Motorola Moto G Review
by Brian Klug on December 18, 2013 2:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Motorola
- Mobile
- *VA
- Cortex A7
- snapdragon 400
- Moto G
Display on mobile devices is one area where we’ve seen considerable improvement. Pixel density has gone up, contrast ratios have improved, and the emphasis on low power in a platform gated by its battery size means there’s always innovation happening. In the case of the Moto G, what we’re after should really be a display that looks visually appealing without any of the egregious issues that plague most midrange devices – poor viewing angles, low resolution, low contrast, dim displays.
On paper, the Moto G has what would probably have been a flagship display for a mobile device a year or two ago, it’s a 4.5-inch LCD with 1280x720 resolution and 326 PPI pixel density. The comparison point is the Moto X with a 4.7 inch AMOLED panel of the same 720p resolution and 312 PPI pixel density.
I’m pretty impressed with how the Moto G’s display looks. Subjectively, viewing angles are good, there aren’t any of the issues I normally attribute to non-flagship devices either with low pixel density or contrast that fails to please. There’s no light leakage at all from any of the corners.
One unfortunate thing about the Moto G I was sampled however is the presence of two small bubbles in the cover glass. I initially thought these were dust, but inspection with a microscope reveals they are in fact inhomogeneities in the cover glass.
I’m not sure whether these kind of defects are within spec for the Moto G, but they’re distracting and visible on most solid colored UIs or views. I’ve never seen something like this on any handset I’ve reviewed to date.
The Moto G goes plenty bright, at just over 455 nits, and delivers contrast numbers that are pretty darn good for the price point at just shy of 1200. Normally black levels are out of control on the lower end devices, I’m not sure if the Moto G uses an IPS panel, but suspect it does.
Upon inspection I immediately noticed that the Moto G display was very, very blue. To measure color accuracy we turn to the same combination of measures that we have used for a while now.
My comparison points are unfortunately primarily high end devices, which makes the Moto G look comparatively poor. The Moto G display tuning is indeed very blue with a white point of nearly 9000K, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn this is a function of the backlight LEDs used or intrinsic properties of the panel.
Color calibration is something we’ve only just now started to see get taken seriously on the high end devices, if we can’t expect it to be a regular staple there, the midrange is obviously a lost cause. I wouldn’t fault the Moto G for not being very accurate, but it is something to be aware of as a sacrifice at this price point if you’re considering it over a high-end phone. On the flipside, the pixel density and contrast of the Moto G’s display seems excellent given the price, and I suspect the defects in my Moto G’s cover glass are specific to this unit.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
120 Comments
View All Comments
uhuznaa - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Even my 8 GB Nexus 7 has a two GB left. Lots of storage is convenient for the lazy and the horders, but in now way something that makes or breaks a device for "normal" use. "3-4 GB of music" is about 1000 songs. Yeah, more is better, always, but don't make this into more of a limitation than it actually is. Most people don't care very much anyway.apertotes - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
a tablet is not at all like a phone. a tablet sits at home mostly, with WiFi and instant access to hundreds of online services. A phone goes with you everywhere, even places without -gasp- internet. And most people care, indeed, and that is why they buy galaxies instead of ones.Bob Todd - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Do you have any proof that the majority of Galaxy S* buyers do so because of micro-SD or removable batteries? Survey data from a reasonable cross section of buyers? I like both of those features, but the idea that it is the main driver of Samsung's success with that line doesn't seem to be grounded with any facts. I'd assume marketing plays the biggest role, along with actually building a solid brand behind it (one high end line available on most major carriers updated once per year). Yes some % of users care a great deal about removable storage and removable batteries, but if you think that's the secret to their success I think you are deluding yourself. And I'm almost sorry I responded at all to the inevitable whining about removable storage. There are other cheap devices that offer those features, be happy that a quality option is available at this price point.apertotes - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Well, HTC thought the same last year, after their beautiful HTC ONE X beat the Galaxy S3 in every review, but lost badly on sales. "It's the marketing!". They lost another good year blaming marketing, and now are even in worse situation than a year ago. Or do you want to convince me that HTC is not a strong brand? Or Blackberry, for what it is worth.Yes, Samsung sells lots of Aces very cheap, but S3 and S4 and Notes are not cheap. And they outsell almost the rest of high end android devices combined. I really do not think that Samsung is that good at marketing.
Impulses - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Nope, HTC isn't a very strong brand outside of tech enthusiasts. Samsung/Galaxy is a lot more easily recognized... I had three HTC phones in a row (all the EVOs), very early random people would ask me if they were "the new iPhone" (never mind the massive size difference). Later on most friends would ask "did you get a Galaxy?" when they'd see I have a new phone, never mind it says HTC front and center...Samsung is ABSOLUTELY that good at marketing, have you watched network TV or looked at print magazines lately? Geeks may not do that much anymore but the general public does and Samsung's ad campaign is all over that media, it's impossible to ignore.
sajara - Saturday, December 21, 2013 - link
Indeed you're absolutely right. Samsung is a very powerful brand just about everywhere due to marketing. That, produces free publicity through brand awareness and then word of mouth. Even in the Dominican Republic a (developing country) where i go regularly, a sacred Blackberry land, is buying in bulk Galaxy(s) and why? Huge billboards everywhere and all 4 carriers selling just about every model.sajara - Saturday, December 21, 2013 - link
I was referring to Impulse's post btw...Bob Todd - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
Again, what proof do you have to the contrary? Like I said, I'm sure some % of their user population does buy the Galaxy line _specifically_ for micro-SD and a removable battery. But I'd put a decent chunk of change on the size of that % being 1 in every 5 buyers or less. You think all those buyers of a mainstream device (who have no idea what SOC is in their phone or even what a SOC is) are walking into their carrier's stores with a 64GB micro-SDXC card full of stuff? There is a lot more to the success of the Galaxy line than removable batteries and expandable storage.apertotes - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
I do not need to give any proof at all. I am not in the industry, and I could not care less. But it is funny watching people that should really know about this stuff (like HTC spokesperson) blame it all on marketing time after time, and get worse results every year.Also, HTC is a very strong band. A few years ago it was almost a synonym of smartphone, and they also spend a lot of money on advertising and sponsorships.
Anyway, do you have any proof that micro-sd cards are not a strong reason behind massive galaxy sales?
martajd - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - link
"I don't need to give any proof." Yeah, you do