Moto X review round-up: When mediocre hardware is good enough

Moto X review round-up: When mediocre hardware is good enough

The Moto X has a lot riding on it. It is the first Motorola phone designed and conceived under its new auspices as a division of Google.  It is the first true Google phone. It is the first flagship smartphone to be assembled in the US. And perhaps most importantly, this is the phone that’s intended to wrest control of Android away from OEMs like Samsung and back into the hands of Google. Today, a big batch of Moto X reviews finally arrived, and we’re going to round them up and see whether the Moto X delivers — or whether it’s just yet another mid-range Android smartphone.

Moto X hardware reviews

One of the biggest problems with the Moto X, at least on paper, is that its hardware specs are very 2012. For a $200-on-contract phone — the same price as the iPhone 5 or Galaxy S4 — that could be a problem. While this year’s flagship superphones, such as the Samsung Galaxy S4 and HTC One, are equipped with 1080p displays, the Moto X has to make do with a 720p unit. While the One has a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 600 SoC, the Moto X has a dual-core Snapdragon (that Motoroogle tries to dress up as an eight-core chip with PR doublespeak).

The GPU (Adreno 320) and wireless connectivity (802.11ac, Bluetooth 4.0, NFC, LTE), however, are top-notch. The camera, on paper at 10-megapixels, should be good — but most reviews suggest that it’s actually sub-par, with the additional interesting caveat that finger smudges on the lens reduce image quality drastically.

Moto X Geekbench scores [Image credit: Ars Technica]

In general usage, reviewers find no issue with the “older” dual-core CPU. The simple fact of the matter is that, except for synthetic multithreaded benchmarks, there are very few valid applications for a quad-core mobile processor. The GPU, which is the same that you’ll find in the Galaxy S4, is very well received by the reviewers. In essence, it seems that Motorola went for a good-enough dual-core CPU paired with a very fast GPU — the same approach that Apple took with the iPhone 5′s A6 SoC. This provides excellent real-world performance, while providing better battery life.

The display — a 4.7-inch 1280x720p AMOLED unit — as you would expect, mostly divides reviewers. If you like the contrasty “pop” of AMOLED, then you’ll like the Moto X. Some reviews indicate that the screen’s lower brightness impacts daylight viewing, too.

Almost every reviewer decided not to test the Moto X’s wireless features, unfortunately. In all likelihood, the 802.11ac WiFi is provided by the same Broadcom chip that powers WiFi in the One and S4, and you can expect similar (awesome) performance. LTE (and 3G/HSPA+/etc.) are provided by Qualcomm, and performance should be comparable to most other LTE phones on the market that use the Snapdragon S4 SoC.

Moto X software reviews

If the Moto X’s hardware isn’t sensational, then you’d at least expect the software to be top-notch — and according to the reviews, that seems to be the case. With the Moto X, you essentially get a stock version of Android 4.2.2 Jelly Bean, with a few extra Motorola-specific features that differentiate it from other phones. (Read: Demystifying Android 4.3.)

Active Display shows notifications on your lock screen, which are activated whenever you jog your phone (such as when you pull it out of your pocket). Active Display uses a little-known feature of AMOLED, which lets you power on just a small section of the display, saving lots of power (animated GIF below). Active Display can be configured to show a variety of notifications, and reviewers seem to universally like this feature.

Touchless Control (turned off by default) lets you control your Moto X just by speaking to it, even if your phone is in standby mode. You activate it by saying “OK Google Now,” and then you simply issue command of some kind. Voice recognition, which is powered by Google/Google Now and supercharged by a local natural language processor (NLP), is pretty good. Reviewers seem to be generally positive of Touchless Control’s implementation and functionality. Like Apple’s Siri, your appreciation for Touchless Control will depend on how comfortable you feel when talking to your phone in public.

Most reviewers applaud how these extra, non-stock features seamlessly integrate into the otherwise-stock Android experience. The lock-and-feel of these new features, their settings panes, and the tutorials, matches that of Jelly Bean — a stark contrast to the third-party apps provided by Samsung or HTC.

Battery life

Without a 1080p screen or quad-core CPU to act as the marketing front-man, Motorola and Google have instead focused on the Moto X’s battery life, which is apparently good for up to 24 hours of “mixed usage.” We don’t know exactly what that mixed-usage scenario is, of course, but reviewers are generally very positive about the Moto X’s real-world battery life. Almost every reviewer made it through the day without needing to plug in. With the standard playing-HD-video-on-a-loop scenario, reviews vary between nine and 11 hours — with nine hours comparing very favorably to other smartphones, and 11 hours leading the pack by some margin.

It would appear that those two low-power coprocessors (the ones that apparently make this an eight-core device, once you factor in the two CPU cores and four GPU cores) really are reducing power consumption. There are two chips — a contextual computing processor (CCP) that manages the Active Display (and presumably other background tasks), and a local natural language processor that reduces the power consumption of voice recognition, and allows Touchless Control to constantly listen out for “OK Google Now.”

Again, in an attempt to divert attention away from its somewhat lackluster hardware, the Motorola has taken a rather unique approach to the Moto X’s look and feel: You can order your own phone through a website called Moto Maker with customized back, front, and accent colors. These phones are made to order in Fort Worth, Texas, and delivered within four days. In total, there are 504 different color/accent permutations. Sadly, reviewers haven’t yet received their customized devices, but presumably the fit and finish will be the same as the stock white device that’s being reviewed.

At 130 grams (4.59 oz), 65.3mm wide, and 10.4mm at its thickest point, the Moto X isn’t dainty — but it is smaller, and apparently more comfortable to hold than other large phones such as the Galaxy S4 and HTC One. Reviewers seem to like the curved back of the Moto X, making it feel more comfortable rather than chunky.

The Moto X’s curved back. [Image credit: Ars Technica]

Build-quality-wise, the reviews are mediocre. The body itself feels solid and doesn’t creak. The power button and volume rocker, which stick out on the side, are loose and flimsy. In some cases, the SIM card tray isn’t flush with the side of the device, suggesting variable build quality. One review at Ars Technica described the Moto X’s build quality very succinctly: “The difference between the Moto X and something like the HTC One is akin to the difference between the old white polycarbonate MacBook and the aluminum unibody MacBook Pros. Both feel like solid, well-made devices, but one is definitely made from superior materials.” Another review noted that the back plate was easily scuffed.

Is the Moto X worth $200?

The Moto X, then, is a medium-to-high-end smartphone, with unique features that have been generally well received by reviewers. The camera and the build quality are probably the two weakest points — but if you’re upgrading from a phone that’s a couple of years old, you will probably still be fairly impressed by the image quality.

What it really boils down to is whether you should spend $200 on the Moto X. It’s clear thatMotorola and Google have opted for mid-range components, and yet the device is priced like a flagship superphone. Why aren’t these savings being passed down to the consumer? Yes, the device is being assembled in Texas, but it’s very unclear if this provides a significant bump to the manufacturing cost. Yes, there are some fancy coprocessors inside the Moto X, but again we’re talking about something that would cost Motorola a few dollars, max.

At $100 on-contract, the Moto X would be a better value proposition. If you include the value of designing your own Moto X through the Moto Maker website, then perhaps $200 is justifiable. Sadly, though, Moto Maker is an AT&T exclusive for the foreseeable future.