Jump to content

Moto X 2014 (was "Motorola IHDT56QA1")


NateC

Recommended Posts

Not a Moto screw-up. Confirmed by Sprint that it was out of their hands: https://twitter.com/sprintcare/status/512420169277124608

And confirmed by Punit Soni it was a carrier decision. So there's that.

 

"Why carriers carry or not carry phones has a lot to do with their portfolio, requirements and how OEMs slot into them." - from the Google+ thread already linked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And confirmed by Punit Soni it was a carrier decision. So there's that.

 

"Why carriers carry or not carry phones has a lot to do with their portfolio, requirements and how OEMs slot into them." - from the Google+ thread already linked

 

Haha, why am I not surprised they're completely at odds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm kind of in the camp of "it's not different enough from the Nexus 5 anyway". I was hoping for something closer in size to last year's Moto X, but with the additional LTE bands. Oh well, on to waiting for Sony announcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't really switch carriers for phones anymore.

 

Read the Twitter and Google+ feeds.  Plenty of people still hitch their wagons to specific devices.  Those people may be morons, but they exist in significant numbers, nonetheless.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm kind of in the camp of "it's not different enough from the Nexus 5 anyway". I was hoping for something closer in size to last year's Moto X, but with the additional LTE bands. Oh well, on to waiting for Sony announcement.

 

screen is better, camera is better, better hardware, possibly better antenna, more premium feel/look - I think there's a lot it's got going for over last year's N5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

screen is better, camera is better, better hardware, possibly better antenna, more premium feel/look - I think there's a lot it's got going for over last year's N5.

 

That's certainly debatable.  According to Anandtech's review of the 2014 Moto X:

  • Nexus 5 screen is significantly brighter
  • Nexus 5 screen has superior grayscale accuracy
  • Nexus 5 screen has significantly better saturation accuracy
  • Nexus 5 screen has better GMB accuracy

The only thing that was rated in the Moto X's favor was white color temperature accuracy, and it was an extremely negligible difference (they are practically identical).

 

As far as the camera is concerned, the Moto X 2014 camera was also very unimpressive in Anandtech's review.  They didn't compare against the Nexus 5 directly though.  In any case, I don't think you can really say it's definitively better than the Nexus 5 camera from what we currently know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sprint decided not to carry the new Moto X, I'm only left to believe they decided it was too similar to the new Nexus and wasn't worth having two phones cannibalize each other.  That's my guess.  If it was Moto's decision, then it seems like AT&T exclusivity may be the reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how often does a device go through the FCC and then never get released?

Not as often as you think. Since Sprint LTE devices started showing up, this is like number 5 or 6, I think.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 5S using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Motorola X is going to go on sale in a few weeks on a major rural carrier that is using the CCA model.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Will Sprint activate this model on its network ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly debatable.  According to Anandtech's review of the 2014 Moto X:

  • Nexus 5 screen is significantly brighter
  • Nexus 5 screen has superior grayscale accuracy
  • Nexus 5 screen has significantly better saturation accuracy
  • Nexus 5 screen has better GMB accuracy

The only thing that was rated in the Moto X's favor was white color temperature accuracy, and it was an extremely negligible difference (they are practically identical).

 

As far as the camera is concerned, the Moto X 2014 camera was also very unimpressive in Anandtech's review.  They didn't compare against the Nexus 5 directly though.  In any case, I don't think you can really say it's definitively better than the Nexus 5 camera from what we currently know.

 

Personally I prefer the AMOLED screens, but the specs differences on the display are negligible. However, the hardware is better, the camera is 13 MP compared to 8 MP, and it will absolutely be a more premium device. Also, if the antenna is anything of what they've touted, it should be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is highly disappointing. I hope there is an unlocked model that can be simply activated on sprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Motorola X is going to go on sale in a few weeks on a major rural carrier that is using the CCA model.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

This makes the most sense... Hopefully sprint will allow them to be activated as well.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem like allot of faith being put on a couple tweets from customer service reps, especially given that there is a variant built on the CCA model.  Let's hope they are right but that there is another variant (nexus x or moto x) built with an 805 or better snapdragon capable of c.a. is on it's way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Is it possible that instead of two Moto X models that Sprint will only carry the Pure Edition Moto X? Personally, I like what I have read so far about it. Could yhe model gound on the FCC site be that phone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Is it possible that instead of two Moto X models that Sprint will only carry the Pure Edition Moto X? Personally, I like what I have read so far about it. Could yhe model gound on the FCC site be that phone?

I was under the impression the "pure edition" was the one that you buy straight from Motorola instead of your carrier.

 

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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

    • On Reddit, someone asked (skeptically) if the US Cellular buyout would result in better service.  I'd been pondering this very issue, and decided to cross-post my response here: I've been pondering the question in the title and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is that it's possible. Hear me out. Unlike some of the small carriers that work exclusively with one larger carrier, all three major carriers roam on US Cellular today in at least some areas, so far as I know. If that network ceases to exist, then the carriers would presumably want to recover those areas of lost service by building out natively. Thus, people in those areas who may only have service from US Cellular or from US Cellular and one other may gain competition from other carriers backfilling that loss. How likely is it? I'm not sure. But it's definitely feasible. Most notably, AT&T did their big roaming deal with US Cellular in support of FirstNet in places where they lacked native coverage. They can't just lose a huge chunk of coverage whole still making FirstNet happy; I suspect they'll have to build out and recover at least some of that area, if not most of it. So it'd be indirect, but I could imagine it. - Trip
    • Historically, T-Mobile has been the only carrier contracting with Crown Castle Solutions, at least in Brooklyn. I did a quick count of the ~35 nodes currently marked as "installed" and everything mapped appears to be T-Mobile. However, they have a macro sector pointed directly at this site and seem to continue relying on the older-style DAS nodes. Additionally, there's another Crown Castle Solutions node approved for construction just around the corner, well within range of their macro. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Verizon using a new vendor for their mmWave build, especially since the macro site directly behind this node lacks mmWave/CBRS deployment (limited to LTE plus C-Band). However, opting for a multi-carrier solution here seems unlikely unless another carrier has actually joined the build. This node is equidistant (about five blocks) between two AT&T macro sites, and there are no oDAS nodes deployed nearby. Although I'm not currently mapping AT&T, based on CellMapper, it appears to be right on cell edge for both sites. Regardless, it appears that whoever is deploying is planning for a significant build. There are eight Crown Castle Solutions nodes approved for construction in a 12-block by 2-block area.
    • Starlink (1900mhz) for T-Mobile, AST SpaceMobile (700mhz and 850mhz) for AT&T, GlobalStar (unknown frequency) for Apple, Iridium (unknown frequency) for Samsung, and AST SpaceMobile (850mhz) for Verizon only work on frequency bands the carrier has licensed nationwide.  These systems broadcast and listen on multiple frequencies at the same time in areas much wider than normal cellular market license areas.  They would struggle with only broadcasting certain frequencies only in certain markets so instead they require a nationwide license.  With the antennas that are included on the satellites, they have range of cellular band frequencies they support and can have different frequencies with different providers in each supported country.  The cellular bands in use are typically 5mhz x 5mhz bands (37.5mbps total for the entire cell) or smaller so they do not have a lot of data bandwidth for the satellite band covering a very large plot of land with potentially millions of customers in a single large cellular satellite cell.  I have heard that each of Starlink's cells sharing that bandwidth will cover 75 or more miles. Satellite cellular connectivity will be set to the lowest priority connection just before SOS service on supported mobile devices and is made available nationwide in supported countries.  The mobile device rules pushed by the provider decide when and where the device is allowed to connect to the satellite service and what services can be provided over that connection.  The satellite has a weak receiving antenna and is moving very quickly so any significant obstructions above your mobile device antenna could cause it not to work.  All the cellular satellite services are starting with texting only and some of them like Apple's solution only support a predefined set of text messages.  Eventually it is expected that a limited number of simultaneous voice calls (VoLTE) will run on these per satellite cell.  Any spare data will then be available as an extremely slow LTE data connection as it could potentially be shared by millions of people.  Satellite data from the way these are currently configured will likely never work well enough to use unless you are in a very remote location.
    • T-Mobile owns the PCS G-block across the contiguous U.S. so they can just use that spectrum to broadcast direct to cell. Ideally your phone would only connect to it in areas where there isn't any terrestrial service available.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...