yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Moto X General] erikiksaz:
Well, the cameras are a bit different. The HTC One takes better pictures when it decides to get them in focus. I don't know why, but with my HTC One, it felt like I needed a freaking tripod to not have a blurry shot.

With my X, I get a sharp shot mostly every single time.

When you've got to take a quick picture, I don't give a crap if every 5th one comes out looking great and sharp, I just need one picture that comes out clear and workable.

I did love my One though, but without the touchless and active notifications, it was a goner.
[Moto X General] bluemoon1221:
Yes the camera needs to be better when compared to other high-end phones.

and yes the screen would look less crisp next to a 1080p screen.

But how can you argue when its almost half the price of other phones?

Motorola obviously made a conscious decision to make the device way more affordable.

You can't complain about that
[Moto X General] mustbepbs:
I honestly cannot tell the difference between my 720p Moto X and my 1080p Droid DNA. The only difference I can tell between the two are the more saturated colors on the Moto X. Other than that, they're both crystal clear and I cannot make out any pixels.

As for the camera, it has been serviceable for me. Haven't had any issues at all.
[Moto X General] 1ManWolfePack:
If you've ever used a Samsung camera, going to the Moto X camera is unacceptable. Having kids, sometimes you don't have time to take 6-7 to get it perfect. You have one shot.

My Note 2 never let me down in this respect.
[Moto X General] hp79:
Guys please understand that I'm not posting to troll Moto X. I think it's a great phone, but I just pointed out all the negatives compared to my HTC One. I really don't like my HTC One, and want to change my phone to something other than an iPhone.

But as I mentioned, the screen blurriness especially when viewing text is what I'm not so happy about. I am willing to sacrifice that for battery life, but if I'm not playing games, not watching movies, so there's not much load on the GPU to use excess power, and if it's not that much of a difference in power usage (I don't know since I haven't seen any research papers about it), why not use a 1080p screen? I immediately noticed how blurry the letters are even in Google Maps without even having them side by side. I use Google Maps a lot because I take the bus. I tried to take photos of them side by side, but I can't because there's something with the AMOLED that makes the photos look weird.

About the camera, I'm also not satisfied with the HTC One's photo capability either, but it is much better than Moto X at least in indoors (where I take more photos / document snaps). I was more excited with HTC One's camera when looking at the technology whitepaper type material about Ultrapixel, but was also dissapointed when I actually got the HTC One. Moto X camera also loads and snaps very quickly so I'm happy with that, but the noise is so evident, I feel like it's as if they wanted to add more noise to the photos on purpose. And it's supposed to be a totally different type of sensor branded as Clearpixel. I thought it would at least compete with HTC One, but I was wrong.

Build quality-wise, I think Apple's iphones(4s/5s)/ipad(air) and Nokia Lumia (920/and up) high-ends are flawless. Then comes this Moto X that has some small creaks and minor flaws on the seam. Then below that is HTC One with gaps even though they call it Zero-Gap. Samsung's (Note 1) are okay if you get lucky, but I had horrible experience with the screen white tone changing to pink tone and green tone, and also on very low volume it just cuts off the sound when using earphones.

I love the rest of the features of Moto X, and think it is truly innovative. But that camera has to be replaced with something better, and it would be great if they upgrade the screen while doing that too.
[Moto X General] Jason.DROID:
The camera does need more work, but I think the 720p screen is fine. Yes, I can see a difference between 1080p and 720p, but it's not so much that I say, "I want 1080p on this tiny screen."

This is ... okay:

Indoor shots with CFL bulbs are harder to get right, so that needs work, but with touch to focus I can get it acceptable in most cases.
[Moto X General] Mr. Orange 645:
Not trying to hijack the thread, but the OP opened the door on the camera issue.

I just picked up another Moto X on Monday sale (I couldn't resist at that price), and it came with 4.2.2, pre-camera update. I compared it to the camera on my other MX running 4.4 with the latest camera update, and the 4.2.2 camera actually produces much sharper more accurate pictures indoors than 4.4. The 4.4 camera in low light looked like the ISO was cranked to the absolute max and caused everything to look washed out, extremely noisy, and fuzzy.

I tried this several times and each time I thought the 4.2.2 camera did better in low light. I haven't tried outdoor photos yet, but this really surprised me. When I got my first MX I let it update to 4.4 immediately and never played with the camera, just assuming the new camera was better. This really shocked me with my new one.

Has anyone else noticed this?
[Moto X General] malikadnanm:
Why does this stupid thread exist

sent from my Moto X
[Moto X General] Mr. Orange 645:
I wondered the same thing, but I figured I could use it to answer my question. You know....Lemons, lemonade, etc...
[Moto X General] eksasol:
People likes to feed trolls.

sent via tapatalk
[Moto X General] Jason.DROID:
I'm running out of children to feed to trolls. I only give 'em the ones who scream outside early in the morning when I'm trying to sleep in.
[Moto X General] :
If none of these complaints/issues existed .....the Moto x would still be $500. ;)

But I wouldn't even trade my phone for any of those other flagships.....ever. :)

I've never had a blurry screen...ever. LOL

And its a phone....not a camera...so I don't really care about the camera. The best camera on a phone out there still sucks compared to even a budget real camera. Which I have....for when I know pic taking will be happening.

Anyway....comparing what's quickly became a 300/350 phone to a 500plus phone is apples and oranges. Tho in the areas a phone SHOULD be judged in....the X stands up to any of them.

The end.

Sent from my Moto X cellular telephone...
[Moto X General] syathibiy:
OP is an alien. I can't even notice the difference between 720p and 1080p 32" TV
[Moto X General] acruxksa:
I'm sitting here with an S4 and my 3 week old moto x. I'm loving the X. I've already read 2.5 books (about 1200 pages total or over 5000 pages on my moto x) with the kindle app and don't notice any issues with blurry text. I can tell a difference when I put the S4 right next to the Moto X and the S4's larger screen is slightly better for reading but it's not really a big deal.

Maybe the HTC One screen is better? I don't know since I don't have one, but the Moto X screen is pretty good all things considered.

I love the amoled's battery life when I set the kindle app to a black background and white text. Simply incredible.
[Moto X General] hp79:
I'm the OP, and again I'm not trolling here. I wrote my short review to discuss the problem I noticed on the hyped Moto X.

It's a great phone for the money and even comparing with high end phones, but I would pay a bit more if it had a higher resolution screen and a better camera. That's why I want to get in the future a 2nd gen Moto X which I'd assume will come with those improvements if enough people wants it and discuss the shortcomings. Read my posts, I don't think I ever posted anything offensive or wrote my opinion without a reason.

Speaking of the noisy camera, I found out that Moto X is using way high ISO settings (crazy ISO 3200) when taking photos indoors and not so perfect light situations. I found this weird, so tried a different photo taking app, one was Camera FX. When set to ISO 100 in this app, it actually takes photos in ISO 500, and then I didn't notice as much noise or artifacts. Only when the real ISO goes past 800, the colors starts looking green and the resulting photos are ugly. Then I tried Camera FV-5 Lite, and when set to ISO 100 in the software, it actually shoots at ISO 200. There's no noise in this ISO, so I'm planing to do more tests with how the camera does with 3rd party software that can control the ISO manually.

I wish Motorolla had a way to restrict the maximum ISO, or just let us manually control it. Maybe in the future update there might be.
[Moto X General] rican408:
Coming from a nexus 5 and an htc one I can honestly say I prefer the screen on the x. I cannot tell the difference in pixels but I definitely think amoled is way better than LCD. I think the slight gain in clarity is not worth the the hit on the battery and performance of the phone. Indoor photos suck so far but outdoor are pretty awesome. Best phone I've own so far.
[Moto X General] hp79:
The screen colors are much more deeper in the Moto X compared to HTC One, and I like the fact that AMOLED saves battery life by powering per pixels.

I tested the camera today for the last time, and I wish the camera had better low light performance (I was expecting more with this RGBC sensor technology & 75% more light). On bright daylight pictures are clear and I really like it, but when you get to indoors the experience just becomes horrible because it boosts up the ISO too much, more than necessary (I can hold steady at shutter speed 1/20 sec) and colors become greenish. Comparing with HTC One with same ISO 200, HTC One's shutter speed is 1/120 sec while Moto X is 1/45 sec. Or if you aim for similar shutter speed 1/60, the ISO difference is like ISO 125 vs ISO 320. At ISO 500 or lower, I prefer the pictures from Moto X as they are much sharper and have detail as expected from a 10 MP sensor. But when the ISO becomes higher than 500, that's when the noisy mess starts.

I'm going to wait for the next gen Moto X, I hope they still use AMOLED (probably will), with 1080p, and have improved their camera system by then.
[Moto X General] eksasol:
I don't like the Moto X camera and gallery app at all honestly. I use Camera JB+ which basically is stock camera and gallery app with a few more options.
[Moto X General] :
As far as the high ISO issue goes....there's tonnes of camera apps that will automatically use a lower ISO....or let you set it manually. So....that shouldn't be a huge issue when its easily worked around. :)

Sent from my Moto X cellular telephone...
[JAM, MDA Compact, S100 Software Upgrading] ThEScReW:
Did anyone yet ? what does it ? workig, not working ?
[JAM, MDA Compact, S100 Software Upgrading] oltp:
I'd say try it yourself & get ScReWeD LOL.

The hardware is so different you're most likely end up with a brick.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] smokeyrd:
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.

(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:

(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or

(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.

(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.

(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.

I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".

Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] k1mu:
Verizon doesn't lock the phones. You can install any operator's SIM and use it. That's what this law is about - it's nothing to do with bootloaders, it's to do with portability of the phone between carriers.

Sorry, you're wasting your time.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] smokeyrd:
Well that sucks. It seems like the law is referring to more than just the SIM cards because it references "devices and applications" but like I said before, I'm no lawyer. Part (e) is certainly intended to be about the SIM cards but part (b) seems to be a "general statement" In any case...waiting on the EFF response and we'll see where it goes from there. *shrug*
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] ky5ever:
pected eekerman

AFAIK this only applies to those phones that make use of the C-block (700MHz band) of the radio spectrum. Only some new phones utilize that frequency range, and I think they also have to be bought off contract from the manufacturer directly. I think the Nexus 7 2013 edition tablet is made to use the C-block spectrum, but even then Big Red found some way to get past and violate the open access policy and disallow those tablets to be used when they clearly can and do work with Verizon.

Basically, what Im saying is Verizon will always find ways to lock everything up and be buttholes about it. Im sure the guy in that Tom's Hardware article (I cant post links yet) is fighting Verizon to get his new tablet working as it should, but like others who have tried, hes apt to fail. We just have to wait and see and count on hackery and our beloved developers to get the things we want.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] gnubian:
No letter/petition is ever going to persuade samsung or Verizon to unlock the bootloader. They can do whatever they want and aren't going to listen to a small amount of users who wish to flash custom software. Period.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] richii0207:
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] ky5ever:
Honestly, its just another way for Samsung to earn money. Normally, phones can be unlocked by going to the manufacturer website and using a special tool or some other sort of method. However, Verizon has completely removed that ability. So, Samsung, instead of helping devs by fighting to reverse that, they took it as a way to make extra cash by making a phone without Verizon's custom bootloader security that you buy out of contract from Samsung themselves. You get a completely unlocked phone, and Samsung gets pocket money. Not entirely fair, and it cheats people who need to buy the phone under subsidy, but such are companies like Verizon.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] smokeyrd:
In this case the goal isnt to politely ask that they stop doing it. The goal is to force them to conform to Federal laws governing their use of the spectrum. That being said, after some input from other members here that looks to be doubtful. I'll still give it a shot and see what turns up. It cant hurt to try.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] Mistertac:
No can't hurt to try.. Like someone else already stated though.. Neither Verizon or Samsung really care about folks like us who wish to have an unlocked bootloader to flash custom ROMs and such. Were such a small number to them. Sux I know.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] zeb carter:
One piece of ammo you might want to use is the fact that Cyanogen and its partners are now making phones. CM is a custom ROM to start with and if the carriers don't want the phones on their network, a restraint of trade lawsuit could be in the works.

That said, the letter is still a long shot but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] scryan:
Who NEEDS an S4?

If you chose to have someone pay the bulk of the price for you in exchange for you signing a contract dictating usage... Where is your complaint?

I am all for "sticking it to the man", I heavily support us hacking the phones to get what we want... But Its hard to complain the "guy" who paid the bulk of the cost of your phone had a say what is going on.

Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700. The difference in cost represents the cost of the restrictions placed on you by re-upping your contract and having limitations/bloatware put on your phone.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] ky5ever:
That's what subsidy means....correct me if I am wrong?

Also, buying a retail (non-developer) S4 changes nothing. You still get bloatware, and you still get a locked bootloader, nothing changes.

Buying a phone out of contract just means you can go without data on your plan. It also means you do not have to keep paying for two years, obviously.

Buying a dev S4 is NOT done through Verizon. To get the ultra-super-special feature of an unlocked bootloader, you have to get it from somewhere else than Verizon. And that place is Samsung, directly.

Finally, I know nobody NEEDS an S4, I dont know why you had to attack me based on that assumption. I said anyone who needs the phone on SUBSIDY. Because, yeah, the only other option is $700, like you said.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] scryan:
Yup, 100% wrong.

Look at your sales tax.

You bought a $700 phone and they refunded some money... Thats why you pay the sales tax on full price.

I mean, think of it this way... Find me a brand new S4 for $250 from a retailer. I have only $250 dollars. I will not sign any contracts or do any deals past the one event... Buying an S4. I have $300. Since you can buy S4's for $250, send me a brand new unopened S4 and you can pocket the profit...

But you cannot buy an S4 for $250 alone... So its pretty hard to call that the cost yes? Because no matter what it will cost you more then that to obtain one. You cannot straight trade $250 for an S4.

By definition subsidy is about the price you pay, but not cost.

See the following:

According to Merriam-Webster.

The price you pay with a subsity is less then the cost of the good. The cost of the good is what you pay + whatever whoever else pays.

It may chance the price, but the cost

Is still what is was before. Just now your not the one paying the bulk of it. Someone else is stepping in and taking up part of that burden.

But the cost the is taken up by Verizon is still recouped.

Firstly, and mostly, by the increase in monthly income due to more people resigning contracts.

Second, by the vendors who pay for their bloatware to be preloaded

Thirdly, by the increase in sales project to occur due to modifications made before sale, i.e. increasing security to make the product more viable for corporate and government use.

The cost is what it is, your price changes as you get someone else to foot the bill.

Hence the extra input from the guy who made up the difference in what you pay and the cost (Samsung is NOT selling the S4 to verizon at no profit, verizon buys phones to sell like any other retailer. Samsung doesn't care about Verizon contracts, only number of units sold to a retailer, on that basis Verizon CAN negotiate a better cost per unit, but that is really the same as any other retailer... Just their size gives them leverage. But Samsung has NOTHING to do with the subsidy. )
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S 4] ky5ever:
First off, what you are saying doesnt make any sense. You said that "contrary to popular belief, the S4 does NOT cost $250, its closer to $700."

Uhm, thats exactly what I said in my first post. So, no, I am not 100% wrong. Not even the slightest bit wrong. I said subsidy. Thats why the phone isnt actually $250. Cause thats what subsidy means. The phone is sold at a reduced price because the rest is paid off by Verizon.

You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.

My argument to that is, if that is the case, then how come buying the S4 out of contract for full price still gets you a bloated and locked device? The subsidy has nothing to do with bloatware. Verizon is going to bloat and restrict anything they sell THEMSELVES, no matter how it is purchased.

THAT is why, to get a phone sans bloatware and lock, you must get it from another company, and only purchase a SIM card and insert it to the phone.

You also now state that vendors pay Verizon for their bloatware to be preloaded. Uhm, no. Vendors made the phone. They dont have to pay anyone to install their own software on their own device. Verizon actually pays the vendors a small fee to have bloatware installed. That is part of the reason iPhones never have and never will have carrier bloat. Apple refuses to sell the software just so it can be slowed down.

Another thing. Verizon did absolutely nothing towards increasing security for corporate users. Samsung did. Also, Samsung made the bootloader able to boot custom ROMs and kernels, you just lose the ability to make KNOX containers. But, really, what average user is going to do that? The reason most of the average S4 users do not want the KNOX warranty void flag set is because it reduces resell value.

Samsung sells the phones at about $580-$600. Thats some profit off the manufacturing cost, which Im not sure of. Verizon then sells it for $700 plus taxes and all. Thats some profit for them, too. However, that is too high for the average user to pay. So, they have part of the cost paid for, as long as you promise to give them money for two years.

Verizon recovers the lost money from charging ridiculously high prices for CAPPED and SPEED LIMITED data, as well as by forcing the use of some of their services, like making you pay for internet if you have a smartphone. They cost more, so they make you pay for something else, a little over a long time, to recoup what they lost.

They DONT get it back from people resigning contracts. New contracts have nothing to do with phones purchased previously. Once the contract is paid, the phone is paid for, in full. So, starting a new contract starts payments on an entirely new session.