Well as I'm not an apple fan then as usual you would be wrong.
The iPhone is one of many expensive phones which I do not believe to be worth the money to me. However, I would not try and judge someone else on whether they consider it is worth the money.
I collect what some would class as expensive watches. I do not own a single watch that does anything more than tell the time and date, and if you are really lucky might have a very simple stopwatch. I could get the same functionality out of a £10 watch from argos but choose not to. I see no difference with anything that people choose to spend their own hard earned money on.
I cannot understand some of the attitudes shown. Maybe it's envy
And I would agree I actually love a really nice watch but I would fully concede the ones I own do not offer value for money, do not (fundamentally) do anything different to a cheap watch and are bought purely for appearance.
And I would agree I actually love a really nice watch but I would fully concede the ones I own do not offer value for money, do not (fundamentally) do anything different to a cheap watch and are bought purely for appearance.
Much the same as an iphone
Then that confirms what I've been saying. People have different views on what constitutes value for money. I consider every watch I've every bought to be vfm. In fact I would find it hard to find anything I bought that I consider a waste of money.
Well as I'm not an apple fan then as usual you would be wrong.
The iPhone is one of many expensive phones which I do not believe to be worth the money to me. However, I would not try and judge someone else on whether they consider it is worth the money.
I collect what some would class as expensive watches. I do not own a single watch that does anything more than tell the time and date, and if you are really lucky might have a very simple stopwatch. I could get the same functionality out of a £10 watch from argos but choose not to. I see no difference with anything that people choose to spend their own hard earned money on.
I cannot understand some of the attitudes shown. Maybe it's envy
I agree, I was told I was an idiot for spending more than £300 on a pair of glasses by one of the 'fandroid' gang on here. Perhaps it is envy.
I've had cheaper glasses before that have broken easily and the optics were not as good so now I can afford things like that I'll pay for them. I've worked hard for my money so why shouldn't I use it.
Yeah I like old mechanical watches, I have a an old vintage brietling navitimer watch myself which isn't that fantastically accurate( not too bad for a 45 year old watch) but what a fantastic piece of engineering.
... Perhaps it is envy.
I've had cheaper glasses before that have broken easily and the optics were not as good so now I can afford things like that I'll pay for them.....
I've always ascertained the exact specification I want and then shopped that way round.
Then that confirms what I've been saying. People have different views on what constitutes value for money. I consider every watch I've every bought to be vfm. In fact I would find it hard to find anything I bought that I consider a waste of money.
No it doesn't I am not arguing that my watches are value for money, I am happy to pay it but not vfm. However I can argue to a degree that paying more gives me a superior product, better materials which cost more, greater longevity, better performance and looks etc.
The same argument cannot be applied to the iphone, you may make the claim on appearance which is subjective. The rest certainly not.
However if someone bought an iphone and said "I am happy to pay more as I love the look and it's apple", then i would say fine no problem (bit daft but fine). Largely the issue is that people try and justify the extra cost and refuse to accept any argument (obvious as it is) to the contrary.
No it doesn't I am not arguing that my watches are value for money, I am happy to pay it but not vfm. However I can argue to a degree that paying more gives me a superior product, better materials which cost more, greater longevity, better performance and looks etc.
The same argument cannot be applied to the iphone, you may make the claim on appearance which is subjective. The rest certainly not.
However if someone bought an iphone and said "I am happy to pay more as I love the look and it's apple", then i would say fine no problem (bit daft but fine). Largely the issue is that people try and justify the extra cost and refuse to accept any argument (obvious as it is) to the contrary.
Having not seen or touched either phone, I could not tell you which I think uses the better materials. However, history would suggest I could have a pretty good guess. I'm sure you would disagree.
No I may agree the iphone (not having held G) although Moto's are pretty good on this front .... but not to the extent of £300+ though no. And again my point is no one who is being truly objective can argue the 5c warrants £300+ (over 200%) extra over the G when it comes to vfm.
Again if you want to pay more because you want that phone then fine, no issue, it does not make it better vfm because someone is willing to pay it.
However if someone bought an iphone and said "I am happy to pay more as I love the look and it's apple", then i would say fine no problem (bit daft but fine).
...I could not tell you which I think uses the better materials...
For supposed prestige, obviously the HTC One Mini surpasses both.
Yet comments hint that the use of materials on the 5c means it has the best call reception of any iPhone for a long time.
Maybe the Moto and the iPhone have better the materials but if are receptive to living on the edge prestige materials give you dropped calls.
Yes, the c is slimmer than the edge to edge 720p screened G if that is of A1 importance..
For supposed prestige, obviously the HTC One Mini surpasses both.
Yet comments hint that the use of materials on the 5c means it has the best call reception of any iPhone for a long time.
Maybe the Moto and the iPhone have better the materials but if are receptive to living on the edge prestige materials give you dropped calls.
Yes, the c is slimmer than the edge to edge 720p screened G if that is of A1 importance..
I expect that sort of thing is important to you. I didn't realise there were big issues of dropped calls with any of the phones you've mentioned, but I've no reason to question your information, it's proved so accurate in the past;)
Personally, ignoring price I have doubts it will be better than the 5c despite the slightly bigger 720p HD screen of the G.
But that's going along with the many definitions of budget.
I'm not sure how the review of one phone (praising its call quality) has much .....I expect there is a good reason why it, and maps are seldom discussed:rolleyes:
"phone reception (not dramatically, but enough to connect a call where the 5 just shrugged)"
The positivity about having 'fixed' the metal problem in the prior link certainly would have been more accurate with 'alleviated'.
Anyway, unless you are in patchy signal area, dropped calls are not a problem with any phone. But metal clad ones can certainly make it worse.
And funnily enough, I think a user here mentioned getting more EE dropped calls with the 5s than with the EE 5. I sort of wonder how that one will pan out. Maybe a different issue.
Having now seen the specs at Gsmarena it is best to think of the phone as being Dual Core.
The Coretex A7 used are the .Little in the big.little scheme of things.
This is what will give the good battery life at the sacrifice of top end speed. So those 4 cores will feel more like 2.
That Qualcomm Adreno 305 GPU won't grunt through games either.
Its probably OK on games considering a 720p screen is less than half a 1080p for pixels.
And maybe 720p suits the A7.
It is the same GPU that is on the Galaxy S4 Mini.
Costing only a little more than that last good to great budget phone, the San Francisco, its quite amazing how things have moved forward.
This phone is getting unbelievably good reviews. Incidentally, if you are an orange payg customer you can get this on upgrade for £99.95 from phones4u. All pays phones from phones4u are sim free.
Comments
I'm happy to accept that each new item is an changing entity in itself.
And I would agree I actually love a really nice watch but I would fully concede the ones I own do not offer value for money, do not (fundamentally) do anything different to a cheap watch and are bought purely for appearance.
Much the same as an iphone
Then that confirms what I've been saying. People have different views on what constitutes value for money. I consider every watch I've every bought to be vfm. In fact I would find it hard to find anything I bought that I consider a waste of money.
I agree, I was told I was an idiot for spending more than £300 on a pair of glasses by one of the 'fandroid' gang on here. Perhaps it is envy.
I've had cheaper glasses before that have broken easily and the optics were not as good so now I can afford things like that I'll pay for them. I've worked hard for my money so why shouldn't I use it.
Yeah I like old mechanical watches, I have a an old vintage brietling navitimer watch myself which isn't that fantastically accurate( not too bad for a 45 year old watch) but what a fantastic piece of engineering.
I'm left a bit wondering what grading you bought.
No it doesn't I am not arguing that my watches are value for money, I am happy to pay it but not vfm. However I can argue to a degree that paying more gives me a superior product, better materials which cost more, greater longevity, better performance and looks etc.
The same argument cannot be applied to the iphone, you may make the claim on appearance which is subjective. The rest certainly not.
However if someone bought an iphone and said "I am happy to pay more as I love the look and it's apple", then i would say fine no problem (bit daft but fine). Largely the issue is that people try and justify the extra cost and refuse to accept any argument (obvious as it is) to the contrary.
Lots of blurb there now. A bit condescending but informative non the less.
Having not seen or touched either phone, I could not tell you which I think uses the better materials. However, history would suggest I could have a pretty good guess. I'm sure you would disagree.
Again if you want to pay more because you want that phone then fine, no issue, it does not make it better vfm because someone is willing to pay it.
At least you admit you are daft but fine!
Very true
Yet comments hint that the use of materials on the 5c means it has the best call reception of any iPhone for a long time.
Maybe the Moto and the iPhone have better the materials but if are receptive to living on the edge prestige materials give you dropped calls.
Yes, the c is slimmer than the edge to edge 720p screened G if that is of A1 importance..
I expect that sort of thing is important to you. I didn't realise there were big issues of dropped calls with any of the phones you've mentioned, but I've no reason to question your information, it's proved so accurate in the past;)
"The most basic elements of a phone are these days the least talked-about. Call quality these days is limited mostly by the ropey quality of traditional phone calls, but the iPhone 5C makes the most of it"
http://www.trustedreviews.com/iphone-5c_Mobile-Phone_review_battery-life-call-quality-and-verdict_Page-5
I like the way they worded "The most basic elements of a phone are these days the least talked-about. Call quality "
Strangely, that and maps were seldom discussed.
:rolleyes:
The Guardian now has an alter ego.
Personally, ignoring price I have doubts it will be better than the 5c despite the slightly bigger 720p HD screen of the G.
But that's going along with the many definitions of budget.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nexus-5-moto-g-no-contract-sim-free-price,25075.html
I'm not sure how the review of one phone (praising its call quality) has much to be with a claim you made about call quality of other phones
I expect there is a good reason why it, and maps are seldom discussed:rolleyes:
"phone reception (not dramatically, but enough to connect a call where the 5 just shrugged)"
The positivity about having 'fixed' the metal problem in the prior link certainly would have been more accurate with 'alleviated'.
Anyway, unless you are in patchy signal area, dropped calls are not a problem with any phone. But metal clad ones can certainly make it worse.
And funnily enough, I think a user here mentioned getting more EE dropped calls with the 5s than with the EE 5. I sort of wonder how that one will pan out. Maybe a different issue.
http://www.phones4u.co.uk/shop/shop_payg_details.asp?itemkey=737281&intcid=payg_banner1_xmas_14-11-13#sthash.4kDRQURF.dpbs
The Coretex A7 used are the .Little in the big.little scheme of things.
This is what will give the good battery life at the sacrifice of top end speed. So those 4 cores will feel more like 2.
That Qualcomm Adreno 305 GPU won't grunt through games either.
it is £120
And maybe 720p suits the A7.
It is the same GPU that is on the Galaxy S4 Mini.
Costing only a little more than that last good to great budget phone, the San Francisco, its quite amazing how things have moved forward.
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/mobile-phones/motorola-moto-g-review-50012772/
http://www.trustedreviews.com/motorola-moto-g_Mobile-Phone_review