Hacker News Reader

Comment by shirtbot | Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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.

> With the nexus 5 at $350 right now, not sure why I would bother with either.

The N5's apparently abysmal battery life?

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.

I was reading the battery life thread the other day in /r/android on reddit and saw mostly positive statements.

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.

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 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.

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 G can't do LTE, so any comparison would make no sense.

The battery life on mine is excellent, better than any smartphone I've ever owned by a solid margin.

> 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).

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.

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.

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.

$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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com