Jump to content

Moto X 2014 (was "Motorola IHDT56QA1")


Recommended Posts

Posted

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
Posted

What the hell is going on here? I remember all of the major tech news outlets saying it would be on all 4 major carriers?! Didn't Moto themselves say that it would?

Posted

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.

Posted

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
Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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

Posted

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

Posted

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 ?

Posted

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.

Posted (edited)

So just a FYI, Motorola and Sprint have confirmed that their will be no Sprint model.

 

*Sorry I thought I saw a joint statement, but it was only Motorola that said this*

Edited by pdubbs03
Posted

Well, guess the only one could be the pure edition moto x. Could that one be the version that passed through the FCC?

Posted

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

Posted

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
Posted

So just a FYI, Motorola and Sprint have confirmed that their will be no Sprint model.

 

I seen confirmation from Motorola but where has Sprint confirmed?

Posted

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
Posted

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?

Posted

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

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

    • Vinegar Hill is getting the Brooklyn Heights treatment now with regard to small cells. I mapped two more small cells in the neighborhood in the past few days so now T-Mobile is up to 8 of them in such a tiny neighborhood. While it's cool they're doing this since it means outdoors you get a consistent 400Mbps+ almost everywhere, it sucks because they're obviously deploying so many of them to make up for their lack of a macro site in the entire neighborhood. Because there isn't a macro, the small cells have a greater coverage area than you see in other neighborhoods and you often connect to them while indoors but coverage and speeds fall off indoors much faster on small cells than on macros in my experience.  Even Dish has better coverage than T-Mobile in Vinegar Hill since they added the site on top of the Extra Space Storage building alongside AT&T and Verizon. T-Mobile needs to get in line with their competitors there.
    • It seems like that is the smallest Google Play System change that google releases. I see 12 MB updates really regularly. 
    • Went back to Greenville last week and what an insane change 4 years has made! Every site in the city has n25/41/71 now and T-Mobile has even added new sites in the city since the last time I was there. As a result, their coverage and speeds are great everywhere. Unfortunately I don't have my Verizon line anymore so I'm unable to compare their performance to T-Mobile but they definitely had better coverage and speeds than AT&Tin my testing.  On the LTE side of things, T-Mobile has 5MHz Band 71, 10MHz Band 66, and 5MHz Band 2 deployed. On the 5G side, they have 190MHz n41, 15MHz n25, and 15MHz n71 deployed. As you'd expect 5G is several times faster than LTE here because of that. One thing I noticed though is that T-Mobile's speeds pretty much never go above 1Gbps here. I'm not sure if it's a backhaul limitation or if they're seriously pushing their 5G home internet product here but on most sites I was seeing 500-600Mbps with some sites having peaks in the high 800s-low 900's. I also noticed that upload speeds weren't nearly as good as they were in NYC. I attribute this to the fact that site spacing often cause the phone to drop to n25 or n71 for uploads as opposed to using n41. I have a handful of high (>100Mbps) upload speed tests but that was with me virtually right next to a site. Since I drove my own car instead of riding with family, I used the opportunity to map a ton of rural roads outside to Greenville to see what kind of coverage I'd get. T-Mobile has stepped up their game a ton in this regard as I found that coverage matched and in many cases surpassed what I was seeing on AT&T. areas where AT&T dropped to 1 bar or even no signal, I held onto weak n71 and was still able to place calls using VoNR. There are still areas where I would drop signal but those were areas where I'm certain the only carrier available was U.S. Cellular since they still have a ton of macros that they're the only tenant on. The U.S. Cellular merger won't add much to T-Mobile's spectrum coffers there; they'll increase 600MHz from 20MHz to 30MHz, gain another 10MHz of AWS, and acquire the rest of the 24GHz band, but they'll gain a ton new sites to bolster their rural coverage in this area and make it pretty much the best in the region.  — — — — — I also mapped Dish while down there. Dish's doesn't have much spectrum in Pitt County, they only have 5MHz n71, 25MHz n70 and 5MHz n29. This lack of spectrum combined with what is pretty much a skeleton/license protection network meant that in most cases I was only on 1-2 bars of n71 indoors and while outdoors I wasn't seeing speeds nearly as good as I get in NYC. While directly in front of a site I could get over 300Mbps but in most cases while out and about I wasn't seeing over 100Mbps. In fact, at my hotel I was only able to get about 5Mbps down and 2Mbps up on n71. Maybe as they densify I'll see more consistently high speeds but their lack of spectrum will remain a huge bottleneck much like it was for T-Mobile pre-Sprint merger. — — — — — AT&T and Verizon are the only carriers with small cells in Greenville. Verizon has a significantly larger deployment than AT&T though, with AT&T having it along some roads where they have weaker coverage while Verizon seems to be using them for added capacity Uptown and especially around ECU. They started being installed around 2019 but none of them have 5G as far as I can tell, only LTE. AT&T also has C-band and DoD deployed on every site in the city, giving me speeds in the range of 350-400Mbps in most areas. — — — — — Here are some photos of small cells in Greenville.  
    • Just checked and found a 12MB Google Play System update ready to download.    Still October 1 for the date after however. 
    • Looks like my little area finally has some decent mobile connectivity. Still have a few dead spots on both tmo and firstnet... https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/10549791800  
  • Recently Browsing

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