motorola mobility is probably taking a loss to sell you a 720p screen phone with NO SD CARD. the info site tells you in 7 different places that you get 50GB of free google drive.
google wants your data pretty bad.
True but for any discerning techie, root it and you can have nandroid/titanium backups, pushed to the cloud, or pulled via wireless adb, or even bittorrent sync (in lieu of an open-source solution for now).
The Moto-G is nice except for the lack of LTE and micro-SD. Meanwhile the $150 Galaxy Light has both LTE and micro-SD but a low res screen. Trade-offs hmmm....
The Moto-G is nice except for the lack of LTE and micro-SD. Meanwhile the $150 Galaxy Light has both LTE and micro-SD but a low res screen. Trade-offs hmmm....
not having a SD card nowadays is crazy. Ask ANYONE who has the galaxy nexus S (maybe i have the wrong model... the only nexus without SD slot)
you can't install swype, firefox, google voice and skype on the same phone! and that is a 2 year old model.
you can't install swype, firefox, google voice and skype on the same phone! and that is a 2 year old model.
You're referring to the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy S has an SD card slot. The Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 also lack SD card slots.
As a Galaxy Nexus owner (it was my first Android phone) it was never an issue, as it has 16 GB of internal storage. I could install plenty of apps (including the four you mentioned) and cached a decent amount of music from Spotify.
I now own a Moto X, which doesn't have an SD card slot either.
As a Galaxy Nexus owner (it was my first Android phone) it was never an issue, as it has 16 GB of internal storage. I could install plenty of apps (including the four you mentioned) and cached a decent amount of music from Spotify.
I now own a Moto X, which doesn't have an SD card slot either.
I have a Samsung Galaxy Nexus (which has no SD card slot) with Swype, Firefox, Google Voice, and Skype all installed on my phone. According to the Storage page, I have 7.92GB of space left, out of 13.33GB total available, after my apps, some music, and pictures.
It seems logical that they would want your data, but: 50gb is pretty much free for them (storage gets cheaper over time, for one) and maybe a good selling point, no sd card makes file system easier and phones thinner, and in addition to wanting all your data, they would want to have android users have the nice automatic expedience of having all their music in one place on all devices, for example. Want your users to have great simple experience. You want this for business reasons, and I am not saying they are not also data hungry.