Dont expect a real Google phone from Motorola for awhile

[SpongeBob]

Motorola phones are also ugly and not aesthetically pleasing. If Google, plans to change that, that's fine.

This is totally subjective. Personally I think the RHD/RMHD are very nice. I like the industrial look and feel and the usage of aluminum and kevlar materials in the design as opposed to the plasticky junk that everyone else seems to put out. The iPhone 4/4S and Nexus 4 are nice but prone to glass breakage and the iPhone 5 is nice but gets scratched to hell. I like Motos approach. Durable and good looking kevlar back. Aluminum around the edges. All glass front.

 

[Red Storm]

This is totally subjective. Personally I think the RHD/RMHD are very nice. I like the industrial look and feel and the usage of aluminum and kevlar materials in the design as opposed to the plasticky junk that everyone else seems to put out. The iPhone 4/4S and Nexus 4 are nice but prone to glass breakage and the iPhone 5 is nice but gets scratched to hell. I like Motos approach. Durable and good looking kevlar back. Aluminum around the edges. All glass front.

It's not the material so much as the odd shape of their devices.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

So you're saying one phone, on one carrier, in one country is responsible for Androids global success?

Yes the Droid was better than the G1, thats because it was a year newer and shipped with a more modern OS not because it was made by Motorola.

Correct. That and it was deployed on Verizon. Verizon was the network people were waiting for because they had no iPhone. The holdouts were sticking to Verizon but wanted SOME sort of real alternative to the iPhone. And no, the HTC Touch Diamond phones didn't count.

I don't understand how Motorola got America into Android. It could've been anyone. Samsung could've been THE manufacturer. If anything look at where Motorola has gone since the Droid 1 release. I think they're slowly making it back but in the US they're mainly alive because Verizon keeps paying them for exclusive phones. In the rest of the world? Nah.

So if anything had Samsung launched instead of Motorola, they would've been viewed as the company getting the US into Android AND being the dominant world leader today.

The fact that Motorola was the US Android debut company and collapsed pretty much afterwards shows you that they weren't very influential. Not to mention the DROID campaign was an absolute failure. It might've garnered sales back then, but clearly it's meaningless today.

The only thing Motorola does on their phones that makes me go wow is the battery life. Other than that, that's about it.

Pretty much nails it on the head. There's nothing Motorola delivers today that's wow. Locked bootloaders aren't interesting, and if anything Motorola should look at its global sales after the Milestone 1. Milestone 2/3 were practically nonexistent in the world. The continued attitude about "when carriers allow it" really isn't helping PR either. It's one thing to make your phones unlockable/rootable like Samsung and only lock down in the US because Verizon demands it, but another to lock everything down and unlock only a few select devices.

 

[Red Storm]

Moto has a problem where outside of Verizon they suck.

HTC has a problem where so many of their models don't come to Verizon.

Samsung phones can be bought regardless of carrier. That's definitely one of the reasons why they're now doing so well. You can't just ignore the largest carrier in the US, but you also can't rely pretty much exclusively on them.

 

[WelshBloke]

It's not the material so much as the odd shape of their devices.

This. They are a really odd shape plus the design is way too fussy. Aluminium, kevlar, glass, plastic... all with different patterns and logos on it.

 

[Eug]

Heh. Somebody else complained to me that the RAZR HD line was too plain looking.

Anyways, my RAZR HD has the Motorola text on the top and just the M logo on the back. No annoying Verizon logo of course. It looks like this:

If I were to change anything, it'd be to remove the Motorola text. I do really like the Kevlar back BTW, since it's not a scratch magnet, and it has a grippy feel, and looks good too in real life.

My main beefs with the phone, in no particular order:

1) Too wide, but that's true of any 4.7" or bigger phone.
2) microSD slot and SIM slot are opened together, so if you swap out the microSD your SIM gets removed.
3) HDMI works great for surfing, but the phone stutters on HDMI HD video output. (Works fine without HDMI plugged in.)
4) Camera is mediocre. Samsung Galaxy S III and iPhone 5 cameras are significantly better.
5) No home button. I guess that's what you get for being near-stock Android.

My ideal Android phone would be a 720p 4.3" phone with top notch camera.

 

[lothar]

This is totally subjective. Personally I think the RHD/RMHD are very nice. I like the industrial look and feel and the usage of aluminum and kevlar materials in the design as opposed to the plasticky junk that everyone else seems to put out. The iPhone 4/4S and Nexus 4 are nice but prone to glass breakage and the iPhone 5 is nice but gets scratched to hell. I like Motos approach. Durable and good looking kevlar back. Aluminum around the edges. All glass front.

You are talking about function(plastic, glass, aluminum, kevlar etc...), I am talking about looks...Those are 2 different things.

Their odd shaped sizes, their not so perfectly rounded and very sharp(or should I say square?) edges?
I do appreciate that their phones are built as tough as a brick, but they don't have to sacrifice looks for function.

 

[Red Storm]

Also Moto's new flagship phones are wider (or at least appear wider) than the competition, and that also adds to the uncomfortable hold.

IMHO the Verizon Galaxy Nexus with extended battery was the most comfortable phone to hold ever. The slight curve and rounded edges were perfectly done.

 

[lothar]

Heh. Somebody else complained to me that the RAZR HD line was too plain looking.

Anyways, my RAZR HD has the Motorola text on the top and just the M logo on the back. No annoying Verizon logo of course. It looks like this:

If I were to change anything, it'd be to remove the Motorola text. I do really like the Kevlar back BTW, since it's not a scratch magnet, and it has a grippy feel, and looks good too in real life.

My main beefs with the phone, in no particular order:

1) Too wide, but that's true of any 4.7" or bigger phone.
2) microSD slot and SIM slot are opened together, so if you swap out the microSD your SIM gets removed.
3) HDMI works great for surfing, but the phone stutters on HDMI HD video output. (Works fine without HDMI plugged in.)
4) Camera is mediocre. Samsung Galaxy S III and iPhone 5 cameras are significantly better.
5) No home button. I guess that's what you get for being near-stock Android.

My ideal Android phone would be a 720p 4.3" phone with top notch camera.

I don't mind the Motorola logo at the front, it's just that it's too close to the edge which makes it look fugly.
If they did it like this towards the middle part of the top bezel and not near the top edge where it looks very busy, crowded, and like it wants to fall off or it's some kind of dress tag that you want to rip off, that would make more sense.

Example:

Oh, another thing I hate is their phones are becoming too thin(the MAXX line is an exception of course since the bigger battery makes it look normal). The regular RAZR is too thin for my tastes.
This obsession of "thinness" from the Android manufacturers can't end soon enough.

 

[Eug]

You are talking about function(plastic, glass, aluminum, kevlar etc...), I am talking about looks...Those are 2 different things.

Their odd shaped sizes, their not so perfectly rounded and very sharp(or should I say square?) edges?
I do appreciate that their phones are built as tough as a brick, but they don't have to sacrifice looks for function.

I don't find the RAZR HD's edges particularly sharp. The front is more squared off, yes, but the actual edge is blunt. And the back is actually quite rounded off.

Also Moto's new flagship phones are wider (or at least appear wider) than the competition, and that also adds to the uncomfortable hold.

They are not wider. They're actually narrower.

RAZR HD : 67.9 mm
Nexus 4: 68.7 mm
Galaxy S III: 70.6 mm

It's amazing just how much misinformation there is in this thread, but I partially blame Motorola for their poor marketing.

 

[lothar]

I don't find the RAZR HD's edges particularly sharp. The front is more squared off, yes, but the actual edge is blunt. And the back is actually quite rounded off.


They are not wider. They're actually narrower.

RAZR HD : 67.9 mm
Nexus 4: 68.7 mm
Galaxy S III: 70.6 mm

It's amazing just how much misinformation there is in this thread, but I partially blame Motorola for their poor marketing.

I was speaking relatively of course. I don't think it's as sharp as a knife or that it can cut you or anything.
Compare the image on the left you posted and the Galaxy S II image I posted and you'll understand what I'm talking about regarding the front edges.

 

[Eug]

I was speaking relatively of course. I don't think it's as sharp as a knife or that it can cut you or anything.

I know. However, my unstated point was that other phones out there have sharper edges. I wouldn't disagree with making them less squared off, but I don't find the edges on the RAZR HD line annoyingly sharp, probably because the back of the phone is rounded off.

But then again, I don't find the iPhone 4 / 4S annoyingly sharp either, and that design has squared off edges at the back too.

 

[Red Storm]

They are not wider. They're actually narrower.

RAZR HD : 67.9 mm
Nexus 4: 68.7 mm
Galaxy S III: 70.6 mm

It's amazing just how much misinformation there is in this thread, but I partially blame Motorola for their poor marketing.

I did say "or at least appear wider". All I know is when I tried the Moto Razr, the Maxx HD, then the new Razr and the Maxx HD it felt like these phones were too wide. They weren't comfortable to hold and use compared to other models, and I just don't like the weird shape.

 

[Eug]

Well, I don't like the RAZR HD's width either, but I find it easier to hold than the Galaxy S III, probably because the Galaxy S III is almost 3 mm wider (which isn't surprising given its slightly larger screen and its plastic shell).

What I really want is something the width of the RAZR M, which is 60.9 mm. That's the perfect size IMO, with its 4.3" screen. Unfortunately, that screen is only 540p. It needs to be 720p.

 

[SpongeBob]

It's definitely easier to hold than the S3 simply because its narrower (but not anywhere near the point where it would be uncomfortably narrow).

I personally like the sharp edges and overall thinness. The fact that it has a 3300mah battery and is as thin as it is is pretty WOW to me. If the RMHD was a nexus phone it would be REALLY WOW.