Motorola Moto E (2015) Review
posted by John V. / Mar 11, 2015, 4:24 AM
Distortion on both ends of the line are present.
Challenging, that’s certainly the case here with the 2nd generation Moto E’s call quality, as distortion is evident on both ends of the line. Volume isn’t a problem through the earpiece, but rather, it’s the pitchy voices that prove to be difficult. Things don’t get better through the speakerphone either, mainly due to the hollowness of voices through it.
A larger battery than its predecessor, it hits the mark by delivering outstanding battery life.
With the subtle increase in size, the new Moto E harbors a larger 2390 mAh battery, which delivers long-lasting results capable of powering us easily through a solid one-day of normal usage. Better yet, it topples its predecessor by an hour in our battery benchmark test, as it achieves a mark of 9 hours of continuous use.
Battery life (hours) Higher is better
Motorola Moto E (2015) 9h (Excellent)
Motorola Moto E 8h 8 min (Excellent)
HTC Desire 510 6h 59 min (Average)
Enthusiasts aren’t going to run out and pick up the new Moto E, that’s certainly fact. Based on its competitive price point, the 2nd generation Moto E is primarily targeting a specific demographic. In particular, this handset best serves consumers who are on an extremely low budget – or alternatively, those looking for a cheap replacement or backup phone.
It undoubtedly has its compromises, which isn’t all too surprising for a smartphone that priced aggressively – $119.99 for the base 3G model, or $149.99 for the LTE equipped one. For the cost and whatnot, the new Moto E has enough value to warrant business in the entry-level market. Motorola’s strategy is plainly obvious here, a value-based smartphone that’ll attract consumers with its simple looks, mostly stock Android 5.0 Lollipop experience, and the basic features you’d want in a phone – all for a price that won’t break the bank.
Android Version: 5.0.2
Build Number: LXI22.50-24.1
Kernel Version: 3.10.49-g824dd55-00001-g217f0f1
- Aggressive low price point
- Mostly stock Android 5.0 Lollipop experience
- Simple design
- Long battery life
- Perfect size
- Sluggish performance with heavier operations
- Speaker quality is flat
- Poor camera quality
- Challenging call quality
Posts: 7383; Member since: Mar 16, 2013
I guess you can't expect a lot for a low cost device. But it does have a 64 bit CPU on board where as none of the others listed are 64 bit.
posted on Mar 11, 2015, 8:10 AM 0
Posts: 41; Member since: Nov 14, 2014
Desire 510 is also 64 bit.
posted on Mar 11, 2015, 10:09 AM 0
Posts: 40; Member since: Aug 17, 2014
Really? 8 out of 10? PA, windows phone handles better with low end processor and 512mb of ram, offers a better update cycle, more battery life, and are a whole new experience for emerging market than this android phone, android can even run well on 1gb ram, windows phone doubles that 1gb or even 512, 8 out of 10= bad rating considering: CONS Sluggish performance with heavier operations Speaker quality is flat Poor camera quality Challenging call quality
posted on Mar 11, 2015, 9:11 PM 0
Posts: 444; Member since: Jul 30, 2014
You're only comparing regarding its performance. Android has much better flexibility, customizations, wider app catalog, and update cycle actually differs between device manufacturers (let's not put Developer Preview here) though both Nokia and Moto provides decent updates. Battery life is actually pretty much the same while Android are not pretty much left behind in performance, especially with the new Lollipop.
posted on Mar 13, 2015, 3:43 AM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):
- Display 4.5" 540 x 960 pixels
- Camera 5 MP / 0.3 MP VGA front
- Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 410, Quad-core, 1200 MHz
- Storage 8 GB + microSDHC
- Battery 2390 mAh