Motorola CEO Says the Moto X Has "High-End Performance" – What Customers Really Care About


Many people have criticized the Moto X because of its so called "mid-range specs", but the Motorola CEO has come out to defend its specs and price, arguing that the Moto X is offering "high-end performance" just like all the other flagships, which is really what matters for the normal mainstream users, and not which spec is bigger on paper or which chip has more cores.

"We made some different choices from our competitors," Woodside said in a telephone interview on Sunday. "We were thinking about the total user experience."


The Moto X may be the most controversial smartphone since the original iPhone. People who may not remember what was going on when the iPhone came out may say "Wait, what? The iPhone was controversial? So not everyone loved the iPhone from day one?". Far from it.

Much like the Moto X, or perhaps worse than Moto X, the first iPhone was lacking severely in "specs" compared to other "smartphones" that existed at the time. In fact, I'd go as far as to say 90 percent of the smartphone users back then thought the iPhone was horrible, because it didn't have MMS, video recording, 3G, and a 5MP camera, like the Nokia's flagship at the time, the N95.

In fact, even I ignored the iPhone when it was first announced in January 2007, once I looked at its spec sheet, because I also thought it had horrible specs, and couldn't possibly be a "good phone", especially for a high-end price. How can they offer such a "low-specced" phone for such a high price? That's crazy. Right?


Then a few days after it was launched, I saw a video review of the iPhone, and I "got it". I knew immediately it was the future of smartphones, and that Apple would be bigger than Nokia in a few years (a very, very crazy thought at the time – Nokia was a juggernaut in the phone market at the time), no matter how much the Nokia fanatics at the time kept trashing it for not having the "best specs".


Perhaps the Moto X isn't as world changing as the first iPhone was, but I do believe its customization options and the touchless control combined with Google Now represent the way forward. I've been a big fan of the "color phones" trend (why should we have all have black slabs for such a personal device?), and I've hated the fact that it wasn't an Android company charging forward with that, but some of the WP8 companies.


Samsung has been offering terrible color options. It's like they weren't even trying, or were too afraid to go too "bold" with the colors. I'm very glad Motorola is pushing ahead of everyone else with this, with so many color customizations (and even with wood!), and unlike other Android OEM's colors, they actually look very good, and I have a hard time deciding which one I'd prefer most.

As for the touchless control combined with Google Now, it's basically what we've been dreaming about since we've seen all those sci-fi movies and shows. You can talk to the "computer", it will respond to you, and will even show you items of interest without you asking it. Sure, we're still at very early days, but can you not see the potential of this and where it's going? How do you put this into a "spec sheet" and accurately compare it to other devices?

Considering most if not all reviews are saying the Moto X is very fast, and perhaps even faster and with bigger battery life than the current flagships from competitors, also because it uses a smaller, but still "retina-like" resolution – then we may need to look beyond lists of specs, and think about the experience of using a phone, and which one would be the most enjoyable to own and use? If it does offer a high-end performance and experience, then why wouldn't it be worth a high-end price, too?


I thought that's why we were even buying the high-specced phone in the first place, because we automatically assumed it would give us a better experience (which isn't always the case). If a company can achieve that with slightly lower specs (much like Apple), good for them.

[Via PhoneArena]