Have you seen those AT&T commercial with the guy talking to the little kids? What's better? Fast or slow? How about 1080 vs 720?
You can take Apple's claim that anything above 300 ppi doesn't matter, but all of the reviews still say the Galaxy S4 and HTC One have nicer screens. The reviews I've read for the Motorola X basically say the screen doesn't suck. What would you rather have? A beautiful 1080 screen or a screen that doesn't suck? C'mon, you can say it - we all know.
Firstly, quoting an AT&T commercial when arguing about phones? Really?
This has nothing to do with apples claim. Human visual acuity is 1 arc minute (This is a measurement of angle, so it's independent of distance) When you incorporate distance, you get a DPI/PPI measurement at that distance up to which the human eye can discern. It's basic math that at one foot and one arc minute that PPI is 300. Phones are almost always used at 1 foot or more (same as a magazine). There's a reason they don't print magazines above 300PPI, because it doesn't make a difference.
It's clear that those stuck in the spec trenches are so overcome with cognitive dissonance that the fact that some tech has reached the point that is simply good enough for 99% of humans won't appeal to them because samsung, apple, and htc's marketing teams have drilled the idea that SPECS=BETTER so far into their heads.
The screen certainly "doesn't suck":
Here's the first 4 reviews of the X from google ("moto x reviews) and what they have to say:
Giz:
A little more about that screen: It looks good. Really good, in fact, despite being 720p, not 1080p. It doesn't measure up to the 1080p screens on the HTC One or Galaxy S4, but truth be told, you'd have to be looking very closely to notice any difference (the tiniest bit of pixilation in fine print). At 316 pixel per inch it's only 10 PPI lower than the iPhone 5, and frankly the larger screen is worth the tradeoff.
BGR
Speaking of the display, its a 4.7-inch panel that features a 720p HD resolution, and is the best looking display ever to come out of Motorola. While it looks overly saturated and bright because its an AMOLED screen, the screen does look sharp and clear, with a 316 ppi that makes text look beautiful.
Engadget:
Yes, 1080p panels make for great bullet points in device announcement posts and headlines -- even as talking points in podcasts. But let's be real, for those folks that don't pretend to know the difference between AMOLED and Super LCD 3, 720p is good enough and especially on a 4.7-inch screen. The Moto X's AMOLED display packs a pixel density of 316 ppi, looks great from most any angle and has that signature vibrant pop of saturated color associated with this panel type. In short, I like it and you will, too. That said, it's not the brightest display I've ever seen on a smartphone and the glaring light of a bright summer sun does make it difficult to discern onscreen content.
Gigaom:
Heres another compromise: Motorola chose to use a 1280 x 720 AMOLED display for the Moto X, so this isnt a 1080p screen. Youd be hard pressed to know it because the pixel density is 316 pixels per inch, nearly the same as Apples retina display on the iPhone. I compared the Moto X screen many times with an HTC One handset that uses the same-sized screen with a 1080p display and I cant tell a difference without putting both phones very close to my eyes. I suspect most consumers wont be able see the difference either. Colors are rich and saturated, but not overdone.
When I read that, "doesn't suck" Isn't the impression I get from any of them. I see "better than good enough", ie you won't notice a difference and in some cases it looked really good.
here's what you'll do since you don't want to believe this:
A) You'll attack the source: "Those aren't anandtech, I hate giz, blah blah blah, it's not true"
B) You'll cherry pick: "That one review said it's oversaturated because it's AMOLED!" well, we were talking about resolution, so what's that have to do with it?
The argument that the X is too expensive stems from the logic that "worse specs = cheaper". If you take that to be true, then sure, it's too expensive. But that's not how economics work. The phone would be too expensive if the utility provided by it was less than other phones providing the same utility. However, based on what I've read, the X offers equal utility wherever there are specs involved (the experience with the screen and with the processor is as good (or damned close) as the competition), and it offers GREATER utility everywhere else. Software experience, design experience, battery life.
At the end of the day, I'm buying a phone, and you guys are buying a processor and a screen. Enjoy it.