Ok this is getting old.
Yes it has it's faults, but no one currently touches what the Moto X pulls off in terms of enjoyment and usability.
Enjoyment and usability is subjective.
Everyone has their favorite phone here, but no one promotes their favorite brand as much as you and spreads as much fud as you. Objectively speaking, versus the other flagship phones, the battery, screen, and camera are noticeably worse on the Moto X. You can say it's good enough for you, which is fine, but it's still worse than the competition. If you like Moto's active display that much that's great, but to others
they would prefer battery life, screen, and camera. All the flagship phones perform close enough in the real world, so why not have better hardware while you're at it?
Prior to reviews you kept hyping up the phone, despite everyone else being weary of battery life and camera. After reviews are out you keep preaching about Android L, basically just another way for you to hide the fact that battery life is currently subpar vs the competition. If battery life truly is good enough for you, why did you keep listing that as a negative for the LG G3? Reviews were out on the G3, battery life was certainly good enough, but to you it was a negative. After reviews we see that battery life is worse on the Moto X, but you consider it good enough and not a negative. That's a little disingenuous.
So in conclusion, yes the Moto X seems like a nice phone. But would you rather have Active display, or better battery life, screen, and camera? It seems you choose Active display, but the majority of others here...