Related
I'm on about to buy one of these phones, both on the same +- budget [280$ include shipping, tax, vat], if you have another other option on this price I would like to hear.
I want a strong phone [quad-core], durable-strong, available replacement parts [on ebay etc], xda community, good camera...
I know some of these requirements are valid to the one and non to the other and vice verse, thats why I can not decide between the both.
The Optimus G is pretty old but with better camera and 2gb ram [include sd card]
The Moto G is new, durable, strong, updated, don't realy know about how bad its camera...
Whould like for some recommendations...
thanks!
PsyOr said:
I'm on about to buy one of these phones, both on the same +- budget [280$ include shipping, tax, vat], if you have another other option on this price I would like to hear.
I want a strong phone [quad-core], durable-strong, available replacement parts [on ebay etc], xda community, good camera...
I know some of these requirements are valid to the one and non to the other and vice verse, thats why I can not decide between the both.
The Optimus G is pretty old but with better camera and 2gb ram [include sd card]
The Moto G is new, durable, strong, updated, don't realy know about how bad its camera...
Whould like for some recommendations...
thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I heard the camera on the moto g has some problems but the kit kat update fixed them, for spec wise the Optimus G has a better processor, bigger screen and bigger resolution and a better GPU while the Moto g has only a higher ppi. I would go with the moto g any day because LG phone Products suck D:
No, no problems on myne. mayby it happens ocasionaly..
I have been looking at new phones. The flagship phones are sexy and, at least for a few months until the next must have comes out, have a lot of bling factor. However, there seem to be a lot of decent budget/midrange phones available (<$300). Additionally, it seems phones have a short life (durability and obsolescence) to justify dropping $500-$700 every 2-3 years. I'm wondering if it still makes sense or when it makes sense to go with the flagship products.
Questions:
1) Have we reached a point, like PC's, where the even budget units perform just about all tasks pretty well?
2) What uses would a flagship phone (e.g LG G3, Samsung S5, HTC One M8, Moto X) be better for than a typical budget/midrange phone (e.g. Moto G, Moto E, LG Optimus L90)?
3) Are there any critical features missing in the budget phones?
mrstop said:
I have been looking at new phones. The flagship phones are sexy and, at least for a few months until the next must have comes out, have a lot of bling factor. However, there seem to be a lot of decent budget/midrange phones available (<$300). Additionally, it seems phones have a short life (durability and obsolescence) to justify dropping $500-$700 every 2-3 years. I'm wondering if it still makes sense or when it makes sense to go with the flagship products.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Makes sense" is pretty subjective. It depends on what you can afford, are willing to spend, want and/or need. I pursue the various "what phone should you buy" threads regularly, and I also regularly recommend phones like the Nexus 4, Moto G, Sony Xperia SP, and the like. I'm also a big fan of "obsolete" or discontinue phones that you can pick up on eBay or Amazon. For example, you can get the Nexus 4 off eBay, brand new, for $240. And it's a way better phone than a Moto G, for only a bit more. IMO people need to remember options like these. It doesn't have to be a new phone (newly released, as opposed to new vs used). A flagship for a year or 2 ago can be had for far less than its original cost, and can outstrip a "budget" phone that just came out. Another example: A co-worker of mine needs a cheap smartphone after switching to T-Mobile. He was looking at the LG L9 that just came out, which can be purchased outright for a mere $100. The main disadvantage is that it only has HSPA 21.1Mb/s download capability. I told him to get a new LG F6 off eBay for $109. Slightly smaller screen, but same resolution, better processor, and has LTE. He didn't know about it, because it's discontinued and not on T-Mo's website anymore.
Questions:
1) Have we reached a point, like PC's, where the even budget units perform just about all tasks pretty well?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If we're not there yet, we're close. The Moto G really sent a shockwave out, and other manufacturers are clamoring to compete (and mostly failing). A "budget" phone, as long as you pick the right one, should be able to do nearly, if not everything you want it to. And as I said above, "budget" doesn't necessarily mean a newly released phone; flagships from a couple years ago are still capable devices and can be had for very reasonable costs.
2) What uses would a flagship phone (e.g LG G3, Samsung S5, HTC One M8, Moto X) be better for than a typical budget/midrange phone (e.g. Moto G, Moto E, LG Optimus L90)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One obvious reason to have a flagship is the superior screen. Do you need a HD screen? No, you really don't. Anything above 200ppi is usable, to be frank. But of course everybody wants a better screen, since most of what we do with smartphones involves looking at them. Screen size is a subjective preference, but everybody wants the screen to be clearer, brighter, and more vibrant.
If you like to play games, flagships are obviously better. Better resolution, higher framerates,
3) Are there any critical features missing in the budget phones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's always some things that have to be sacrificed to make a phone cheaper. Just look at the Moto E vs the Moto G. Screen resolution is lower and smaller, the processor is only a dual core, and the camera lacks flash (no front-facing camera either). And comparing the Moto G to the Moto X or other flagship phones, it's obviously not as powerful, doesn't have as much RAM, and the 5mp camera is constrained by the fact that it only has 5mp, where most flagships have at least double, and sometimes triple or quadruple that. Internal storage is an issue, especially if running KitKat and you're not able to move apps to SD, or the phone doesn't even have SD capability,
To conclude, let's compare to popular phones, the Moto G and the Galaxy S5. The Moto G runs smoothly, due to it's nearly-stock Android (completely stock if you get the GPE). The screen is very decent. But if you get the regular versions, you're limited to 8 or 16GB (less available to the user), 21.1Mb/s HSPA, and mediocre cameras. The LTE version is the better choice, since you also get a microSD slot, although it's only good for 32GB cards. Whereas with an S5 you get a higher resolution screen, more RAM, a far more capable processor, far better cameras, 32GB storage built-in, plus expandability to 128GB, etc, etc, etc. It also costs three times as much.
So yeah, it's great that we can buy a cheap smartphone that'll do everything we need. But that doesn't change the fact that there are phones that can do what we want.
I'm well aware I'm posting this in the Moto G forum.
Amazon has the Moto G LTE for just under $200. They also have unlocked/new AT&T G2's for $200 to $220 (we use Cricket). There are things I like about both, for different reasons, so I'm asking the Moto G community to tell me why you would pick the G over the G2 - or not?
TIA
jntdroid said:
I'm well aware I'm posting this in the Moto G forum.
Amazon has the Moto G LTE for just under $200. They also have unlocked/new AT&T G2's for $200 to $220 (we use Cricket). There are things I like about both, for different reasons, so I'm asking the Moto G community to tell me why you would pick the G over the G2 - or not?
TIA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This might be slightly biased but moto g 4g any day for me all my Mobiles have been moto from the defy,atrix,RAZR I now moto g 4g
Here's where I'm at so far... and ultimately it will depend on how important each factor is to me I guess.
Camera: G2
Battery: I think the G might be better, but the G2 is obviously solid
Screen: G2
Processor / Speed: G2, but the G holds it's own thanks to good software.
Size / feel: I like the size of both. I like the grippier feel of the G and the fact it's easier to use with one hand. I wouldn't need a case with the G, I feel the need for one with the G2
Speaker: G
"Freedom": G... no carrier branding, can unlock bootloader, updates from Moto. My G2 is AT&T, so I have to pop an AT&T sim in to get updates
Dev Support: strong for both... but there doesn't appear to be near as much for the peregrine as the falcon, which is disappointing, unless I'm missing something? It would be great to turn the G into GPE or use an official / stable build of CM on it.
Future Proof: Well, spec-wise the G2. Software-wise I think they're in the same boat given their age.
Other: Splash resistance on the G is nice; double tap to wake the G2 is nice
Cost: Both are around $200 on Amazon, the G2 averaging about $20 more.
Hey,
I'm looking for a new device because I recently broke my OnePlus X and the repair cost is like really really expensive. I wanted to know if the Moto G3 was still worth it. I got only 200 euros to use and saw a lot of reviews that tells that it's great but i'm afraid of the SD410. Thank you for your kindness
Regards,
The new moto g will be out soon, so if you can wait a little it will be better. For me this phone is amazing, but the 2014 moto g had a better battery. I have the 2gb ram and 16gb storage and it runs everything smoothly, 5" is a perfect size for the screen, fantastic community with lot of roms and fixes... I'd definitely recommend it. But you'd better wait the new version even if you want this one because the price could go down to 140
tsirhcitna said:
The new moto g will be out soon, so if you can wait a little it will be better. For me this phone is amazing, but the 2014 moto g had a better battery. I have the 2gb ram and 16gb storage and it runs everything smoothly, 5" is a perfect size for the screen, fantastic community with lot of roms and fixes... I'd definitely recommend it. But you'd better wait the new version even if you want this one because the price could go down to 140
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Moto G 2015 has a much better battery than the 2014. Maybe you have something eating your battery, but Moto did put a better battery in the 3rd gen which is basically the same phone as the 2nd gen.
The Moto G Plus is undoubtly better than the Moto G 2015, but its not water resitant anymore.
The new water resistant one (Moto G Play) is pretty lame (8 megapixel only camera). I still think my Moto G 2015 is unrepleceable.
As a viewpoint of a geek, I love this phone . You get good development support and updates too. Feels like younger brother of nexus line.
G4 plus has better specs but personally, I feel moto g 2015 looks more google motorola like and g plus tastes lenovo.[emoji39] .
For me, totally worth it.[emoji1]
Broadcasted from Zeta Reticuli
Yep, it's definitely still a good phone. But stay away from the 8GB version.
No. Buy 4th Gen or wait...!!! It doesn't have Gyroscope, Amoled, Better performance etc
i told my friends to buy Moto G turbo , its also a good phone like Moto G 3rd gen,
i prefer Turbo edition, as we get a little better hardware and Turbo CHarger
Hi.
I've been using Cyanogenmod since Android 2.3.
Back in 2013 i had a Moto G 16gb (falcon), which display cracked due to human error. Bought a Moto E (condor) as a full display assembly replacement wasn't cost-effective for me. Even though Condor was pretty basic, it was overall a nice phone for Work and School for 2 years, and Cyanogenmod was an awesome system for it.
I managed to get a brand new U.S.A. Moto G CDMA for pretty cheap $200 MXN ($11 USD), as it can't be used in México, and swapped the full display assembly, battery, and back cover to my old Moto G and replaced my Condor with my brand new "old" Moto G.
So far, this G has been awesome for my everyday duty since a year ago and also Cyanogenmod 13 is flawless.
This week, I decided to buy a Moto G 2015 (osprey) for $2800 MXN (pretty cheap too). It's a 16Gb, 1Gb RAM, Dual SIM variant XT1543.
Well, this story is nothing but the prelude to my questions.
1) Is the Osprey screen uglier than the Falcon? It seems colors are yellower, and blacks are grayer. Also, seems to have a grainy screen.
2) Cyanogenmod 13 (falcon) vs Stock ROM (Osprey) GUI seems pretty different. I am really used to CM, and using the stock ROM seems like a down-grade to me.
3) It seems like Falcon has lots more dev than Osprey or at least seems like there's more activity on Falcon forums (Maybe i am wrong?).
4) When I checked Cyanogenmod 13 bugs for Osprey, seems to have lots more bugs than Falcon even though Falcon is older?
I feel like a bad decision was made in buying Osprey. Besides bigger screen (and duller), and better cameras, bigger battery, there's nothing else to upgrade from a Falcon to a Osprey . My living in México has been always trying to achieve maximum efficiency with less effort, in most aspects of life.
Thanks for your inputs.
i think the best improvements over falcon would be the increased memory (should be 2GB if you've got 16GB version), and water proofed body, bigger battery and relatively better camera. other than that there isn't much. newer phones require bit of ramp up time for devs and users to make/use custom ROMs, since most users will not unlock bootloaders within warranty period. so, now that you ve bought maybe you can keep for while if you enjoy the said advantages till the dev support for the device catches up.