backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on May 20 at 5:39 AM

X2 is the first dual-core 1GHz Android smartphone on the Verizon network

Motorola has made a big comeback thanks to Google’s Android operating system. The latest offering from Motorola is heading to the Verizon network very soon and it is an impressive device.

The smartphone is the Motorola Droid X2 and it will be available online starting tomorrow. It will land in stores to purchase on May 26. The smartphone will cost $199.99 with a new 2-year agreement and the purchase of a compatible data plan. The X2 has a bunch of very nice features.

It will be the first dual-core 1GHz smartphone to operate on the Verizon network. It also has a 4.3-inch qHD screen that is covered by Gorilla Glass. The X2 will be powered by Android 2.2 at launch and will later get an update to Android 2.3. The phone has an 8-megapixel rear camera and can record HD video.

Other features include a mirror mode for sharing photos and other content on a big screen TV. The device supports enterprise security policies and has support for all the Google services expected of an Android smartphone. The Droid X2 can also act as a mobile hotspot for sharing the 3G connection with up to five other devices.

The required voice plan will cost $39.99 monthly and the unlimited data plan will cost $29.99 monthly.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

2.2?
By Flunk on 5/18/11, Rating: 0
RE: 2.2?
By Cobra Commander on 5/18/2011 12:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
Because 3.x thus far has been developed explicitly for tablets.


RE: 2.2?
By dgingeri on 5/18/2011 12:42:22 PM , Rating: 4
it should at least have 2.3, don't you think?


RE: 2.2?
By Souka on 5/18/2011 1:09:02 PM , Rating: 1
Does it really matter if it ships with 2.3 or 2.2?

It'll come with 2.2 and get 2.3 in the coming weeks/months...

I had a droidX for a few months...great phone, great battery life.

This one will be even better.... hope to get one.

Wish it had front facing camera, but don't really need it currently so no big deal I guess (for me)


RE: 2.2?
By tayb on 5/18/2011 11:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it does matter that it is being shipped with an operating system that was replaced 6 months ago. It most certainly matters.

This is exactly why I'll be leaving Android when my "upgrade" rolls around. I'm sick of having to hack at my phone to get the access to an OS that was released in December of 2010. This brand new phone will be released and as of day 0 it woull be out of date.

No wonder Google is trying to get tough. This crap is ridiculous.


RE: 2.2?
By Souka on 5/18/2011 1:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Does it really matter if it ships with 2.3 or 2.2?

It'll come with 2.2 and get 2.3 in the coming weeks/months...

I had a droidX for a few months...great phone, great battery life.

This one will be even better.... hope to get one.

Wish it had front facing camera, but don't really need it currently so no big deal I guess (for me)


RE: 2.2?
By SkullOne on 5/18/2011 1:15:36 PM , Rating: 3
How many months is acceptable though? It's not like Android 2.3.x was released last month. For the DX2 to be Froyo is totally unacceptable. Same with my Thunderbolt. However, thanks to an unlocked bootloader my TBolt no longer has that problem.


RE: 2.2?
By theapparition on 5/18/2011 2:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
And the DX also has 2.3 Gingerbread goodness available, so not a problem there either.

Since the leaked version is Moto signed (because of the locked bootloader), that tells everyone that 2.3 is right around the corner.

Doubt you'll see it taking months.


RE: 2.2?
By Souka on 5/18/2011 5:16:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
For the DX2 to be Froyo is totally unacceptable.


What is unacceptable about 2.2 Froyo?


RE: 2.2?
By SkullOne on 5/19/2011 9:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing. It's unacceptable that the new Droid flagship isn't 2.3 when 2.3 has been out for 6 months.


RE: 2.2?
By Aloonatic on 5/20/2011 5:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does it really matter if it ships with 2.3 or 2.2?
From a security standpoint, it might, as your assumption that an update will actually coma along "in the following weeks" is something that I think that we all know is BS, as updates on Android have become notoriously inconsistent.

Even assuming that and update does come along fairly quickly tho..

There was a story on here about a facebook, calender exploit where "any Android version prior to 2.3.4 (the most recent version of Android "Gingerbread") was susceptible".

http://www.dailytech.com/How+to+Protect+Android+De...

I'm not saying that this one case alone means that it's an amazingly big deal, but that's just one exploit that has been found and publicised.

I don't profess to know a great deal about mobile OSes, or operating systems from a technical security standpoint, but I think that we all assume that the latest version of any OS is usually more secure than it's predecessor.

Would it really matter if you didn't update your copy of windows if you had a new PC? Would you be happy to have it connected to the interment unpatched, even if it was just for a few "weeks/months"?

I doubt it.

I remember loading a fresh install of XP on a laptop that was a verion of XP release prior to service pack 1a and then connecting it to the internet to see what happened. Within 5 minutes it had pop-ups and all sorts of things going on.

Again, I'm not saying that this, or anything like it, will definitely happen to an Android phone that is released the latest version of the OS. Nor that even if the phone did have the very latest version of Android, that it would be somehow invulnerable to attack but... the later the version of the OS the more secure it (usually) is, and that's good for everyone.

Why take the chance? Is it really that hard to get a newer version working on a phone?

And, anyway, from a simple marketing standpoint... When someone walks into a phone shop and sees that one phone has Android 2.2 on and another has 2.3, they are going to immediately assume that the phone with 2.3 on is newer and better (and probably faster) regardless of whether that is really true.


RE: 2.2?
By shompa on 5/18/2011 12:34:45 PM , Rating: 1
3.1 is still locked by Google. Android 3 is Googles first own version of Android, and they have huge problem getting it to work. 3.0 on tablets is a disaster. Crashes, slow, no apps. (but it is better optimized to tablets them Ios)

Every single phone/phone maker has to recompile their own version of the Android software. That is the reason why almost none of Androids phones even run 2.3. This is the drawback with an "open" standard like Android.


RE: 2.2?
By MozeeToby on 5/18/2011 12:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every single phone/phone maker has to recompile their own version of the Android software. That is the reason why almost none of Androids phones even run 2.3. This is the drawback with an "open" standard like Android.
And yet, hackers in their spare time manage to put out versions of the ROMs within weeks of their being available for almost every phone available. Now granted, Verizon and Motorola are going to put more effort into testing and verification than the people working on Cyanogen, but the idea that a bunch of hobbyists can have a build done in matter of days while the experts with unlimited access to hardware can't have it done in months is a little hard to accept.


RE: 2.2?
By dguy6789 on 5/18/2011 12:52:15 PM , Rating: 4
Hackers don't have this fancy thing called QC that they have to adhere to.


RE: 2.2?
By Chadder007 on 5/18/2011 12:56:47 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't call what Verizon and Motorola does QC either though....


RE: 2.2?
By Souka on 5/18/2011 6:06:43 PM , Rating: 3
Months ago I put a Froyo rom on my Droid Eris

Wow...made the Eris an awesome phone...soo much faster except for one little problem... the camera app crashed everytime I tried to open it.

Tried another "stable" rom... same problem.

Ended up going back to stock 2.1 until I got my DroidX


RE: 2.2?
By omnicronx on 5/18/2011 2:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you've never used a stock ROM or you would not be making those statements..

Cyanogenmod in general only supports fully working devices with stable builds, and have nightly, experimental and stable builds. They go through just as much if not better QC than most of the stock ROM's you will ever touch.

Even with my device in which CM is not a true solution, we have ROM kitchens with beta and stable releases, and only when everything is working correctly are they promoted to a stable release. (and in the case of small bugs, they are fixed quickly on a much faster release cycle then you wille ever see from the carriers)

I've been running 2.3.3 on my device for the last while without issue (I only run stable ROM's), and I would never go back to using a stock ROM.

P.S everyone please stop calling them hackers.. 99.99% of them are developers and re-packagers, hardly anything is being truly 'hacked'.. CM in general is a the true vanilla Android experience compiled from scratch. These are hard working developers maintaining these projects, not some 17 year old kids hacking up a storm.


RE: 2.2?
By SkullOne on 5/18/2011 3:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. Couldn't have said it better myself. There's a reason why CyanogenMod is the number 1 third party ROM.

Huge kudos to all of those devs on the CM team (and any ROM in general). I don't know when some of them even find time to sleep with as fast as they push out updates. I know one of the CM team devs has 6 kids and he still finds time to code.

Honestly, companies like HTC, Motorola, and Samsung should be ashamed of themselves when it comes to their incredibly mediocre updating.


RE: 2.2?
By Aloonatic on 5/18/2011 3:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
Don't the careers have to take a fairly big chunk of the responsibility for the delays in updates? Or is that all a thing of the past now?


RE: 2.2?
By phantom505 on 5/18/2011 7:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's a rare day I agree with you, but today I do; on this at least.

I've been using CM7 on an Incredible for couple months now. Even their "beta" was better than what I had stock by a long shot.

I have been getting every free app that Amazon has put up since they launched the store. I have yet to have one fail plus all my older apps that I actually use. I have very few problems except a couple programs like Facebook which are notoriously bad. Even then it's better than stock.


RE: 2.2?
By theapparition on 5/18/2011 2:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Android 3 is Googles first own version of Android, and they have huge problem getting it to work. 3.0 on tablets is a disaster. Crashes, slow, no apps.

Can you give me some examples because I've had almost no issues with my Xoom.

Or is it just some internet scuttlebutt you felt regurgitating?


RE: 2.2?
By Aloonatic on 5/18/2011 3:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, as you say that you've had "almost no issues", doesn't that mean that you have had some, so maybe you can provide yourself with examples? :op

N.B. This comment does not mean that I support the comment to which that were replying to. I think you're second sentence is probably true.


RE: 2.2?
By robinthakur on 5/19/2011 9:06:09 AM , Rating: 2
When I first tried out a Xoom, I tried to boot up the camera App in store. It launched and then crashed within 2 seconds with some gobbledegook error message. Some of the Apps worked ok, but why you would want to beta test it using your own money for Motorola and Google is beyond me? Bottom line is that whilst I was initially excited to be using the Xoom, I left very underwhelmed and then bought an iPad 2 instead.


RE: 2.2?
By Jeffk464 on 5/18/2011 3:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
What, no LTE. Fail!


RE: 2.2?
By Jeffk464 on 5/18/2011 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
Why upgrade from my HTC incredible without LTE. The first dual core 4.3" verizon andriod phone is going to take over. So far you get either single core LTE or dual core 3G.


Not quite there yet.
By Spoogie on 5/18/2011 12:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
I've been waiting for a 4G, dual core android for a long time. Too bad it's still not here!

And before the knee-jerk trolls respond with something like, "4G isn't available in most areas...", it's available in mine.

Disappointing!




RE: Not quite there yet.
By shompa on 5/18/2011 12:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
You will get 2 hours of phone time with 4G + Android out of the box.
It took 3G 5 years before there where phones that had 1 day battery time.

BTW. 3G is up to 21megabit, what are you going to do with the phone? Downloading torrents? Only reason for 50+megabit bandwidth is to download stuff.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By mcnabney on 5/18/2011 1:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
21 over HSPA+ is only theoretical. Most get 3-5. Current review testing puts Verizon's LTE at ~18Mbs down, 5Mbs up.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By SkullOne on 5/18/2011 1:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
2 hours? At least give people the truth. Even stock I was getting between 6-8 hours with 4G. Now with Das Bamf 1.6.3 I'm at 14+ hours with heavy usage.

Getting good battery life isn't hard.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By threepac3 on 5/18/2011 1:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
I have my Tbolt updating my podcasts all day long. My first bill said I downloaded 8GB of data. I love unlimited 4G data plan


RE: Not quite there yet.
By phatboye on 5/18/2011 12:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
seeing as how Android 2.x is not even really optimized for dual core SoC yet you are not going to see that much of a push from manufactures to develop phones with multicore SoC in them yet.

While I agree with you that I would like to see more 4G-LTE enabled cell phones the problem with 4G-LTE radios eating up the battery still persist so don't even expect too many 4G phones. Even apple is skipping LTE for now.

Don't expect much of either until the new 28nm TSMC SoC are released.

Personally I'd like more Verizon phones to come in a Epic4G like form factor with a physical QWERTY keyboard. Other than the Motorola Droid/Droid 2 QWERTY keyboards are non existent on the Verizon network. Since I refuse to buy a Motorola product I will stick to my old Samsung Rogue (man does this phone suck but at least it has a keyboard) until Verizon wakes up.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By mcnabney on 5/18/2011 1:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you hate Motorola, but love Samsung?

My Droid 1 has been updated as far as the processor will support (2.2.2), while my wife's 1ghz Fascinate still sits at 2.1.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2011 1:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah Motorola has been very good about updating its phones with the latest OS.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By phatboye on 5/18/2011 3:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do you hate Motorola, but love Samsung?

Did you read my post? I said it sucks!


RE: Not quite there yet.
By teldar on 5/18/2011 6:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
This was very informative.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By DanNeely on 5/18/2011 1:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen reports that this falls batch of RF chips will have significantly reduced 4g power consumption.

Cynically I wonder if this might have something to do with the iPhone5's delay.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By UNCjigga on 5/18/2011 2:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the RF components are changing all that much, but the baseband/SoC chips are changing. Qualcomm and others are moving from 45nm to 28nm process tech, which will result in significant savings for both 3G and 4G devices.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By theapparition on 5/18/2011 3:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't you get the memo. Next iPhone will be 4S, not 5. And it will in no way have 4G.


RE: Not quite there yet.
By Chaser on 5/18/2011 2:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
And every legit review demonstrates these new dual cores scream!


RE: Not quite there yet.
By m1ldslide1 on 5/18/2011 1:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm on the road a bit and I use my phone as a tethered modem. I am also holding out for an LTE phone, so I can get better DL speeds for my laptop...


underwhelming
By agent2099 on 5/18/2011 1:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sad to see they went with the same form factor. It's not thinner, still has 'hump' in the back. Also, it appears they are using the same screen when better technology retina, AMOLED is the norm in high end smartphones.




RE: underwhelming
By UNCjigga on 5/18/2011 2:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the same screen--resolution is upped to qHD (960x540)


RE: underwhelming
By GuinnessKMF on 5/19/2011 10:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
They're not using the better "retina" technology? Wow, apple really got you with their marketing. Retina display is bullshit, it's not a different technology it just refers to a pixel density that apple decided is as "good as they need" and it doesn't satisfy 100% of the populations visual ability.


RE: underwhelming
By Chapbass on 5/18/2011 2:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I'm happy they went with the same form factor. Its plenty thin, keep it the same thickness and keep the battery at the high capacity. The hump is awesome for things like getting it out of your pocket, makes the speakerphone sound a bit better as it is raised up off of the table that your phone is on, etc.

And the screen has improved over the DX.

Wish i had the cash, but honestly with the 2.3 (unofficial) update to the DX, its plenty fast for me.


RE: underwhelming
By theapparition on 5/18/2011 3:04:21 PM , Rating: 1
The form factor at first looks horrid.......but it is undoubtably the best I've ever used. By far. No one cares about the hump, and quite the opposite, it's actually quite useful.

And AMOLED sucks. Poor color reproduction, pentile matrix, fuzzy text, and low brightness do not compensate for it's fantastic contrast.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki