The Moto E (2015) Review
by Brandon Chester on April 21, 2015 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Motorola
- Mobile
- Moto E (2015)
WiFi
When building devices to meet a low price, WiFi always seems to be one of the first things on the chopping block. The assumption is most likely that the people in the market for inexpensive smartphones don't require speeds beyond what is offered by 802.11n. What disappoints me is when 5GHz support is also omitted, which leaves the device operating on the increasing crowded 2.4GHz band.
The Moto E's results are in line with other 2.4GHz 802.11n devices. With an absolute max theoretical speed of 72Mbps, 58.1Mbps over UDP is actually a pretty good result. That being said, the improved speed and reduced interference of 5GHz networks would still be appreciated. At $149 cuts have to be made somewhere though, and I would prefer that they be made to WiFi rather than the display or build quality.
GNSS
Like most devices which use Qualcomm's Gobi modems, the Moto E uses Qualcomm's GNSS solution. In Airplane mode with no assistance information the Moto E was able to achieve a lock in 32 seconds, with it taking another few seconds to bring the accuracy to within 10 feet. Both these times will vary greatly depending on the surrounding environment and weather conditions. With assistance info locks take only a matter of seconds.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
zepi - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
How much does a 1A or 2A rated charger drop the charging times?I think it is a bit silly to compare chargers instead of phones.
arnoudw - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Exactly. I reviewed the phone as well (the European version) and the one that's for sale on this side of the ocean hasn't got a charger at all in the box. I just used another charger that I have to charge the phone and charge times were pretty normal: around 2,5 hours from zero to full.AT would maybe consider a disclaimer that chargers can differ per country or region and that can infuence the outcome of this particular test immensely. AT has got a worldwide audience and a lot of the potential buyers of this phone reading the review here might be from another part of the world. That's something for AT to consider, I guess.
TLDR; tested it as well, there was no charger included, charges normally with another charger.
sovking - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
I agree. Charge time comparison should be done with the same charger or better with 2 or 3 chargers.Chargers for smarphone are universal, all devices connect to micro-usb chargers with 5V. At home we have more chargers for more smartphone and we do not matter which charger we are using.
So create a table showing a charging time when using 0.5A, 1A charger, 2A charger.
Some smartphone like Moto G 2014, limit input current, so it worth using until 1.5 A charger, more current is not used.
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
To be clear here, the purpose is to test the charge time of the phone in its default configuration. It's not to compare just the chargers, but the entire package.hans_ober - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
You've got a point; anyone who is buying this as their first Android (upgrading from an old Nokia), will most probably use the included charger and it was right to include the charge time using the 'package' the user would most probably use. However, since this is a case where the charger is to blame for the slow charging speeds, it would have been useful to include another result with another high powered charger, which would confirm that the phone IS capable of higher charging speeds if another charger is used and how much time could probably be saved by using a high powered charger.hans_ober - Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - link
Do you have a Quick charge 2.0 charger? The Motorola Turbo Charger? Just curious to see whether it works, because iirc QC 2.0 support was mentioned somewhere.victorson - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
There is a mistake, the Moto E is not $109, it's actually $120 for the slow Snapdragon 200 version, and a not-so-cheap $150 for the Snadpragon 400 version. It's funny how the author can't think of competition when you have devices from Xiaomi and Meizu (among tens if not hundred others) that deliver better value for the money.close - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
In EU the Moto E LTE is ~130E while the cheapest Xiaomi starts at ~170E. I wouldn't think twice.Brandon Chester - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
The number of markets that you can purchase Xiaomi phones in is extremely small, you can count them on one hand. Also I apologize about the pricing error. There have been a few sales on it recently and for whatever reason I noted the price as $109. That being said, it does drop below Motorola's price very often. For example, it's currently available in India on Flipkart for $127 USD. India does happen to be an Xiaomi market and so I would definitely urge buyers there to check out their devices as well. But that's not an option for most buyers.victorson - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link
Thanks for the reply, Brandon! I agree that you can get the phone cheaper on sales and I wouldn't argue against the Moto E being an overall good value for the money, but it's also true that you can buy said Xiaomi phones (or many others for that matter, I don't want this to sound like an ad) from retailers like Pandawill.com, Coolicool.com, or others that ship internationally for free. And the user who said that Xiaomi starts at 170 euro, may want to pay a visit and see that prices on those sites start at around $120, not 170 euro.