[Moto X General] Eckyx:
I have been using a Galaxy S2 for the past two and a half years and have been pretty happy with it overall. Last week my Republic Wireless Moto X came in, and I decided to share my experience.

(Physical Appearance)

Physically, the Galaxy S2 and Moto X are almost identical in vertical and horizontal size. The Galaxy S2 is a hair wider, and not quite as long. The Moto X packs a 4.7” screen into approximately the same sized package as the Galaxy S2 which has a 4.3” screen - though only around 4.45” of the X’s screen is usable most of the time due to onscreen buttons. The Moto X is considerably thicker (the S2 is an incredibly thin phone) though its shape is very pleasant to hold. Thinner is not always better. I was also surprised by how noticeable an increase from 122g to 130g is in my hand – the X feels surprisingly heavier and denser.

The screens on these two devices are both Samsung-manufactured OLED panels. The S2 uses the same RGB pixel layout as the Moto X, but runs at a lower resolution of 800x480 (16:10) as opposed to the X’s 1280x720 (16:9). The Moto X’s panel is basically the same panel as is used in the Note 2, though with smaller pixels, making it one generation behind the S4 and one generation ahead of the S2. Neither has the RGBG (pentile) layout of the Galaxy S, S3 and S4, which is arguably a plus.

Auto brightness:

Max brightness:

Although it’s difficult to capture with a camera (my second S2, in fact), the Moto X’s screen is a little brighter at any given level of auto-brightness, has a higher max brightness, and a slightly lower minimum brightness than the S2. The saturation is higher on the Moto X than on the S2 though its pixels have faded in the past two and a half years (a common problem with OLED panels). Interestingly, the S2’s blue pixels have faded more quickly than its red and green pixels, which has changed its originally overly-blue image to a slightly red-green tinted image. I have to wonder if Samsung did this intentionally with their tuning, and wonder if the Moto X will suffer the same pixel fading as it ages. Also worth noting is Samsung’s inclusion of “screen modes” which control the saturation, which is absent in the Moto X. I have been using the “natural” setting on my S2 for a while now and I wish the Moto X had the option to decrease it’s saturation a little too.

Subjectively, the Moto X’s screen is an incredible improvement. Text is easier to read due to the higher resolution, and it’s just generally a more pleasant screen to look at. Not to say that the S2’s screen wasn’t acceptable, but displays have come a long way in a short time.

One thing that surprised me was the feeling of the vibrations in the S2 vs the Moto X. The X’s vibrations remind me a lot of the OG Droid (I have not owned a Motorola phone since that one), and are a lot rougher or lower-frequency than those of the S2. I wouldn’t say one is better than the other, but they definitely feel different, each being very representative of their manufacturers.

(UI and subjective performance)

The UI on the Moto X (as you probably already know) is very near stock android. Aesthetically, I like it better than TouchWiz on the S2 though functionally they are not very different. Nearly everything is organized exactly the same in the S2’s version of TW, the major differences being in the font choices and colorfulness of icons and menus. One thing notably lacking on the Moto X (with the stock launcher) is the ability to resize widgets and add or remove homepages.

Some of the app skinning done in TouchWiz is arguably an improvement over stock android, and most of the places where things are better there, Motorola has done the same. The most notable example is the camera UI. To be frank, I don’t like the UI Google has chosen for its camera, and am glad Motorola made their own.

The S2 is one of the first phones that I felt was largely “fast enough”. It has a dual core Exynos 4 SOC clocked at 1.2GHz and 1GB of RAM (~830MB usable). The Moto X has a dual core Snapdragon S4 Pro clocked at 1.7GHz and 2GB of RAM. The Snapdragon is considerably faster per clock.

I have been running my S2 rooted since day 1 and with recent 3rd-party kernels, the UI is

almost

perfectly smooth if there isn’t anything running in the background. There are occasionally dropped frames, and animations can be choppy if things are running in the background. Scrolling up and down webpages as they are loading in Chrome can also show dropped frames. 1GB of RAM is sufficient right now, but only just, and with the increasing requirements of apps I expect the S2 will be limited by its RAM sooner than its SOC. I would like to note that TouchWiz actually runs better than more recent versions of Cyanogenmod, so I have gone back to a modified 4.1.2 TW. The Moto X by contrast has a perfectly fluid UI out of the box, and almost nothing I have done has produced any dropped frames. Subjectively, the Moto X is noticeably smoother than the S2, especially when multitasking.

Game-wise, there is no game on the Android Market that won’t run perfectly smoothly on the S2 (today). It even handles DS emulation smoothly – you can’t tell the difference between a DS game running on the S2 vs the Moto X. So, despite the Moto X being several times faster on paper, games and emulators show no improvement (yet).

Worth mentioning is how much more quickly the Moto X tends to connect to and authenticate over WiFi.

(Features)

The Moto X has several features which I appreciate, but they aren’t make-or-break for me. Sadly, it lacks a few features which almost are.

The twist-to-activate-camera feature is neat, but it takes very little more time to hit the power button and turn it on from the lockscreen. I was surprised to learn (and other reviews hadn’t mentioned) that the motion works regardless of what you’re doing. The camera can be activated via the motion from within a call, while watching a video, or from within a game (unless, I assume, the game takes control of the motion sensors). This is situationally pretty useful.

Active display is a wonderful feature which I find as useful because I can wake my phone without hitting the power button as seeing if I have notifications without fully waking the phone.

Moto Connect is a fantastic seamless integration of texting into your desktop browser, and I wonder why others haven’t done this before. It’s one of the main reasons I used primarily Google Voice for texting before.

Assist’s Sleeping and Meeting modes are useful, but I had to disable Driving as I suspect it was hitting my battery pretty hard (tons of GPS related wakelocks) for what I got out of it. I’ll admit, I sometimes check my texts while driving, but I always wait until I’m in a low-risk area (ie stopped at a traffic light, or when there are no cars for some distance on the highway) and it would probably save more than a few lives if this feature existed on all android phones. I thought the custom SOC was supposed to allow these features without a significant battery hit, but it seems that’s not entirely true. I may revisit this feature later.

Audio effects – I turned this off almost right away. It’s nice to have a system-wide equalizer included but it’s not a very robust implementation.

I haven’t yet felt the need to use Moto Care, but it seems a very thoughtful feature to include for non-tech savvy users.

What is the Moto X missing that the Galaxy S2 has?

1.

uSD card slot

. On my phone I keep ~16GB of music, ~2GB of audiobooks, ~3GB of game ROMs (PSX games are large), ~1.5GB of system ROMs and backups (or at least I did on my S2), and may use half a GB for photos / backgrounds / other images at any given time. Add in 4GB of system files/apps and keeping at least 20% spare area to keep performance up, and 32GB is just about right for me - assuming that my usage patterns don't change and I don't need any more space than I'm already using in the next 2 years. The Moto X has only around 10.5GB of usable space free unless you get the developer edition (not available through Republic Wireless and probably not through contract either) which a serious, serious problem for me.

I'm not happy with the idea of paying an extra $30+ per month for higher data limit when the amount of storage I need to decrease my data usage to near zero is less than $30 up front. If I don't need to stream anything, I can easily get by with a 300MB cap. Republic Wireless is uncapped when you have their basic data plan, but Sprint’s 3G is pretty much too slow to stream music, much less videos, and coverage is not great. As for the arguments about how it could negatively affect build quality – keep in mind, the phone already has a sim card slot, and uSD cards are not any larger.

2.

Removable battery

. This one is actually less of an issue for me now as I bought an external battery pack. I can live without it, but this can be a problem for some users. One thing to note is that generally, most of the replaceable batteries that will fit a phone will be manufactured for only as long as the phone is, so if you’re looking to replace an old battery with a new one, most that you buy will probably be equally old, just less used. Still, it is a point of failure that can easily be replaced, which brings me to the next point…

3.

No user replaceable parts

. Over the two and a half years I owned my S2, I needed to replace the camera module and the charge port. It’s arguable that build quality of the S2 is to blame here, but it isn’t an invalid criticism of the Moto X that parts are not user-replaceable as they are on Samsung phones. Twice I would have needed to replace my phone or send it to the manufacturer for repairs. The total cost of parts was $12 and about 10 minutes to pull the phone apart because of this “feature”. I’m actually waiting on rooting my Moto X until the one-month warranty/return period is over as I’m concerned about part failures.

Despite how much I like the Moto X, I might not have chosen it had it not been for the incredible pricing through Republic Wireless. A uSD card is practically a requirement for me.

(Subjective Sound Quality)

Using my Beyerdynamic DT 880’s, I feel that the Moto X has better quality output, though I know basically nothing about the hardware involved. I think I could most accurately describe it as sounding like the difference between using a pocket amplifier and not. It’s easier to distinguish individual instruments and sounds, and the noise floor is a bit lower.

(Camera)

I spent a bit more time comparing the cameras, because the camera is so important to me.

The Moto X has a 10MP sensor as compared to the Galaxy S2’s 8MP sensor. Both have the same horizontal resolution so the extra pixels on the X’s camera are vertical. The Galaxy S2 takes 4:3 aspect ratio pictures, while the X takes 16:9 photos.

The Moto X has a larger aperture (f/2.6 vs f/2.4) which allows the sensor to collect more light. The X is also capable of taking pictures with an ISO as high as 5000, vs 800 from the Galaxy S2, ISO being the sensitivity to light that the sensor is capable of. These two factors will allow the X to take much brighter low-light pictures at a given exposure time, or take similarly bright pictures with much shorter exposure, which helps to prevent blurry pictures.

The X also has a different subpixel layout than most (all?) other smartphone cameras, having one clear pixel in place of the second green pixel in the camera’s 2x2 grid. This gives the possibility of collecting even more light, but can potentially produce odd artifacts when taking pictures.

Software-wise, the Moto X is very simple to use. Tap on the screen, and it focuses quickly and snaps a picture. The Galaxy S2 uses tap-to-focus by default, and only captures if you hit the capture button, which is small. The Moto X is capable of taking pictures much more quickly.

How do the cameras compare in practice? Both cameras are being used with default settings in the following shots. The left (or if you’re using a small screen, first/upper) image is taken by my Galaxy S2, while the second is from the Moto X’s camera with the latest update.

These two shots were taken in a dark room with the curtains drawn. The Galaxy S2 used an ISO of 400 with 1/17 of a second exposure. The Moto X used an ISO of 5000 with a 1/14 of a second exposure. Definite win for the Moto X, the Galaxy S2’s camera fails miserably in these conditions.

With the curtains pulled back to let in a bit of sunlight, the Galaxy S2 fares better. It continues to use a 400 ISO with a 1/17 of a second exposure, and takes a fair, if slightly blurry picture. The Moto X’s shot comes out sharp in part because it is able to use a 1250 ISO with a 1/40 of a second exposure. There is some software sharpening going on here too though, as can be seen at the bottom of the image. Overall, another win for the Moto X.

In this indoor shot, the Galaxy S2 arguably takes a better indoor picture. Although the Moto X’s shot is sharper, the repeating pattern of the carpet causes weird color artifacts due to the Moto X’s subpixel layout. Additionally, the colors are closer to natural in the Galaxy S2’s shoot. The Galaxy S2 opted for ISO 800 + 1/16s while the X went with ISO 1600 + 1/19s.

In this early-morning outdoor shot, the Moto X performs admirably. There is a deep shadow on the house to the left, with bright sunlight on the right. In order to capture enough light for detail in the shadow, the Galaxy S2 overexposes the building on the right. The Moto X automatically enables HDR and exposes both parts of the image properly. While the Galaxy S2 is capable of HDR, it’s very slow and often results in incredibly blurry shots.

This is a closeup of a fallen pine branch taken outdoors in direct sunlight. The Moto X captures more detail with more natural colors.

This is a crop of a macro shot taken with varying light levels similar to those taken in the 4th set of pictures. These have been cropped (obviously) with the building being at the center of the photo and the leaves on the grass at the bottom being at the edge of the Galaxy S2’s sensor, and near the edge of the Moto X’s. In this shot, the Moto X opted not to use HDR. The Galaxy S2 actually captured more natural colors here. Additionally, I noticed that the edges of many images taken on the Moto X are blurry, and more than can be explained just by having a very wide aspect ratio. Take a look at the leaves on the ground in the two shots.

My apologies for the extremely long images, but it was necessary.

In this shot, there is a sun glare and varying light levels, as well as repeating visual patterns in the plants. The Galaxy S2 takes a hazy shot but the colors are fairly accurate. The Moto X opted for HDR here and took a sharper shot, but messed up the colors quite a bit in the entire image. Additionally, we see the odd color-checkerboard artifacts in the plants near the pool deck, and blurriness toward the bottom edge of the shot. A strong win for the Galaxy S2.

This is another closeup in good outdoor light. The top of the cropped image represents the middle of the image captured by the camera, and the bottom is the edge. I would argue that the Moto X does slightly better in the colors in this shot and has a bit more detail in the center of its focus, but notice the extreme blurriness present at the bottom of the Moto X’s shot.

This comparison shows the common visual artifact taken by the Galaxy S2’s camera which is not present in the Moto X’s shots. Images taken in low light without a flash on the Galaxy S2 do not have consistent color between the center and the edges. It is not generally visible in shots which have detail, but can ruin certain indoor shots.

In this first flash comparison, the Galaxy S2 appears to take a better shot, but it’s deceptive. The S2 has a much brighter flash but it’s almost perfectly white, while the X has an almost yellow-green flash that helps make reddish indoor/evening scenes’ color tone closer to that of sunlight. Also, the Moto X doesn’t need nearly as bright a flash because of its incredible low-light sensitivity. I would say that the S2 generally picks up more detail when its flash goes off (at least on things close enough to be lit by the flash) but the color of the flash doesn’t do good things for a person’s face. (sorry, you’re not getting any pictures of my wife ^^)

The S2 probably makes a better flashlight and is good for taking pictures of “stuff” in low light, but the Moto X is better for taking pictures of people in these conditions – which is what you’re probably going to be taking a lot more pictures of in low light. I’d call this one a win for the Moto X.

Interestingly, the S2 does not have its color problems when the flash is on, while the Moto X does. I would argue that the Moto X is probably best used with the flash off when you can get away with it, while the S2 is basically useless in low-light without the flash.

I would argue that the Moto X definitely takes better low light pictures than the Galaxy S2. In mixed lighting conditions, the Moto X also takes superior shots, assuming its software isn’t confused and color artifacts aren’t produced. In well-lit conditions, I believe the Galaxy S2 takes better macro shots because of its consistency, lack of color artifacts, and no visible edge-blurring in these conditions. In well-lit micro shots, the Moto X displays generally better color accuracy but has noticeable edge-burr, making it a tossup in my eyes.

Overall I would rather have the Moto X’s camera. When it’s working “right” it takes stunning pictures, but the more-than-occasional color artifacts introduced by its unusual subpixel layout and lack of perfect software correction leave me with mixed feelings.

(Battery Life)

The Moto X comes with a much larger battery than the Galaxy S2 (2200mAh vs 1650mAh) so better battery life is expected. Additionally, the S2’s battery is close to 2 years old and may have lost as much as 20% of its max capacity.

I have found that with the Moto X, I am able to get a bit over 5 hours of screen-on time on a charge vs 4 hours with the S2, both mostly browsing the web over WiFi. However, the Moto X does not sleep nearly as well.

Digging into Better Battery Stats, it appears that I had some really bad GPS wakelocks – more than 500 overnight. The S2 will happily sleep for more than 5 days on a single charge without airplane mode, while the Moto X would probably die in 3 days, despite its newer SOC built on a smaller process and larger battery. Because of this I find that on a day of average usage (~2.5-3.5 hours screen on), I tend to have around the same battery remaining on the S2 as on the Moto X, though both easily get me through a day. I’m going to need to play around with the Moto X further to see if I can reduce GPS related wakelocks (isn’t there hardware that’s supposed to make this not a problem?) or just turn it off when I’m not using it. I may write another article on how to save battery on your Moto X at a later date.

Worth noting here is that the Moto X charges much more quickly than the S2 does. The S2 is capped at 650mA charge current, while the X comes with an 800mA charger and can draw more than 1200mA if you have a charger that can support it.

Conclusion – draw your own. I went from a great phone to a great phone, but not everything is an improvement.