Motorola's second generation Moto E adds a quad-core CPU, larger screen and LTE for under $150

[Shawn Knight]

Motorola has unveiled its second generation Moto E smartphone and while it’s not the type of high-end device that you’ll be hearing a lot about next week from Mobile World Congress, it does pack some notable features at a budget-friendly price.

The handset in question arrived on reviewers’ doorsteps today in what is perhaps the most original packaging ever – a press conference in a box.

Theatrics aside, the new Moto E carries a slightly larger 4.5-inch display with a modest resolution of 960 x 540. Under the hood is a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 SoC clocked at 1.2GHz alongside 1GB of RAM and 8GB of internal storage (expandable via microSD card slot).

The new version includes the same 5-megapixel rear camera but this time around, buyers also get a front-facing VGA shooter. The original didn’t come with a forward-facing camera but given its low resolution, most would probably be fine if Motorola had skipped it this time, too.

Perhaps the key selling feature here is the inclusion of a 4G LTE radio. As someone that’s considered a budget phone in the past, the general lack of speedy cellular access has always kept me at bay.

The revised Moto E ships with Android 5.0 Lollipop as of writing in more than 40 markets around the globe in your choice of golden yellow, charcoal, turquoise, blue or raspberry. Seeing as the phone was just delivered to tech reviewers today, we’ll have to wait at least a day or two before we get early impressions but at $149, this is certainly looking like a solid deal.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/59859-motorola-second-generation-moto-e-adds-quad-core.html

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

And there's probably no reason to think it won't be be a solid deal. For a 150 bucks you really can't expect more.

 

[p51d007]

I bought a "budget" smartphone last summer and have been 100% satisfied. You don't "need" the fastest processor, highest end graphics to have a good working device. Mine was off contract just under $300(us), has a snapdragon 400, 6" screen, incredible battery life. People are doing the same thing that they did back in the 90's by chasing the "megahertz" crap that the computer industry did. Every year, a faster and faster pc came out and people would chunk their old one in the trash for one that has maybe 10% better performance, not caring or knowing that most software wasn't able to take advantage of it. Digital cameras, same thing...more megapixels "must" mean a better camera, all the while not knowing the science behind a point & shoot camera that even an 8-10 megapixel camera will output a photo that can be printed on A3 (11x17) paper! More, sometimes, is NOT better. If a smartphone, with a snapdragon 4xx processor, is married correctly to android, with adequate ram & video, tweaked properly, it can perform (except for the silly benchmark programs) quite well for probably 80-90% of the general population. The ones that "just have to have" the fastest processors, graphics etc? Well, those are probably the same people you see, that are in their 50's or later, driving around with a super expensive sports car, with gold chains around their neck, fake tans etc...it's all flash!

 

[misor]

As for 'budget lte phones' in the philippines, it looks like it is Moto E (local price unknown) versus nokia lumia 736 (~8600php, ~44php+ to 1$ u.s., 12%Value-Added Tax)

 

[Yap Gris Som]

Absolutely, agreed with your views.

 

[darkzelda]

I wonder why the new moto g didn't come with LTE from the beginning, anyway, both are great phones.

 

[USAvenger]

I bought a "budget" smartphone last summer and have been 100% satisfied. You don't "need" the fastest processor, highest end graphics to have a good working device. Mine was off contract just under $300(us), has a snapdragon 400, 6" screen, incredible battery life. People are doing the same thing that they did back in the 90's by chasing the "megahertz" crap that the computer industry did. Every year, a faster and faster pc came out and people would chunk their old one in the trash for one that has maybe 10% better performance, not caring or knowing that most software wasn't able to take advantage of it. Digital cameras, same thing...more megapixels "must" mean a better camera, all the while not knowing the science behind a point & shoot camera that even an 8-10 megapixel camera will output a photo that can be printed on A3 (11x17) paper! More, sometimes, is NOT better. If a smartphone, with a snapdragon 4xx processor, is married correctly to android, with adequate ram & video, tweaked properly, it can perform (except for the silly benchmark programs) quite well for probably 80-90% of the general population. The ones that "just have to have" the fastest processors, graphics etc? Well, those are probably the same people you see, that are in their 50's or later, driving around with a super expensive sports car, with gold chains around their neck, fake tans etc...it's all flash!

I agree wholeheartedly. I purchased a Cricket wireless Moto E from Wally World a couple of months ago for the subsidized price of $50 + tax. Throw in a new AT&T sim card (free from the AT&T Store) and a $2.50 unlock code from Ebay, and I have an off-contract phone that cost me less than $60. I save $15 a month on my AT&T bill by not being under contract plus the $40 upgrade fee. That amounts to $400 over the course of a two-year contract in addition to whatever upfront fees that I may have paid for a phone under contract.

The camera stinks, there is no tethering option built-in, and no LTE, but otherwise I love the phone. Motorola's near-stock Android experience really gets the most out of that 1.2 GHz.

If Cricket were to subsidize the 2nd Gen one for $100 or less, I'd probably grab it and sell this one for what I paid for it. Winning.