[Samsung Galaxy S8 Guides, News, & Discussion] ChazzMatt:
First I will agree with you, then I'll disagree with you. ;)

Yes, the LG G2 was ahead of it's time. And I'll give you specific proof via Motorola laughable efforts during that same time...

The 2013 LG G2 was the first Android with 1080p and rear camera OIS, and why the LG Nexus 5 was based on the LG G2 instead of any Motorola designs that year, even though Google owned Motorola. Whenever I compare phones or critique phones, it's usually based on hardware specs. "Software" is more opinion based. I have my opinions on software, there are things I like, love or hate -- but hardware doesn't lie. At the time, Motorola was NOT a top tier hardware/design manufacturer.

* 2013

Within ONE week of each other Motorola and LG released their 2013 flagship phones (August 1 and August 7). Motorola released the 2013 Moto X and LG released the 2013 LG G2. The 2013 Moto X HARDWARE was an excellent clone of the 2012 LG Optimus G (G1)/LG Nexus 4: 4.7", 720p, 2GB RAM -- with not even Snapdragon 8XXX chipset. Both the 2012 LG and the 2013 Moto X used Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro. Seriously, for HARDWARE SPECS they just copied LG's Nexus phone from the previous year. The 2012 LG actually had 768p resolution and 13MP camera vs. the 2013 Moto X 720p and 10MP camera.

But when you compare the specs of the two 2013 "flagship" phones to each other, the Motorola is clearly a mid-tier design.

2013 LG G2 vs 2013 Motorola Moto X

http://www.phonearena.com/phones/compare/LG-G2,Motorola-Moto-X/phones/7969,7885?ft=2

The 2013 LG G2 was cutting edge specs. 5.2" 1080p, Snapdragon 800, 2GB RAM, rear camera OIS. And the 2013 LG Nexus 5 was based on that design -- just a little smaller (4.95"), so it wouldn't be an exact clone. LG had run into problems with that the previous year, where the LG Nexus 4 was an almost exact copy of the LG Optimus G (G1). Why would people pay $600 or more for the LG Optimus when they could get the LG Nexus 4 for almost half the price through Google? So, for the 2013 LG Nexus 5, they tried to differentiate their flagship from the Nexus phone through display size.

* 2014

Then in 2014, the 2014 Moto X (gen2) was an excellent copy of the 2013 LG G2, but otherwise not exceptional specs. Yeah, Motorola did it again. Just copied LG's previous year flagship phone: 5.2", 1080p, 2GB RAM, only updating it with a slightly newer Snapdragon 801 chipset than LG had used, the Snapdragon 800. OK, it did have stereo speakers to improve on the LG G2...

Whereas, at the same time LG was introducing the 2014 LG G3 -- with 1440p, 3GB RAM, and laser-focused rear camera. LG was again moving to the next level of hardware specs while Motorola was looking to the past.

2014 LG G3 vs 2014 Motorola Moto X (gen2)

http://www.phonearena.com/phones/compare/LG-G3,Motorola-Moto-X-2014/phones/8347,8897?ft=2

But REALLY, you should be comparing the 2014 Moto X to the EXCELLENT 2013 LG G2! Motorola couldn't even make a copy as good as the LG G2! And they had a YEAR to copy and paste. :rolleyes: For instance, Motorola put in a puny 2300 mAh battery, while LG had put in a 3000 mAh battery into the 2013 LG G2. Both 5.2", 1080p, 2GB RAM. What, is 3000 mAh too big? :rolleyes:

2014 Moto X vs 2013 LG G2

http://www.phonearena.com/phones/compare/Motorola-Moto-X-2014,LG-G2/phones/8897,7969?ft=2

* LATE 2014

Only with the late 2014 5.95" Shamu (Moto Nexus 6) and 5.2" Quark (Droid Turbo, Moto Turbo, Moto Maxx) phones did Motorola finally join the ranks of top tier manufacturers like Samsung and LG. 1440p AMOLED, 3GB RAM, 64GB internal memory, turbo charging (Quick Charge 2.0), Qi wireless charging. The larger phone had stereo speakers and rear camera OIS, not sure why Motorola left them off the smaller phone. The smaller 5.2" Quark had 21MP camera and 3900 mAh battery. Yes, the SMALLER phone had a LARGER battery. Because Google always skimped on their Nexus batteries for some strange reason. :rolleyes:

(I haven't updated the OS specs below, it's still on the the last versions when I used this comparison, but the hardware specs have not changed on the two phones.)

I bought THREE of the Moto Maxx XT1225 phones. It was basically the 5.2" version of the Moto Nexus 6.

How do you fit a 3900 mAh battery into a 5.2" display phone? Easy. You just put it in. See that's the FALLACY I am going to bash you on in the next point. :p There's ALWAYS ROOM for what you want to put into a phone. ALWAYS.

And I'll explain in my next point...

1) Then why didn't Samsung put in a a single high quality front facing speaker? Instead they put in a bottom firing speaker. You don't even know the speaker Samsung has on their S8/S8+. :confused:

What you think is the "speaker" is the earpiece to listen to phone calls.

2) But, let's pretend Samsung did put in a "a single high quality front facing speaker".

Why would you use "a single high quality front facing speaker" but then inexplicably downgrade to " two mediocre speakers" for stereo? Oh, here's a solution! How about TWO of those " single high quality front facing speaker" -- that way you would have TWO high quality front facing stereo speakers! You already have them on hand, yes? (In your scenario.)

Glad to be of help! ;) Wow, that was VERY hard to figure out.

Oh, and maybe you could buy a STEREO MANUFACTURER with expertise to help out your obviously incompetent engineers who you think would try to put in " two mediocre speakers" . Maybe Samsung should buy Harman Kardon? Oh, they already have! Again, glad to be of help!

Samsung's own press release of the ownership tranfer shows MOBILE as a reason to buy Harmon Kardon:

MORE ROOM FALLACY

Oh, please. The "more room" fallacy. Let's put this to rest once and for all. It's the equivalent of politicians under investigation who resign to "spend more time with their families". That's not the real reason, it's just the only excuse they can come up with that sounds acceptable to people who don't know any better.

Apple said they ditched the iPhone headphone jack for "more" room. NO, they wanted to sell their massively expensive bluetooth wireless earbuds.

Motorola ditched the headphone jack last year for their 2014 5.5" Moto Z Force phone (June 2016), allegedly for the same reason "more room"...

Yet they included the headphone jack in their 2014 5.5" Moto Z Play (August 2016) released later in the same year. Oh, and GUESS WHAT? The Moto Z Play had a slightly larger battery (3510 mAh) than the Moto Z Force (3500 mAh). That's right -- the phone WITH the headset jack even has a bigger battery.

So, more room for WHAT? The dimensions are almost identical. I see .02 mm and .03mm difference -- that's HUNDREDTH OF MILLIMETERS -- for a larger battery AND a headset jack.

And Motorola now admits they LIED. Apple will never admit that, but Motorola is admitting that... because in the upcoming 2017 Moto Z2 Force -- GUESS WHAT? -- they are ADDING BACK the headset jack. ;) Yes, after ditching the headset jack for their flagship phone in 2016, Motorola is bringing it back.

And I'm pretty sure it will also have the same standard components of most 2nd half 2017 flagship phone -- 1440p, Snapdragon 835, 64/128GB internal memory, 4/6GB RAM, microSD card, blah, blah, blah.

Manufacturers have included headphone jacks, larger batteries, whatever they want in past years. Headphone jacks have NOT grown in size.

Internal electronic components have only shrunk in size. RAM, internal storage, CPU chipsets get SMALLER each year.

If a manufacturer claims they are ditching headset jacks or microSD cards for "more room" they are LYING or their engineers are INCOMPETENT. In Apple's case they are lying.

Now, go back to my 2014 Moto XT1225. 5.2" 1440p AMOLED and a 3900 mAh battery. I own three of these phones. Was released as the Droid Turbo XT1254/Moto Turbo XT1225/Moto Maxx XT1225/Moto Maxx XT1250. All had 3900 mAh battery.

How did Motorola put a 3900 mAh battery into this 5.2" phone? They just did. At the time, they said people were worried about battery life and putting in a bigger battery was addressing that issue. Read that again. People are NOT demanding credit card thin phones. People want bigger batteries. So, it makes the phone a hair thicker. So what. It just makes it easier to hold in your hand!

Here's the difference between a 5.2" phone with a 3900 mAh battery and 5.2" phone with 2300 mAh battery. The only thing wrong with the 3900 mAh battery phone is Motorola should have lost the capacitive buttons on the Quark phones and instead included the front facing stereo speakers they put on the 2014 Moto X. I don't understand why they didn't do that.

5.2" 2014 Moto X with front-facing stereo speakers

When Motorola released the Quark phone end of 2014, especially with the loud PR of the Droid Turbo a lot of people were very ANGRY at Motorola. They had bought the "flagship" 2014 Moto X (which was mostly a copy of the 2013 LG G2, except for the addition of front facing stereo speakers) with only 2,300 mAh battery and then a few months later Motorola unleashes this BEAST?

(By the way, in spite of Verizon's PR LIES, this phone was NOT an exclusive for Verizon, it wasn't even exclusive in the U.S.! The U.S. Moto XT1250 has the same FCC ID, same radio bands as the Droid Turbo and runs on Verizon with a Verizon SIM card, just like a non-Verizon Moto Nexus 6. My Moto XT1225 has LTE bands 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 17 and I run them on AT&T.)

And remember these are 5.2" display phones. When you increase the size to larger displays -- even with current slimmed/zero bezels -- the additional battery thickness would be negligible. Plus, no one is demanding credit card thin phones. A little extra thickness is OK, and with extra thickness comes room for ANYTHING you wish to put in -- stereo speakers, larger battery, etc.

There's always MORE ROOM.

I see PLENTY of room on the Galaxy S8 for a BIGGER battery and HIGH QUALITY front-facing stereo speakers.