Motorola Unveils the Moto Z2 Force, a Smartphone With Double the Cameras and a Shatterproof Screen (theverge.com) 47
Motorola has announced a new flagship smartphone that will be available on every major U.S. carrier. Some of the noteworthy specifications include a nearly indestructible screen and dual rear-facing camera sensors. The Verge reports: The Moto Z2 Force is the closest thing to a flagship phone that Motorola has released this year, and it's got all the hardware specs to show for it: inside is Qualcomm's Snapdragon 835 processor, 4GB of RAM, and 64GB of storage. It runs Android 7.1 with a promised upgrade to Android O to come. That's all standard fare for an expensive 2017 smartphone, and the Z2 Force is certainly expensive at around $720. It's priced even higher on some carriers like AT&T ($810). This version is much thinner than last year's phone, but that sleek design comes with a significant sacrifice in battery capacity; the Z2 Force has a 2,730mAh battery compared to the 3,500mAh battery in the old Moto Z Force. Between this and the Moto Z2 Play, Motorola sure does seem obsessed with slimming things down lately, and what are we gaining? Oh, there's no headphone jack on this thing either. Be prepared to go wireless or live the dongle life.
Early adopters (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
most folks who 'buy' a $700+ phone don't really realize it because it's amortized over 2 years or so at $15 a month.
It's the only way a sane person could be convinced to shell out that much money for something only incrementally different every 2 years or so.
(as for me, i'll keep my used 5s until one of us dies, or Apple shits the bed with an iOS update that makes it unbearable to use)
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a RAZR HD in 2013 for ~AUD$700 (outright). It's still got better than a day's battery life for normal use. It's rarely used to play videos or games, mostly it's my pocket computer, for business email and web browsing, occasionally as a hotspot, and occasionally for music.
The one drawback - and it could be seen as a major problem although I haven't experienced anything that interferes with my work - is that the carrier hasn't provided any updates since kitkat. I'm *never* buying a carrier-branded ph
Re: (Score:2)
Well since this is a Moto article, I guess I'd ask for your next purchase whether you'd need a top of the range for 4 years.
People on whirlpool and ozbargain seem to like the Moto G5 Plus, which can be had for about $AU350 - allowing you to upgrade every *two* years!
(me, I'm still on a Nexus 4 and gave my mother a Galaxy S2 as a hand-me-down - both running LineageOS 14.1)
Re: (Score:3)
I've had a Nexus 5 for three years. Still works fine and does everything I need. Runs all the current wireless protocols and software.
My wife's Nexus 5 finally succumbed to being dropped too many times. I found a "refurb" Nexus 5 for $79.
I replaced the battery in mine for $9 even though it still had reasonable run time.
Phones reached "peak functionality" several years ago. Everything now is just bells and whistles. I'll wait until there is some real advance that I must have... but I don't anticipate it comi
Re: (Score:2)
I miss my Nexus 5... that phone was perfect in every way except battery life. Perfect size, plastic so it didn't need a case and was much lighter weight, nice screen, good performer, timely updates, nice soft-touch material on the outside made it nice and "grippy."
A modern update would be the same size, materials, and thickness but use more efficient processors/radios for longer battery life.
But nope! You get expensive, heavy, oversized, slippery metal phones, or cheap plastic phones with crappy screen reso
Good enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Hence, first post.
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody cares about the latest lithography, most megapixels, fastest RAM, moah pixels, etc. The only specs that still matters nowadays is battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
In random order: battery life, display size, phone size and thickness, weight.
Re: (Score:2)
There's still plenty of room for improvement in the software, both OS and applications.
Not on storage, no! (Score:2)
Actually, not quite. In PCs/laptops, entry level models still come w/ no less than 100GB of storage, which is what one needs in a fully adequate computer. The only exceptions are chromebooks, which seem artificially crippled.
On phones, on the other hand, most of them have either 16GB or 32GB main memory, which is inadequate when one counts not just the apps, but also data that doesn't normally go to SD cards - such as one's messages. 64GB should be the minimum amount of storage on an affordable phon
Thinner (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, so they've made it thinner, reducing battery capacity in the process (and getting rid of the headphone socket), but then they put a large camera bulge on the back?
They'll sell more without a headphone jack? (Score:2)
They had me hooked to the intro till I read the following...
Oh, there's no headphone jack on this thing either.
Something isn't quite right at Motorola, sadly. I am out! Sorry!
Re: (Score:2)
Still thick enough to have a jack, doesn't include a headphone jack.
Douchebag Motorola.
Won't buy anything without the jack, thanks.
Shattering. (Score:3)
Shatterproof? I'll believe it when I *don't* see it (shatter).
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to make something "shatterproof" if you make it soft enough. The front screen is apparently plastic, not glass. Thus, it will get scratched all to hell, but probably won't shatter.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a way to fix a thin piece of protective material to a screen. Something replaceable.
Again (Score:5, Insightful)
I started with the Nexus One, moved onto the 1st gen Moto X when the Google phones got too large, and then moved onto the Xperia X Compact when the Motorola phones got too large. Of the three phones the Moto X had the best UI and form factor, but i'm not going back to Motorola unless they start putting out smaller quality phones again.
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely this. Give me a thicker phone with more battery life. Give me a headphone jack. I just switched from iPhone to a Samsung S8. My two major grips with this phone:
1. Battery life is abysmal (and phone is too thin to hold comfortably)
2. Errant touches FREQUENTLY change settings.
#2 is not at all related to the discussion, but as long as I've got the soapbox I'm going to vent.
Seriously, I don't know ANYONE who keeps asking for thinner phones. I hear plenty of people asking for more battery life though
Re: (Score:2)
I have an S8 that's sitting in the drawer - because of this exact reason. It was a nightmare to try and use outlook on it. It is all but impossible to hold the phone without activating touch sensitive side areas which would open emails or trigger things I didn't want triggered.
Apparently the problem goes away if you use a phone cover - but I never got round to getting one. Another annoyance is that despite it's metallic appearance, the whole phone is covered in glass, so there is no way for it to survive a
Re: (Score:2)
And a headphone jack is a requirement.
Whatever.
If that's what is keeping anyone from buying an $800 phone then I'm at a loss. Buy some new headphones already. I just did a bit of searching for USB-C headphones and I saw that Amazon will sell a pair of USB-C to 3.5mm audio adapters for $7. I saw a set of USB-C earbuds for $12. Name brand earbuds and headphones are as cheap as $40 and the sky is the limit on the top end, as with most things. If spending an extra $20 or $50 for a quality adapter or headphone set is too much after dropping nea
Re: (Score:2)
The only stated reasons i've seen for ditching the heaphone jack are waterproofing and making it thinner (and i guess that maybe some people think high-tech is always cooler than old tech) and i have zero interest in either of tho
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being a troll if you want to be taken seriously. If you'd been paying attention you'd realize all the phones i've purchased have been premium phones and i've already upgraded to USB-C, so clearly it's not the price that concerns me, it's the stupidity and wastefulness of it.
I wasn't speaking to you specifically, just generally to all that complain of the lack of a headphone port on a top notch phone.
As you say you already have a newer phone so all of my over the top commentary does not apply to you. I was being absurd to highlight the absurdity of it all.
I've had Apple iDevices for a long time now. Over the years I've collected three iPods with the 30 pin port before getting my iPhone 7. I paid something like $500 for it knowing I'd have to spend another $100 on accessories
What's this "dongle life"? (Score:2)
Be prepared to go wireless or live the dongle life.
In my book bag, along with my books, papers, pens, and so forth, is a pair of headphones for my iPhone. Attached to the headphones is this tiny little "dongle" that allows me to plug the headphones into my iPhone. I don't really think about it, it's just become part of the headphone set in my mind.
Give up on this already. USB-C is here to stay. Buy a four pack of USB-A to USB-C adapters for $20 and shut up already. If you are buying a $800 phone or $1500 laptop then just consider the adapters the "lega
Re: (Score:2)
Right! When I spend $150 on a new laser printer I expect it to have a parallel port, dammit! You expect me to spend an extra $20 for a USB card and cable! Outrageous I tell you. These people are just giving me a "fuck you tax" because I am not about to spend any money on a new computer. Have you seen what those things cost? They want me to spend another $200 on one of those "chrome book" things. Chrome? At that price they must be made of platinum!
Now go away. I have to call these internet people.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the printer dropped USB 2.0 and only accepts Bluetooth 4.1 for data input?
You mean they dropped a 20 year old standard for a 15 year old standard? The horror.
A USB to Bluetooth adapter costs $20 and you only need one to communicate with multiple devices. A USB A to B cable costs $5 and you need one for every USB device you want to connect to. Assuming the printer does not come with the USB cable (which seems to be the norm) and the computer does not already have Bluetooth (when Bluetooth seems pretty common for 10 years now) then one is likely better off just using Bluetooth a
Re: (Score:2)
With this:
https://www.amazon.com/Support... [amazon.com]
Or this:
https://www.amazon.com/Yeworth... [amazon.com]
If you spent $800 on a cell phone and $500 on an airplane ticket then an extra $10 or $15 isn't going to kill you. Buy a bottle of water instead of your usual Starbucks coffee and muffin, you'll come out even after that. I have a suspicion the reduction in calories wouldn't hurt. After you've bought this adapter then just keep it plugged into your headphones. Trust me, after a while you won't even notice it's there.
Re: (Score:2)
You just said that you bought a top of the line cell phone and want to listen to it on wired headphones while charging it on a plane. That sounds like the $100k/year type person, not the homeless dude that wants a phone to keep in touch with family and look for a job.
Don't buy an $800 phone if you cannot afford the headphones too, or do without the headphones. No one can make a phone for all people.
I suspect that in this price range the lack of a 1/8" jack is a feature. It tells people that the owner has
Re: (Score:2)
Pop quiz: in what way is this solution superior in ANY WAY to just having the jack in the phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Make an addon with the 3.5" jack. (Score:1)
Nothing says it couldn't be restored with an addon.
No headphone jack = Nope! (Score:1)
Re: No headphone jack = Nope! (Score:2)