Talk:Moto X (1st generation)

Is it really appropriate to list the "Motorola X8 Mobile Computing System" as the SoC, considering it isn't one chip? I understand the need for continuity between phone pages, but the simple fact is that thus listing the information is strictly misleading. It is a chipset, and should be marked that way. I will change it eventually, assuming no one brings up a counterpoint. John Holmes II (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

True!--88.111.114.72 (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The term SoC or SOC or system on a chip has been misused since day it was first coined, and mis-use is so prevalent as to now be accepted. The "system" is the phone, but no phone has only one chip, so every use regarding cell phones is technically inaccurate. I don't think there is a cell phone out there that even incorporates the entire digital section in one chip.Skeptonomicon (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it is incorrect to call it a SoC.--88.111.113.218 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Article says: "All customized phones and 32GB are assembled in US. All rest (non-customized and 16GB) are made in China." I have a non-customized 16 GB phone that says "Made in USA" on it.

There have been a few back-and-forth edits removing and reinstating the Variants section of this article, with at least three people editing in favor of its inclusion (Revision 580356395, Revision 579525822, Revision 572594047), and at least one editing in favor of its exclusion (Revision 577315935). A few arguments have been supplied in the edit notes, but this talk page can expand on them.

1. The 'variants' table is a concise collection of useful information that isn't easily available from other sources.

This is my own assessment Omega drh (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Please read WP:NOTCATALOG. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure exactly which subsection of WP:NOTCATALOG you suggest applies here. It seems like you may be referencing "Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Sales catalogues", however, the same page immediately clarifies that entry applies specifically to product prices, none of which are at issue in the table in question here. Could you please elaborate? Omega drh (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

We're in the middle of changing it to also apply to "availability information" ViperSnake151  Talk  01:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Motorola support claim that each device is the same, irrespective of model. I am fairly confident this is false.

However, the models listed are not correctly displaying the bands supported. i.e. ATT version does not support 2100Mhz as suggested in the article.

http://fccid.net/document.php?id=1962490

Similarly the ATT version does also not support band 7 LTE as suggested. Though its very hard to tell, because Motorola staff are unable to help with simple questions and suggest that there is only one device available which runs Jelly Bean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.194.55 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that there is no mention of CDMA frequencies or 700 MHz LTE for Verizon in the info box. -nickenzi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickenzi (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I attempted to make this edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moto_X&diff=prev&oldid=595341950 but it was removed.

Android Central is an authority central to Android smartphone reviews and is an expert in its field. I have suggested that a page be created for this news site that has more than 900,000 unique visitors.^[1] An article was recently written still defending the phone as the best Android phone available, six months after its release. This information is relevant and current.

As well, the tone set forth in The Verge's in-depth review of the device is an important topic not discussed much elsewhere in the article--an idea that could create (at least within Motorola) a new way of thinking about smartphones. The key idea here is that the device and the company are leaving the bullshit advertising and spec wars and doing what is right for the consumer (e.g., consumers will not notice the difference between 720p screen and 1080p screen, and the former option allows for better battery life.) The trend in the industry for flagship phones is to release them with the highest specs to win customers in advertising, rather than making the best experience possible. Including the Verge's review and comments from it in this article allows readers to explore this consumer-friendly mindset that Motorola is going for. The Verge review's casual tone and modest opinions allow for this. Cody.berdinis (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Verge seems to be creating a lot of links by basically introducing their editorial comments into around 1,000+ articles. Is this really valid? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're serious, right? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Jeffmcneill (talk), can you please explain further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody.berdinis (talk • contribs) 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if we should add those to the info box, but this is useful for people working on drivers/software ports. For this model it was codenamed motorola-ghost. 2001:4998:EFFD:7801:0:0:0:115E (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply