Moto X vs Nexus 4 vs HTC One specs comparison

Still, in shape and, surprisingly, in specs, it walks like a Nexus 4, and quacks like one, that's why we are pitting the two in the specs comparison tablet below, adding the flagship Google Experience HTC One with the same screen size for those who got to have them Full HD screens and scorching fast processors.

In all honesty, if in 2012 someone told us Google's own phone this year will be almost identical in specs as last year's Nexus 4, we wouldn't believe it. OK, we've got a few changes, like an OLED 4.7-incher instead of an LCD one, a customized S4 chipset instead of the S4 Pro, 10 MP camera instead of 8 MP, slightly bigger battery, but no major changes. 

On paper, the HTC One beats them both with its crazy 468ppi pixel density of the same-size display, and the quad-core Snapdragon 600, not to mention the amplified BoomSound speakers, and its 2 micron UltraPixels. What was Google thinking telling Motrola to make what can be considered an upper midrange handset these days?

The devil seems to be in the details, though, as Google took its time to explain how every aspect of the phone was rehashed in line with the function it performs, rather than chasing the specs-o-meter. Moto went with OLED, as it makes possible the Active Display notification function, but it is a standard RGB matrix OLED, so you still get plenty of true pixel density, "without wasting power on pixels most people can't see". 

The X8 processor might have "just" two CPU cores, but it is rethought from the ground up to make the always-on environmental awareness of the phone possible with power-sipping extra processing cores. The 10 MP camera might not be in line with the 13 MP on current flagships, but is the first to utilize the Clear Pixel technology that lets it soak much more light, and so on.

This approach seems preferable to us compared to the specs-chasing game, and actually reminds a lot of Apple's way of doing things, customizing things for their purpose, rather than the spec sheet, and fusing software with hardware together. Which approach do you prefer?