Google could have revolutionized the industry.
The promise was hardware that is not quite as good as others but practically good enough for everyone, yet offers freedom from contracts and the prospect of upgrading more often without shady schemes like "Next" and "Jump", for a ownership price that was comparable to the up front costs of subsidized phones with bloatware. A phone that would have been successful with stock Android and taught the rest of the industry a lesson.
Instead they come out with a phone that costs the same or more than flagship Android phones, making it once again only affordable to most when associated with 2 years contract agreements. And the default version does not even have vanilla Android (granted given some of its features that may not only be a bad thing).
But what puzzles me most is the comparison of the Moto X to Google's own, 3x less expensive, Nexus 7:
Significantly worse processor.
Significantly lower spec display.
Likely significantly worse *mono* speaker (compared to stereo on the 7).
Non vanilla Android.
Maybe slightly better camera (though Megapixels are not the only thing that matters.
An LTE chip that we know costs close to nothing.
Who makes such decisions?
Locking as a duplicate discussion of:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2328582
Let's keep all of the discussion in one place.
Moderator PM
The promise was hardware that is not quite as good as others but practically good enough for everyone, yet offers freedom from contracts and the prospect of upgrading more often without shady schemes like "Next" and "Jump", for a ownership price that was comparable to the up front costs of subsidized phones with bloatware. A phone that would have been successful with stock Android and taught the rest of the industry a lesson.
Instead they come out with a phone that costs the same or more than flagship Android phones, making it once again only affordable to most when associated with 2 years contract agreements. And the default version does not even have vanilla Android (granted given some of its features that may not only be a bad thing).
But what puzzles me most is the comparison of the Moto X to Google's own, 3x less expensive, Nexus 7:
Significantly worse processor.
Significantly lower spec display.
Likely significantly worse *mono* speaker (compared to stereo on the 7).
Non vanilla Android.
Maybe slightly better camera (though Megapixels are not the only thing that matters.
An LTE chip that we know costs close to nothing.
Who makes such decisions?
Locking as a duplicate discussion of:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2328582
Let's keep all of the discussion in one place.
Moderator PM
Last edited by a moderator:
Facebook
Twitter