AT&T may carry an LTE capable Moto G - Moto G General

AT&T may carry an LTE capable Moto G http://www.gsmarena.com/at_t_may_carry_an_lte_moto_g-news-7842.php

Just AT&T.... Why?! That sucks..
Sent from my XT1034 using Tapatalk

I am willing to bet the boot loader is locked down hard
sent from my lady's MOTO G

its funny. In the uk. the 4G lte networks 'may' give you up to 25Mb/s in some areas, but most of them average 7-14 Mb/s. The moto g, in a reasonable 3g area (I get hsdpa+ most of the time) and I get 11 Mb/s download with a much cheaper 3G price plan.
I know the US has much better LTE coverage, but in the UK at least the 4G network and therefore phones are pretty much useless unless you live under a broadcast mast. The Moto G will do me fine for 12-18 months until the 4G LTE network is mature enough and consistent enough to be worth the extra cost. It's just a gimmick at the moment for most people and a way for carriers to jack their prices without improving service!!
and yea, it will be locked down like a mofo if they do release one haha

Related

Whats the difference between Atrix and Atrix 4G?

International market is getting Atrix 3G, US is getting 4G. Is there any difference? As far as I know, both versions support HSPA+.
syl0n said:
International market is getting Atrix 3G, US is getting 4G. Is there any difference? As far as I know, both versions support HSPA+.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Largely terminology. If you mean HSPA+, then no, there's no difference. Someone has hinted that the Atrix will make it to other carriers. If it goes to Verizon, we could see a version that supports LTE. Then you'll have a difference. Until then, it's HSPA+ on various frequencies (assuming there will be a European version on a quirky frequency, and assuming it hits TMo).
Sent from my Sexy Nexy, courtesy of the fine developers of Tapatalk
There is no difference at all. In Europe they don't call HSPA+ 4G, so it's not called a 4G phone there.
It's kind of weird, it's probably because of some more restrictive laws outside the US where you can't call a cat a tiger (after all, HSPA+ is NOT 4G). Otherwise, they would surely market it the same way in Canada and Europe.
PuerkitoBio said:
It's kind of weird, it's probably because of some more restrictive laws outside the US where you can't call a cat a tiger (after all, HSPA+ is NOT 4G). Otherwise, they would surely market it the same way in Canada and Europe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The idea of US carriers calling HSPA+ 4G is that it is delivering 4G speeds using upgraded 3G technology. 14.4Mbps HSPA+ with AT&T is nearly on par with the LTE speeds we will see on Verizon initially. T-Mobile is cranking their HSPA+ up to 42Mbps or something similar. It will be some time before carriers can really flex LTE muscle, but for now there really won't be that huge of a speed difference, so all these carriers calling their data tech 4G is just marketing.
Besides, LTE is NOT 4G either by definition. LTE is more of a 3.5G technology, similar to HSPA+, but the cool thing with LTE is that over time it can be upgraded to approximately 300Mbps theoretical download speed, while HSPA+ can only be upgraded to approximately 84Mbps download speed.
LTE Advanced will be the first technically compliant 4G technology on the market, but we are still years off from seeing that in the real world.
So take everything you see about 4G as a grain of salt. Atrix 4G vs Atrix is just marketing lingo.
And when people want to say that the Droid Bionic is a real 4G device would technically be incorrect. So don't think your Atrix is in any way inferior to the Bionic (except maybe camera and screen size).
PuerkitoBio said:
It's kind of weird, it's probably because of some more restrictive laws outside the US where you can't call a cat a tiger (after all, HSPA+ is NOT 4G).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is now. Standards folks changed their minds, and as of last month or so current WiMax, current LTE, and HSPA+ are all 4G.
when i talked with my rep basically he said they were dropping the 4g just to make things easier. The phone is the same, just some people are still using the superfluous 4g tag.
Does this mean that we can buy a sim-free Atrix 4g from at&t, bring it to europe and use it with european sim cards?or any other gsm sim-cards around the world?
Po0yAn said:
Does this mean that we can buy a sim-free Atrix 4g from at&t, bring it to europe and use it with european sim cards?or any other gsm sim-cards around the world?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd really like to know that as well. Besides this the only thing preventing me from ordering an unlocked version as soon as such is available is the bootloader thing.
A_Kirsh said:
I'd really like to know that as well. Besides this the only thing preventing me from ordering an unlocked version as soon as such is available is the bootloader thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
same here.thats why im considering galaxy s2 now. i have both moto milestone and galaxy s,the build quality of moto is way better.also my friends like the milestone build and look more,but the locked up bootloader really frustrated me.although there aren't much of great custom roms for galaxy s either,we haven't had a decent cyanogenmod rom around yet, after 8 month since galaxy s been released.
i like atrix more because of better build,higher resolution and tegra 2,but the damn bootloader and later release date along with slightly better specs for s2 like shipping with 2.3 and better camera is changing my desire.
not to mention that this time moto is using PenTile for it LCD and sami is using stripe matrix for its samoled+. thats another let down for atrix.
it was stupid from moto to change the lcd tech on atrix, stripe matrix looked great on milestone.
u can see the differences here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4165/the-motorola-atrix-4g-preview/4
you can see im pretty confused here!if only the damn nexus s was shipped with a daul core cpu!
LockeCPM4 said:
The idea of US carriers calling HSPA+ 4G is that it is delivering 4G speeds using upgraded 3G technology. 14.4Mbps HSPA+ with AT&T is nearly on par with the LTE speeds we will see on Verizon initially. T-Mobile is cranking their HSPA+ up to 42Mbps or something similar. It will be some time before carriers can really flex LTE muscle, but for now there really won't be that huge of a speed difference, so all these carriers calling their data tech 4G is just marketing.
Besides, LTE is NOT 4G either by definition. LTE is more of a 3.5G technology, similar to HSPA+, but the cool thing with LTE is that over time it can be upgraded to approximately 300Mbps theoretical download speed, while HSPA+ can only be upgraded to approximately 84Mbps download speed.
LTE Advanced will be the first technically compliant 4G technology on the market, but we are still years off from seeing that in the real world.
So take everything you see about 4G as a grain of salt. Atrix 4G vs Atrix is just marketing lingo.
And when people want to say that the Droid Bionic is a real 4G device would technically be incorrect. So don't think your Atrix is in any way inferior to the Bionic (except maybe camera and screen size).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just thought I'd correct you. Tmobile has claimed they can reach speeds of up to 672mbps with their HSPA+ tech. Honestly with speeds like that is there any real need for LTE?
"Now we're seeing a chart of T-Mobile's 4G evolution on the HSPA+ technology path, starting with 21Mbps in 2010. We're seeing 28, 42, 84, 168, and 672Mbps bars here as we move through dual-carrier, MIMO, and so on."
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/live-from-t-mobiles-ces-2011-press-event/
svengalis said:
"Now we're seeing a chart of T-Mobile's 4G evolution on the HSPA+ technology path, starting with 21Mbps in 2010. We're seeing 28, 42, 84, 168, and 672Mbps bars here as we move through dual-carrier, MIMO, and so on."
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/live-from-t-mobiles-ces-2011-press-event/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is basically LTE. They will be switching to it eventually, and these technologies is what makes up most of it.
Just to make sure everyone's aware. Without a huge picocell/femtocell underlay, you will never see anything over 6-12 meg on an LTE network.
The difference between atrix 4g and atrix for europe could be regarding frequencies: 4g shold be 3g on frequencies 850/1900/2100 while european version 850/900/1900/2100. This should be not a problem because almost in all europe 3g works on 2100 Mhz frequency. What do you think about it?
mercuryzzz said:
The difference between atrix 4g and atrix for europe could be regarding frequencies: 4g shold be 3g on frequencies 850/1900/2100 while european version 850/900/1900/2100. This should be not a problem because almost in all europe 3g works on 2100 Mhz frequency. What do you think about it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since most 3G GSM operates in the 2100MHZ area nowadays, I don't this this is too much of a problem (if I'm wrong could someone please correct me?)
I'm now curious as to what exactly is the unlock procedure (sim-wise) of an att Atrix... Can anyone please explain (in detail) ?

Wanting to move from Verizon

Got a question for all: Who do you think is best to move to FROM Verizon.
AT&T: Did the discount calculations, I save a whopping 9 dollars compared to the 13-15 dollar discount for my Verizon discount, so its still over 20 dollars more than what I would pay for Verizon by myself.
Sprint: No more CDMA, no faith in its LTE rollout, Wimax in my area is pretty slow compared to HSPA+ from AT&T and T-Mo.
T-Mo: No real plans I know of for LTE or any potential 4G predecessor (LTE or WiMax) so little incentive.
I just want phones that are regularly updated, and the GSM Galaxy Nexus is that, and an LTE phone from AT&T would be nice when I am in an area.
OPINIONS PLEASE!!!!!
Ok I am on both AT&T and verizon, so I will put my 2c in.
AT&T: They have good HSPA+, fast and in a lot of places. Voice is not as good as verizon and you may drop a call every 3 months or so.
Sprint: I think they are on there way up with LTE and yes I know all about how they messed up WiMax, but I saw it coming due to the bands used suck for cell phone use.
T-mo: They will put up LTE in 2013 and they are building out there HSPA+ network some more. The HSPA+ speed can even top verizon's LTE. ( If you live were I do, then that would be all day.)
If you live in an AT&T LTE area like I do, then yes you should buy a one XL and go with AT&T. ( You may even be able to walk right into a AT&T store and buy a XL today.)
Ok that's my 2

[Q] Is having HSPA+ Instead of LTE a dealbreaker?

Long story short, I'm selling my S3 (US Variant) for the Nexus 4 (my first owned nexus device). It supports HSPA+ 42mpbs (AT&T and T-Mobile here in the states) and where I live, LTE in my area is a dream and won't be coming for awhileeee. Sure the cities have LTE and all that, but 90% of the time in my general area it doesn't offer LTE. Would you, personally, sacrifice the use of LTE for the Nexus? If they are aiming to be future proof devices then do you think that they will pull off an LTE version a couple months in the year and I'm stuck with the HSPA+ version? Or do you think Google will wait until its next Nexus to have LTE.
Remember now.. I'm talking about the US VARIANT of the S3, not the quad core INTL version.
iAndropple said:
Long story short, I'm selling my S3 (US Variant) for the Nexus 4 (my first owned nexus device). It supports HSPA+ 42mpbs (AT&T and T-Mobile here in the states) and where I live, LTE in my area is a dream and won't be coming for awhileeee. Sure the cities have LTE and all that, but 90% of the time in my general area it doesn't offer LTE. Would you, personally, sacrifice the use of LTE for the Nexus? If they are aiming to be future proof devices then do you think that they will pull off an LTE version a couple months in the year and I'm stuck with the HSPA+ version? Or do you think Google will wait until its next Nexus to have LTE.
Remember now.. I'm talking about the US VARIANT of the S3, not the quad core INTL version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I live in Germany, so I couldn't care less for LTE on the Nexus 4.
Once Germany has LTE readily available everywhere for a reasonable price, another 2 or 3 Nexus phones will probably have hit the market.
I'm getting the Nexus 4 on day one!
An emphatic NO.
I live in an LTE enabled area but refuse to pay extortionate rates for minimal usage allowances
inside a particular zone, with the phone dropping back to 3G when 4G is unavailable.
Far easier and much less expensive for me to find a free wi-fi hotspot.
No! It's gonna be a while before my area has LTE service anyway. It's by no means a deal breaker. LTE is a huge battery drainer too.
Even though they offer LTE they don't offer unlimited data. So I would easily switch to HSPA+
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
I honestly use WiFi 90% of the time.
My city just launched LTE. I currently have a Samsung Note which gets 1 bar of LTE or 5 bars of HSPA+. I've disabled LTE.
LTE has been more of a pain than anything, in my case.
Why would it be a deal breaker? if your carrier supports HSPA+ 42 you get speeds close to LTE any way. I had the LG Nitro and The SG2 Skyrocket when i visited St.Louis, MO which has LTE and both phones couldn't give me the speed my HTC Amaze does which use HSPA+ 42. IMO LTE will be a joke until carriers start to support VoLTE.
Hmm of course not, t-mobile hspa+ is as fast if not faster than verizon and att LTE ( not everywhere ik) but at least in south florida my note2 and gs3 are faster than my cousins gs3 on att LTE. just my 2 cents
Why is LTE on a phone even considered necessary by some? LTE is faster than my home internet speeds. Like nearly 10 times faster. So, what do people need that speed for on a PHONE? Downloading 1080p DVD's to your 4 inch phone screen to watch? Torrenting the latest Windows 8 release to your phone? I don't get it.
I can see the use if you use your phone as a hotspot 100% of the time and have multiple devices connected to it. But, what % of the population even does this? 1%? And your capped on data anyways....so again what's the point?
FlukerFlakes said:
Why is LTE on a phone even considered necessary by some? LTE is faster than my home internet speeds. Like nearly 10 times faster. So, what do people need that speed for on a PHONE? Downloading 1080p DVD's to your 4 inch phone screen to watch? Torrenting the latest Windows 8 release to your phone? I don't get it.
I can see the use if you use your phone as a hotspot 100% of the time and have multiple devices connected to it. But, what % of the population even does this? 1%? And your capped on data anyways....so again what's the point?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use my phone constantly for work and personal. Anything other than LTE in Pittsburgh has horrible browsing speeds. I tether my tablets through my phone. I DO have unlimited data. Everyone keeps complaining about price but LTE plans are the same price as any other plans.
That being said. I'm still not a fan of VZW and I'll probably get a Nexus 4 and try to find a month-to-month plan to test out for a while. I'm doubting I'll stick with it but who knows.
More than 97% of my data use is over wifi, and I have pretty decent HSPA+42 access averaging 11-13Mbps where I am geographically situated. I'll take longer batter life over faster mobile data speed every time.
itznfb said:
I use my phone constantly for work and personal. Anything other than LTE in Pittsburgh has horrible browsing speeds. I tether my tablets through my phone. I DO have unlimited data. Everyone keeps complaining about price but LTE plans are the same price as any other plans.
That being said. I'm still not a fan of VZW and I'll probably get a Nexus 4 and try to find a month-to-month plan to test out for a while. I'm doubting I'll stick with it but who knows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I was paying what people pay Verizon then I would expect the best....but I'm switching to Tmobile and gonna spend about 30 dollars a month. And i just need good data speed for occasional browsing and streaming on spotify. LTE just seems like overkill for what most of the population actually needs.
Also, can't justify spending over 3x more money for extensive Verizon LTE when its just not needed (at least for me)
FlukerFlakes said:
If I was paying what people pay Verizon then I would expect the best....but I'm switching to Tmobile and gonna spend about 30 dollars a month. And i just need good data speed for occasional browsing and streaming on spotify. LTE just seems like overkill for what most of the population actually needs.
Also, can't justify spending over 3x more money for extensive Verizon LTE when its just not needed (at least for me)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only plan I've found so far (probably the same one you're talking about) that makes me consider switching is the $30 Web Exclusive. But according to their site it seems to be a limited time thing. If I'm paying $50+ for a plan I'll just stick with my $70 VZW.
itznfb said:
The only plan I've found so far (probably the same one you're talking about) that makes me consider switching is the $30 Web Exclusive. But according to their site it seems to be a limited time thing. If I'm paying $50+ for a plan I'll just stick with my $70 VZW.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah that's the one im gonna start with.
also might try Slovai (sp?) for 49 a month...unlimited everything with 4GB of HSPA+ speed. plus decrease price if you get others to join
Forgot to mention, I am on AT&T's HSPA+ network, and it only supports 21Mbps

[POLL] LTE in your area, and will it affect your area?

Is LTE a big deal for you? Do you even live in the US ? What are your conditions regarding speeds in your area.
Yes LTE is a better technology... but in practice... HSPA is much more established and will give more than sufficient results:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/T-Mo...ter-than-Verizons-4G-LTE-in-11-cities_id31387
I'm not saying I'm glad the device doesn't have LTE, just that it doesn't really affect me in any way at this point in time.
I live in Vancouver, Canada where LTE is readily available and I don't use it. HSPA+ gets me plenty of speed for the /whopping/ 30 minutes a day my phone is on mobile data (commute to and from work; 15m each way). HSPA+ in Canada is from all providers and has great coverage. I regularly get 10-12Mbps. I've been testing a lot lately and I've managed to get 22Mbps and 25Mbps at certain points/times as well on HSPA+. I have zero need for anything faster than that as all I do is stream radio while walking.
I really hate how the American bias towards LTE, because your providers seem to suck, is affecting this phone. By all accounts in the reviews out there "If you don't live in the US, LTE isn't a big deal and this phone is amazing". That's enough for me. I'm on wifi for 95% of my usage anyways. 100Mbps line at home and 250Mbps line at work. Screw LTE.
Pragmata said:
I live in Vancouver, Canada where LTE is readily available and I don't use it. HSPA+ gets me plenty of speed for the /whopping/ 30 minutes a day my phone is on mobile data (commute to and from work; 15m each way). HSPA+ in Canada is from all providers and has great coverage. I regularly get 10-12Mbps. I've been testing a lot lately and I've managed to get 22Mbps and 25Mbps at certain points/times as well on HSPA+. I have zero need for anything faster than that as all I do is stream radio while walking.
I really hate how the American bias towards LTE, because your providers seem to suck, is affecting this phone. By all accounts in the reviews out there "If you don't live in the US, LTE isn't a big deal and this phone is amazing". That's enough for me. I'm on wifi for 95% of my usage anyways. 100Mbps line at home and 250Mbps line at work. Screw LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see your point, but US providers don't "suck" lol. People are bashing LTE on this phone because so many carriers on the US already provide it.
Don't care about lte
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
iAndropple said:
I see your point, but US providers don't "suck" lol. People are bashing LTE on this phone because so many carriers on the US already provide it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get that, but all the major carriers in Canada provide LTE too. The difference is all of our major carriers provide HSPA+ AND LTE so the absence of one simply means the use of the other and speeds on both are phenomenal for a bloody phone. xD I've never understood the necessity for residential internet speeds on your phone. I have a 100Mbps line at home so I can download Steam games really fast. What do people do on their phones that require LTE anyways?
My point about the "seem to suck" comment (which I admit I did say 'seem' because I don't have experience with them) is that from what I have learned, Verizon doesn't have HSPA so the lack of LTE means that the speeds then drop to 3G speeds for them? If that's accurate, a major provider not having both HSPA+ and LTE seems a bit sucky to me. I really guess I just don't understand what people need LTE for or how it affects your phone use. In terms of pure network, LTE is like getting a ferrari when you drive for maybe 5 minutes a day. HSPA+ does everything LTE does at more than acceptable speeds. If the issue is because some of the US networks coverage of HSPA+ is absent or limited, that should reflect upon the providers and not the phone.
I'm not too bothered about LTE either. Though it's available in the UK city in which I reside term-time, which is most of the time, it isn't available in my hometown where my family home is. Sure, by the time I'm done in my student city, LTE will most likely be available at "home" but by then the Nexus 4 will be old and in need of a replacement. I don't need it right now, so DC-HSPA is fine for me. More than fine, actually. Plus my phone is on WiFi most of the time anyway. ;D
TeRRa4 said:
I'm not too bothered about LTE either. Though it's available in the UK city in which I reside term-time, which is most of the time, it isn't available in my hometown where my family home is. Sure, by the time I'm done in my student city, LTE will most likely be available at "home" but by then the Nexus 4 will be old and in need of a replacement. I don't need it right now, so DC-HSPA is fine for me. More than fine, actually. Plus my phone is on WiFi most of the time anyway. ;D
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed
I live in the US but LTE doesn't exist within about a 250 mile radius of where I live so HSPA+ is fine by me!
I live outside the US and LTE is just starting here. I live in the second town of my nation and the first 4G antennas will start to emit here for the public on 1st quarter 2013. Google made the Nexus S 4G, then the Verizon Galaxy Nexus 4G, so why not a Nexus 4 4G tomorrow ?:highfive:
There is a good amount of LTE in my area (SF + the surrounding area), but I suppose I don't NEED it. I've been perfectly fine without it (currently with a Motorola Atrix). However like most of you here, you want the best you can get for your area.
Pragmata said:
.... The difference is all of our major carriers provide HSPA+ AND LTE so the absence of one simply means the use of the other and speeds on both are phenomenal for a bloody phone.....What do people do on their phones that require LTE anyways?
I really guess I just don't understand what people need LTE for or how it affects your phone use.
If the issue is because some of the US networks coverage of HSPA+ is absent or limited, that should reflect upon the providers and not the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. It's the idea that Google is pushing consumers to rely more on the cloud, yet "cripple" the phone's ability to CONNECT TO the cloud by not providing LTE. I live in San Diego - we have LTE here and it works great on all my friends' IPhone 5s.
2. While LTE is certainly NOT COMMONPLACE, it is non-negotiable that it is the infrastructure of the future. HSPA+ represents the pinnacle of it's infrastructure, while LTE is the infancy stage of the a newer, higher throughput technology. As a result, you're paying however much for a phone that is not really very future proof. Regardless of how good of a deal this phone is in the near term, you kind of lose out in the long term, especially when viewed in regards to item 1.
3. Since there is no CDMA version of the Nexus 4, it won't work on Verizon or Sprint in the US anyways. T-mobile has ONLY HSPA+ and AT&T has LTE and HSPA+, with HSPA+ coverage being greater than LTE (in San Diego anyways). LTE coverage, however, is expanding, and will be much more available within the next 2 years. Therefore it's not neccessarily that HSPA+ is limited, its that LTE is limited and that's why Google has chosen to omit it from their device, which may be smart in the near term, but again limits the long term relevance of the phone.
4. As a corollary to 3, Google is really just doing the same thing LG has done with the Optimus G but in a different form. Google doesn't provide LTE, so in 2 years you really will need to buy a new phone if you want to transfer large files to and from your cloud, which you will have to do because your phone only has 8GB or 16GB of on-board storage. LG forces you to buy a new phone because they haven't provided updates to their phone since it's release on day 1 and your phone is horribly laggy and bloated and it's bootloader is locked.
This resonates much like Apple's philosophy, which we all bash them for, yet we defend Google vehemently when it does the same in a more inconspicuous way.
I'm a complete loss for what to do now because I really need a new phone lol.
I live in the USA near Washington DC and I live in strong LTE coverage by Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint (allegedly). I've used LTE and while it's nice, I don't require it. In addition, I like being able to use a SIM card in any country I visit. HSPA+ is more than sufficient for me.
It doesn't bother me. I currently have Verizon and have a Galaxy Nexus. My plan for two lines and unlimited data on LTE costs me 180 USD a month. My same plan, but with more minutes would cost me 100 USD on T-Mobile. Almost double check the cost just for LTE speeds? My contract is up in January. So long, Verizon! Your business practises suck. Hspa+ isn't so bad that it's a steep departure. Half the price plus my phone is unlocked so I can switch carriers if T-Mobile starts to play games with my bill? Awesome.
I'm on TMo and there is no LTE.
So, I can care less atm.
TeRRa4 said:
I'm not too bothered about LTE either. Though it's available in the UK city in which I reside term-time, which is most of the time, it isn't available in my hometown where my family home is. Sure, by the time I'm done in my student city, LTE will most likely be available at "home" but by then the Nexus 4 will be old and in need of a replacement. I don't need it right now, so DC-HSPA is fine for me. More than fine, actually. Plus my phone is on WiFi most of the time anyway. ;D
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has anyone actually tested the ee network in the real world yet? Here in the UK LTE has finally started to rollout but at the launch event the speeds were not that impressive anyway. Anyway at £26 a month for 500mb i think LTE won't be that popular here for some time when three are offering decent speeds with all you can eat data for £10
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2
dontdo_that said:
1. It's the idea that Google is pushing consumers to rely more on the cloud, yet "cripple" the phone's ability to CONNECT TO the cloud by not providing LTE. I live in San Diego - we have LTE here and it works great on all my friends' IPhone 5s.
2. While LTE is certainly NOT COMMONPLACE, it is non-negotiable that it is the infrastructure of the future. HSPA+ represents the pinnacle of it's infrastructure, while LTE is the infancy stage of the a newer, higher throughput technology. As a result, you're paying however much for a phone that is not really very future proof. Regardless of how good of a deal this phone is in the near term, you kind of lose out in the long term, especially when viewed in regards to item 1.
3. Since there is no CDMA version of the Nexus 4, it won't work on Verizon or Sprint in the US anyways. T-mobile has ONLY HSPA+ and AT&T has LTE and HSPA+, with HSPA+ coverage being greater than LTE (in San Diego anyways). LTE coverage, however, is expanding, and will be much more available within the next 2 years. Therefore it's not neccessarily that HSPA+ is limited, its that LTE is limited and that's why Google has chosen to omit it from their device, which may be smart in the near term, but again limits the long term relevance of the phone.
4. As a corollary to 3, Google is really just doing the same thing LG has done with the Optimus G but in a different form. Google doesn't provide LTE, so in 2 years you really will need to buy a new phone if you want to transfer large files to and from your cloud, which you will have to do because your phone only has 8GB or 16GB of on-board storage. LG forces you to buy a new phone because they haven't provided updates to their phone since it's release on day 1 and your phone is horribly laggy and bloated and it's bootloader is locked.
This resonates much like Apple's philosophy, which we all bash them for, yet we defend Google vehemently when it does the same in a more inconspicuous way.
I'm a complete loss for what to do now because I really need a new phone lol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make great points and I definitely understand where you are coming from, I would still argue that the speeds HSPA+ provides are more than enough for at least the next year and whether your carrier supports that or not is more on them and less on the manufacturer.
That said, I do have a couple follow-ups cause I think you raised some good points and I'm interested in getting your thoughts.
A) At (max) 350$, do you feel that you really wouldn't be opposed to upgrading in a years time when there could potentially be a new Nexus with LTE? For me 350$ is a steal when I regularly buy a new phone every year for 600+. I know not everyone upgrades on a yearly cadence, but if present and future Nexi were priced around that point, I think it might be something more widely adopted. Perhaps this isn't meant to be a "long-term" phone? Obivously the base argument is that you would want something to last, but if it's affordable why not speed up the upgrade cycle?
B) If we disregard carrier failings and just pit HSPA+ against LTE, I don't see how HSPA+ would be such a deprecated technology that it will be irrelevant within 2 years. Sure, LTE will be bigger and better by then with more coverage, but by no means is HSPA+ something to scoff at. A potential 42Mbps on your phone EASILY gives you all the Cloud throughput you need. I had a 50Mbps residential line for my home internet before upgrading to 100Mbps and I can tell you thinks moved seamlessly. 42Mbps is hardly something that won't let you push and pull content on the Cloud. So you might say that you don't get nearly that on X's network, but that isn't reflective of the technology itself. Maybe X just needs to improve their HSPA+ networks while working on LTE.
I kind of see it like the CPU progress on desktop computers. HSPA+ represents a Dual Core/Quad Core CPU that can be clocked at 4Ghz. Even in mainstream computing today most games/apps/programs barely take advantage of a full optimized Dual Core high clock CPU, yet manufacturers are pushing out Hexa- and even Octo-Core CPU's at low clock rates. Those are like LTE. It's going to be a WHILE before we can properly use 16 threads and 4Ghz of speed on a CPU. And just because those CPU's exist, doesn't mean someone should not buy a Dual/Quad Core CPU. Sure, you can't add more cores to it so it's not "future-proof", but we don't even take full advantage of it yet...
C) I'm still curious at what LTE users like yourself are pushing that you feel pressured in the near future that HSPA+ won't provide (again disregarding shortcomings of providers). Myself, I don't do any media use on my phone so I'm obviously the opposite, but even imagining if I was streaming video and pushing lots of media, I can't forsee the need for a connection faster than what I have to my home. The only possible thing I was able to think of is someone with an unlimited data plan (doesn't exist in Canada) that uses their cell connection as their internet connection and tether their computer through it 100% of the time. Just pure curiosity as per what LTE people push.
I suppose most of this all comes down to the provider limitations and as such necessity for LTE, but I'd be more upset at my provider than the manufacturer. Google has built a worldwide product that can reach amazing speeds on HSPA+ networks. I know America is a powerhouse, but you aren't the be-all-end-all in deciding how a phone should be made. LTE has a lot of reach in Canada on all major providers, but they all also have HSPA+ with great coverage. Only people on smaller or piggyback providers are losing out on LTE, but everyone has HSPA. Maybe the American providers should stop fighting with each other over proprietary LTE spectrums.
If you are hankering for a new phone and don't want this, I'd probably say the Razr Maxx or One X+. Those are my runner ups (Once they finally hit Canadian borders) Since you are on these forums I'll disregard suggesting the locked bootloader Optimus G.
I don't understand this.
LTE is available only in USA and a small amount of other countries as a whole. the world isn't only USA and the 10% places. They've made our such a big issue for everyone, and all the reviewers are complaining about no LTE like every country in the world has it.
There is world outside USA you know...
I don't care for LTE and micro SD slot. I just want this phone in my hands already!
UK here. 4G on just one network in only 10 cities. The lack of 4G means nothing to us Brits!

Initial impression with Moto X

So I got my VZW Dev Moto X Wednesday and wanted to give a little review so far. Like most of us I replaced an aging VZW Galaxy Nexus w/ extended OEM battery.
Initial impressions
- this thing is FAST!!!!!
- its physically smaller then the GNex and taking a little bit to get used to (typing is a little off while getting used to the new phone)
- signal is much better then the Gnex (duh!)
- battery is worlds better (ran from 8-5 yesterday on LTE at work with 7 hours of Google Music streaming, then home and on wifi. Ended up with 4hr 43min of screen on before it died)
- its official, I'm addicted to Active Notifications.
- I find myself wishing for the stock android browser for a few sites, seemed a little snappier then Chrome (could side load I'm sure)
Overall I am a happy camper. Now to see what the dev community comes up with!
Wow it sounds amazing, I hope it will come to europe!
VolcyDX said:
So I got my VZW Dev Moto X Wednesday and wanted to give a little review so far. Like most of us I replaced an aging VZW Galaxy Nexus w/ extended OEM battery.
Initial impressions
- this thing is FAST!!!!!
- its physically smaller then the GNex and taking a little bit to get used to (typing is a little off while getting used to the new phone)
- signal is much better then the Gnex (duh!)
- battery is worlds better (ran from 8-5 yesterday on LTE at work with 7 hours of Google Music streaming, then home and on wifi. Ended up with 4hr 43min of screen on before it died)
- its official, I'm addicted to Active Notifications.
- I find myself wishing for the stock android browser for a few sites, seemed a little snappier then Chrome (could side load I'm sure)
Overall I am a happy camper. Now to see what the dev community comes up with!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Check the themes/apps section. There is a thread for the AOSP browser.
good phone:good:
I'm in almost the same boat as you coming from the Verizon Gnex.
I loved being able to play with different ROM's.
So I bought the Verizon Moto X DE.
This phone is lightyears ahead of the Gnex.
I'm not a heavy user but I've been getting great battery live.
6AM to 9PM with 1 1/2 or more of screen time with 70% battery left!
Much better reception, I'm even getting 4G in the building at work where the Gnex had trouble gettting 3G.
Have anyone compare this device or the regular Moto X to the Droid Maxx?
Switched from Verizon Galaxy Nexus to T-Mobile Moto X. Moto X is definitely light years ahead.
aysiu said:
Switched from Verizon Galaxy Nexus to T-Mobile Moto X. Moto X is definitely light years ahead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm thinking about switching from Verizon to T-Mobile and I'm wondering how you like it. I live in San Diego and T-Mobile LTE is supposedly pretty good out here. Earlier in the year I experimented with the Nexus 4 and T-Mobile before they had LTE in my area. I had a couple of dead spots here and there, but it was OK. I'm thinking of trying them again since they have LTE now.
If you don't mind answering:
1) Do you happen to live in Southern California?
2) How's your coverage so far compared to Verizon? Does your area have LTE?
skinien said:
I'm thinking about switching from Verizon to T-Mobile and I'm wondering how you like it. I live in San Diego and T-Mobile LTE is supposedly pretty good out here. Earlier in the year I experimented with the Nexus 4 and T-Mobile before they had LTE in my area. I had a couple of dead spots here and there, but it was OK. I'm thinking of trying them again since they have LTE now.
If you don't mind answering:
1) Do you happen to live in Southern California?
2) How's your coverage so far compared to Verizon? Does your area have LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I live in LA and just switched from a RAZR m and previous to that a gnex on Verizon. I'm running a Puerto Rico model moto x without aws hspa and I think it still has better reception than Verizon. Verizon actually had some areas with no reception. Verizon does almost always give you 3g when t mobile for me might hit edge but I haven't seen a dead spot on t mobile yet. Have had it about two weeks...
In the bay area where I used to live Verizon was much better than t mobile but in LA at least its not really worth the money
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk 4
skinien said:
I'm thinking about switching from Verizon to T-Mobile and I'm wondering how you like it. I live in San Diego and T-Mobile LTE is supposedly pretty good out here. Earlier in the year I experimented with the Nexus 4 and T-Mobile before they had LTE in my area. I had a couple of dead spots here and there, but it was OK. I'm thinking of trying them again since they have LTE now.
If you don't mind answering:
1) Do you happen to live in Southern California?
2) How's your coverage so far compared to Verizon? Does your area have LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used to live in Northern California, and now I'm in New England (have used T-Mobile and Verizon in both locations). Basically the theoretical coverage of Verizon is better, but I find the T-Mobile experience leaves me with a less frustrating experience.
T-Mobile, when it has coverage has good coverage. The coverage is solid. But when T-Mobile doesn't have coverage, it's got nothing--zero. This usually happens in rural areas or remote suburban areas.
The problem I had with Verizon on the Galaxy Nexus was the horrrible handoffs between CDMA and LTE. There were a lot of times (in urban areas, even) when my Galaxy Nexus would be on the cusp of 3G with two bars and 4G with one bar, and the phone couldn't make up its mind, so I ended up with essentially no usable data. If I switched to CDMA-only, things would work better for a while, but eventually my entire workable signal would just disappear. This was with the stock Android, rooted Android, old radios, new radios. I tried everything and could not get a good consistent signal. There were also weird situations in which I would appear to have a full signal and couldn't connect to anything. Other times, I would appear to have no signal, and web pages would still load.
TLDR version: Verizon was a headache.
I'm much happier with T-Mobile. When I have good coverage, it's good, and the signal bars never lie. Transitions between 3G and 4G are smooth. In fact, I rarely have 3G at all. Seems to just be 4G HSPA+, 4G LTE... or nothing.
skinien said:
I'm thinking about switching from Verizon to T-Mobile and I'm wondering how you like it. I live in San Diego and T-Mobile LTE is supposedly pretty good out here. Earlier in the year I experimented with the Nexus 4 and T-Mobile before they had LTE in my area. I had a couple of dead spots here and there, but it was OK. I'm thinking of trying them again since they have LTE now.
If you don't mind answering:
1) Do you happen to live in Southern California?
2) How's your coverage so far compared to Verizon? Does your area have LTE?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am in San Diego and TMO's 4G LTE is great from South to North County. My wife has Verizon and it has better coverage when we go out of town up the Sierras (Yosemite), but in every metropolitan area I have been to TMO has been blazing fast with 4G LTE data speeds actually faster than Verizon's. Here in Poway, I can consistently get 23MB down with 15MB up. Even in standard 4G non LTE, I see 15MB down and 3MB up. :good:
Scott-
SGBE said:
I am in San Diego and TMO's 4G LTE is great from South to North County. My wife has Verizon and it has better coverage when we go out of town up the Sierras (Yosemite), but in every metropolitan area I have been to TMO has been blazing fast with 4G LTE data speeds actually faster than Verizon's. Here in Poway, I can consistently get 23MB down with 15MB up. Even in standard 4G non LTE, I see 15MB down and 3MB up. :good:
Scott-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's awesome. I work in Poway and live in Mission Valley. Verizon has really been pissing me off with forcing people off of unlimited, increasing the upgrade to 24 months, and delaying updates. I love what T-Mobile is doing. I think I may have to see what the Nexus 5 has to offer and make a switch if it's good enough.
Hey, if you do not talk much, TMO offers a $30/month prepaid plan that offers unlimited data (first 5GB up to 4G LTE), unlimited text, and 100 voice minutes. Even if you go over the 100 minutes, the per minute price is pennies and would not equal a traditional voice plan for approx. 250+ additional minutes. I use this plan and Google voice and Skype since TMO allows WiFi calling too and it's all good, but most of the time I use less than 80 voice minutes per month regardless.
Scott-
SGBE said:
Hey, if you do not talk much, TMO offers a $30/month prepaid plan that offers unlimited data (first 5GB up to 4G LTE), unlimited text, and 100 voice minutes. Even if you go over the 100 minutes, the per minute price is pennies and would not equal a traditional voice plan for approx. 250+ additional minutes. I use this plan and Google voice and Skype since TMO allows WiFi calling too and it's all good, but most of the time I use less than 80 voice minutes per month regardless.
Scott-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow. Thanks for the heads up...
Sent from my Moto X

Categories

Resources