Jump to content

Moto X 2014 (was "Motorola IHDT56QA1")


Recommended Posts

Just spotted on the FCC website.

 

 http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/fcc_query.php?gc=IHD&pc=T56QA1

 

(just using phonescoop.com to redirect to the appropriate FCC page)

 

This appears to be a flagship-level device since it supports LTE, NFC, WiFi on 2.4 and 5 GHz, etc.  This variant is intended for AT&T/T-Mobile based on the supported bands.

 

Device dimensions: 

   Height: 140 mm (5.51")

   Width: 72.6 mm (2.86")

   Screen diagonal: 149 mm (5.87")

 

Based on that, it's probably the rumored Moto "Shamu"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

According to the spec, the Sprint Moto X (2014) should be model XT1092 with specs below:   GSM/GPRS/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); UMTS/HSPA+ (850, 900, 1700 (AWS), 1900, 2100 MHz); CDMA (850/19

Teaser article is on The Wall:   http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-373-teaser-x-marks-the-spot-for-the-first-sprint-ccarrpp-fully-compliant-handset/   AJ

Moto + case = 3x the EVO LTE reception without case   Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Posted Images

Just spotted on the FCC website.

 

 http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/fcc_query.php?gc=IHD&pc=T56QA1

 

(just using phonescoop.com to redirect to the appropriate FCC page)

 

This appears to be a flagship-level device since it supports LTE, NFC, WiFi on 2.4 and 5 GHz, etc.  This variant is intended for AT&T/T-Mobile based on the supported bands.

 

Device dimensions: 

   Height: 140 mm (5.51")

   Width: 72.6 mm (2.86")

   Screen diagonal: 149 mm (5.87")

 

Based on that, it's probably the rumored Moto "Shamu"?

 

I hope it isn't the new Nexus...  I would certainly hope that Sprint would get the next one, but this tells otherwise since I don't see them making more than one US variant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it isn't the new Nexus...  I would certainly hope that Sprint would get the next one, but this tells otherwise since I don't see them making more than one US variant.

 

I'm disappointed to see that it doesn't support AT&T/T-Mobile/Sprint bands all in one device like the Nexus 5 did.  I was really hoping that would become the norm.

 

Also, the other reason I hope this isn't the basis for the new Nexus is because it's too damn big.  The Nexus 5 is already too big in my opinion, and this device is even *larger*.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This appears to be a flagship-level device since it supports LTE, NFC, WiFi on 2.4 and 5 GHz, etc.  This variant is intended for AT&T/T-Mobile based on the supported bands.

 

 

LTE Band support includes 2, 4, 5, 7, 17, and 29 so its definitely an AT&T variant. I can't find the document which details the LTE Carrier Aggregation pairs unless its under short-turn confidentiality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nexus is a perfect device for the direction that Sprint is going with Easy Pay. It is a damn good device at a reasonable price (even with the carrier markup).

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Droid Life believes this device is the new Moto X (the AT&T variant), which would make sense...  A sliver of hope yet again.

 

Quote from Droid Life below:

 

Since many are assuming that the FCC’s measurement of 149mm across the display screen means a 5.9-inch display on the phone, I’ll have to stop you there. Keep in mind that the LG G3 has a 5.5-inch display with minimal bezel, yet it measures 146.3×74.6mm. There is no way that the new Moto X can measure 140×74.6mm, yet have a display that is .4-inches bigger than the LG G3. It’s just not possible. The FCC filing is likely just misrepresenting the situation here a bit by putting “display screen” on the image to indicate that this is the front of the phone. These measurements are for the entire phone, not just the display.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Droid Life believes this device is the new Moto X (the AT&T variant), which would make sense...  A sliver of hope yet again.

 

Quote from Droid Life below:

 

Yeah, I considered that possibility as well.  It's really confusing though, because if it's *not* the display diagonal dimension, then what is it?  It can't be the chassis dimensions, because sqrt(72.6^2 + 140^2) != 149^2.  If we consider reasonable bezel sizes, it would in fact suggest that 149 mm is not the diagonal screen size.  If we consider mathematical truths, then H=140mm, W=72.6mm can't have a diagonal of 149mm, suggesting they are not chassis sizes.  So what is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I considered that possibility as well.  It's really confusing though, because if it's *not* the display diagonal dimension, then what is it?  It can't be the chassis dimensions, because sqrt(72.6^2 + 140^2) != 149^2.  If we consider reasonable bezel sizes, it would in fact suggest that 149 mm is not the diagonal screen size.  If we consider mathematical truths, then H=140mm, W=72.6mm can't have a diagonal of 149mm, suggesting they are not chassis sizes.  So what is it?

 

Just throwing out an idea...  Could be completely off, but I don't know how they specifically measure these things. 

 

What about the fact that the edges are likely curved?  The chassis diagonal will be slightly lower than the equation would say.  It's not like the original Moto X was a complete rectangle...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing out an idea...  Could be completely off, but I don't know how they specifically measure these things. 

 

What about the fact that the edges are likely curved?  The chassis diagonal will be slightly lower than the equation would say.  It's not like the original Moto X was a complete rectangle...

 

That seems reasonable to me.  Either way it's confusing since the diagram doesn't show rounded corners:

 

5bPNz6T.png

 

 

And you are right that the device certainly won't have completely straight corners.  But it's still weird that they'd draw the dimension that way going sharp corner to sharp corner.  I think the conclusion is that we can't read too much into that diagram either way.  Whatever it is, it's much bigger than the original Moto X.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I considered that possibility as well.  It's really confusing though, because if it's *not* the display diagonal dimension, then what is it?  It can't be the chassis dimensions, because sqrt(72.6^2 + 140^2) != 149^2.  If we consider reasonable bezel sizes, it would in fact suggest that 149 mm is not the diagonal screen size.  If we consider mathematical truths, then H=140mm, W=72.6mm can't have a diagonal of 149mm, suggesting they are not chassis sizes.  So what is it?

 

FCC OET authorization documents show device dimensions.  They do not necessarily show screen sizes.  That is not of interest to the FCC.

 

AJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going with Moto x+1.. Were still a few months from OET / FCC on the Nexus X/6/or wtf model you want.. The X+1 is only a week away.. So I would suspect to see a bunch of OET / FCC postings coming. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going with Moto x+1.. Were still a few months from OET / FCC on the Nexus X/6/or wtf model you want.. The X+1 is only a week away.. So I would suspect to see a bunch of OET / FCC postings coming. 

Yeah this looks like the GSM version of the Moto X+1.  I doubt it'd be the Nexus since we're still in August!

 

Uh, guys, I am not saying that this handset is the next Nexus, but you forget history.  Last summer in late July, S4GRU staff saw a mystery LG handset uploaded to the FCC OET, then pulled back.  It reappeared permanently in the FCC OET the first week in September, and none other than S4GRU was the first to connect the dots, then break the story that the handset was the Nexus 5.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-351-teaser-is-the-lg-d820-the-nexus-5/

 

We are now coming up on that same week this year, so do not be surprised if the next Nexus handset gets outed at the FCC OET soon.

 

AJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, guys, I am not saying that this handset is the next Nexus, but you forget history.  Last summer in late July, S4GRU staff saw a mystery LG handset uploaded to the FCC OET, then pulled back.  It reappeared permanently in the FCC OET the first week in September, and none other than S4GRU was the first to connect the dots, then break the story that the handset was the Nexus 5.

 

http://s4gru.com/index.php?/blog/1/entry-351-teaser-is-the-lg-d820-the-nexus-5/

 

We are now coming up on that same week this year, so do not be surprised if the next Nexus handset gets outed at the FCC OET soon.

 

AJ

Not to argue as I agree with most your posts but your comparing two entirely different companies. Moto for the most part doesn't typically, I say that due to the fact they have posted some earlier then others, but they usually post within a month of release. That lg fiasco was bad, and they had a very similar release again the g3. Looking back at moto x for example FCC filing was July 26th'sh announcement followed weeks after and release September. Following that as a guideline I'd say we most likely will see a filing towards mid/end sept then googles announcement. But just opinion :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to argue as I agree with most your posts but your comparing two entirely different companies. Moto for the most part doesn't typically, I say that due to the fact they have posted some earlier then others, but they usually post within a month of release. That lg fiasco was bad, and they had a very similar release again the g3. Looking back at moto x for example FCC filing was July 26th'sh announcement followed weeks after and release September. Following that as a guideline I'd say we most likely will see a filing towards mid/end sept then googles announcement. But just opinion :)

 

Ah, but with the release of a Nexus device, which company wears the pants -- the OEM or Google?  As I recall, the Asus tablets, for example, hit the FCC OET months in advance.

 

AJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but with the release of a Nexus device, which company wears the pants -- the OEM or Google?  As I recall, the Asus tablets, for example, hit the FCC OET months in advance.

 

AJ

Well this could go into realm of typically. But not sure if this will be the case and I do remember the posting for n5 being submitted via lg and not google as they were manufacturer. Google only designs and agrees with it, the manufacturer submits the follow up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this could go into realm of typically. But not sure if this will be the case and I do remember the posting for n5 being submitted via lg and not google as they were manufacturer. Google only designs and agrees with it, the manufacturer submits the follow up.

 

Yes, the OEM is the grantee of record at the FCC OET.  But my argument is that Google runs the show as much as, if not more than the OEM.  And that is borne out when the Nexus devices end up in the hands of Google employees for real world testing months in advance.

 

AJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now today the IHDT56QA2 variant was spotted.

 

LTE bands supported: 2 (1900 MHz), 4 (1700 MHz), 7 (2600 MHz), 13 (700 MHz)

CDMA, GSM, and UMTS: 850 MHz and 1900 MHz

 

This one could be for Verizon?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And now today the IHDT56QA2 variant was spotted.

 

LTE bands supported: 2 (1900 MHz), 4 (1700 MHz), 7 (2600 MHz), 13 (700 MHz)

CDMA, GSM, and UMTS: 850 MHz and 1900 MHz

 

This one could be for Verizon?

Canada.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Ah.  I noticed the Bell/Rogers band 7 support, but I figured maybe they just included that in there for roaming/compatibility purposes.  I also didn't think they'd do the Canadian version before Sprint/Verizon/T-Mobile, but I don't really know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now today the IHDT56QA2 variant was spotted.

 

LTE bands supported: 2 (1900 MHz), 4 (1700 MHz), 7 (2600 MHz), 13 (700 MHz)

CDMA, GSM, and UMTS: 850 MHz and 1900 MHz

 

This one could be for Verizon?

Canada.

 

You both could be correct.  Canada is small potatoes, so its operators generally do not get their own handset variants.  Rather, they get piggybacked on a US operator variant.  But this handset does not appear to support SVLTE, making it unlikely to be headed to VZW, despite the boutique band 13 capability.

 

AJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

You both could be correct.  Canada is small potatoes, so its operators generally do not get their own handset variants.  Rather, they get piggybacked on a US operator variant.  But this handset does not appear to support SVLTE, making it unlikely to be headed to VZW, despite the boutique band 13 capability.

 

AJ

 

Good point with SVLTE. That leaves the couple million non-Big 3 Canadian mobile providers holding 700 MHz C1 blocks. Maybe later re-certification is possible too.

Edited by atomic50
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the spec, the Sprint Moto X (2014) should be model XT1092 with specs below:

 

GSM/GPRS/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz);

UMTS/HSPA+ (850, 900, 1700 (AWS), 1900, 2100 MHz);

CDMA (850/1900 MHz);

4G LTE (02, 04, 05, 12, 17, 25, 26, 41)

 

It appears it will work on all major US carriers except Verizon similar to the Nexus 5!

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Anyone in central PA region/Shentel land on this phone that can speak to recent behavior?  Considering upgrading this this or possibly the LG V60 5G otherwise and moving my wife to my G8X, but trying to get opinion/feedback on it.  If you chime in, state whether you're still pure legacy Sprint vs say TNX mode as well please for clarity.
    • Thanks for the analysis on those sites! The Juanita-Woodinville Sprint tower at 47.74330, -122.19131 was mostly a surprise because:  The T-Mobile tower at 47.74440, -122.18346 is only 2000ft away and the T-Mobile tower at 47.74641, -122.20140 is only 2700ft away. The fact it NEVER showed the 312-250 PLMN. This is despite me trying hard to find out if it or the Sprint tower at 47.747532, -122.18941 were going to be keep sites.  If this were to fill that geographic dead zone, I would imagine something located closer to Oskam's Corner would be more suitable. I guess it is a case of a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush.  As for T-Mobile's roll-out of B41/N41, I have to say I am impressed with the speed of deployment. Driving north on I-405 from the start at I-5, I locked my phone to B-41. I did not lose my T-Mobile B41 connection until I reached Kirkland. Even then, there was only a small gap and I likely would have been able to reach north of the 124th in Kirkland without issue. It seems like they are upgrading a number of sites in suburban Snohomish county near the King/SnoCo border.
    • Looks like they're continuing their streak of buying up T-Mobile MVNOs. I wonder how they plan on unifying all of them under one brand down the line, if they plan on doing that at all.
    • Block the DNS lookups (return NX or something like 127.0.0.1) for epdg.epc.mnc260mcc310.pub.3gppnetwork.org and epdg.epc.mnc120.mcc310.pub.3gppnetwork.org and epdg.epc.mnc530.mcc312.pub.3gppnetwork.org And/or block UDP outbound to 208.54.0.0/16 port 4500. You could probably just block all outbound to that subnet, but if you want to be sure it just blocks wifi calling, also restrict to that UDP port. The latter is probably preferred, but the DNS block should work if you don't have the ability to set outbound firewall rules on your router. Regarding the handoffs, that has always worked reliably for me. But you might have to make sure that "always on mobile data" is enabled under developer options.
    • Yes, I've seen that scam shield rarely works for me as well. I'm on TNX so I don't have call screener app anymore just the reported "superior" scam shield, but it doesn't seem to work very well. I get scam texts and calls quite a bit. 
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...