Connect with us

Technologies

Moto G Play (2023) Review: Low Price, Lots of Compromises

The essentials-only Motorola phone cuts to the bone in order to hit its $170 price.

The Moto G Play for 2023 costs $170 (or even less at Amazon), making it one of the cheapest new phones you can get right now, and without the bloatware or wireless carrier restrictions we sometimes see on lower-priced devices. With a decent set of specs for the price — including a triple camera system with a 16-megapixel main camera, a 6.5-inch display with a 90Hz refresh rate and a 5,000-mAh battery that provides nearly three days of battery life — this should have been an attractive option for anyone looking for a decent, no-frills phone.

However, this phone has a number of performance issues that make it frustrating to use. And on top of that, Motorola chose to drop one of its best Moto gestures: twisting the phone to quickly open its camera. While some might consider these gestures a gimmick, they have been a signature element of Motorola’s phones for nearly a decade. Other gestures like «chop to turn on flashlight» are still here, making the absence of the camera gesture even more glaring.

Despite these important drawbacks, the 2023 Moto G Play does have some positive attributes. The battery life is great, the software is a fairly clean version of Android 12 and you’ll find rare ports like a headphone jack and microSD card slot for storage expansion. But the phone will only get one major software update to Android 13, which is less than I’d like to see but typical for this price range, as well as three years of security updates. 

Yet every perk I list comes with another problem, which is important to consider if you’re tempted by the Moto G Play because of its low price. 

5.0

Moto G Play (2023)

You’re receiving price alerts for Moto G Play (2023)

Like

  • Long battery life
  • Clean version of Android 12
  • Three years of security updates

Don’t Like

  • Frequent lag, issues loading software
  • Questionable refresh rate
  • No «twist to open camera» gesture

Moto G Play design and performance

The Moto G Play looks nice for a phone that costs just $170. The Navy Blue color of its plastic body provides a hint of personality, while the phone’s low-resolution 720p display includes a screen cutout for the 5-megapixel front-facing camera. The fingerprint sensor is located in my favorite spot on an Android phone — the back. 

But the problems begin once you start using the phone. The phone’s MediaTek Helio G37 processor and 3GB of RAM weren’t powerful enough to juggle multiple apps easily. In some cases, it wouldn’t even load certain apps. This was particularly bizarre considering it loaded a 3D game like Crazy Taxi (admittedly an oldie but still a goodie), but couldn’t run other modern 2D games like Exploding Kittens. With the phone’s tiny 32GB of storage, I’m lucky to even fit a couple games onto the Moto G Play, although there is a microSD card slot for storage expansion.

Geekbench V.5.0 single-core

Moto G Play

155

Galaxy A03S

159

TCL Stylus 5G

550

Note:

Longer bars indicate better performance

Geekbench V.5.0 multicore

Moto G Play

572

Galaxy A03S

889

TCL Stylus 5G

1,739

Note:

Longer bars indicate better performance

Email, news and video-streaming apps fared better in terms of performance, but not by much. Even though the Moto G Play touts a 90Hz refresh rate, which should smooth out animations, there is a lot of noticeable lag. I couldn’t even tell when the refresh rate reached 90Hz. The Settings menu lets you choose between «Auto» and «60 Hz,» with the former dynamically changing the refresh rate based on what you are doing. Having an auto setting does make sense, but a lot of the cheaper Android phones I’ve used also include the option to set the phone to a consistent 90Hz, alongside a 60Hz option for preserving battery life.

This brings me back to the phone’s 5,000-mAh battery — a bright spot considering it easily lasted two days on a full charge during my testing. I think it’s possible for the battery to make it to a third day, mostly because of how underpowered this device is. I typically got around three hours of screen time per day on the device during my testing, which included streaming, shooting photos and trying to play games for this review.

During a more active session on the phone, in which I streamed 22 minutes of a TV show at 100% brightness and then took a 24-minute video call, the battery dropped from 59% to 46%. On less active days, in which the phone was used primarily for listening to music while commuting, reading news articles and light texting, I could end the day with just over 50% remaining.

Charging times for the phone are generally less impressive than battery life. With the included 10-watt charger, it typically took just over an hour to charge from zero to 50%. Getting to 100% would take just over 2 hours, 30 minutes. When I tested charging speeds with my 18-watt charger, the results were slightly faster. The phone would get from zero to 66% after an hour and finish charging just past the two-hour mark.

Moto G Play camerasMoto G Play cameras

The Moto G Play has three cameras, anchored by a 16-megapixel main camera.

Mike Sorrentino/CNET

Moto G Play cameras

The Moto G Play has a triple-camera system anchored by a main 16-megapixel camera, which is accompanied by a 2-megapixel macro camera and a 2-megapixel depth sensor. But photos are consistently fuzzy, whether I took them indoors, outdoors, in bright environments or in the dark.

Foggy day, outdoor photo taken on Moto G PlayFoggy day, outdoor photo taken on Moto G Play

A foggy day in New York, taken on the Moto G Play.

Mike Sorrentino/CNET

While it was nice to see Portrait mode on a phone at this price, I can barely see much of a bokeh effect in my photos. This is especially true when using the 5-megapixel front-facing camera, in which my photos looked consistently muddy.

Portrait mode photo of Mike Sorrentino holding beer in a Taco BellPortrait mode photo of Mike Sorrentino holding beer in a Taco Bell

My friend took a photo of me at the Taco Bell in Times Square using Portrait Mode, but it’s challenging to see if it made a difference.

Mike Sorrentino/CNET

Selfie photo with beer taken on the Moto G PlaySelfie photo with beer taken on the Moto G Play

The Moto G Play’s front-facing camera had a tough time keeping me in focus, even in a restaurant with decent lighting.

Mike Sorrentino/CNET

I took the Moto G Play with me to Taco Bell — because yes, I’m going to go eat cheap food while reviewing a cheap phone. I had my friend take photos of me using the phone’s Portrait setting. You can sort of see a light blurring effect in the background, but it’s hard to perceive. 

In another selfie taken at a restaurant with better lighting than the Taco Bell, I found the selfie camera to have a tough time keeping me in focus.

And when taking photos of my friend’s dog Daisy, the rear cameras struggled to capture much detail of her fur, even when she sat still. In the best of conditions, the phone’s cameras struggle to take sharp photos.

Daisy the dog in a winter sweater, photo taken on Moto G PlayDaisy the dog in a winter sweater, photo taken on Moto G Play

Daisy the dog sat relatively still for this photo, but the Moto G Play’s camera captures minimal detail.

Mike Sorrentino/CNET

I compared the photos taken on the Moto G Play against the same images taken on the $160 Samsung Galaxy A03S, and found the picture quality to be roughly comparable for simple static shots. When shooting a bookshelf at CNET’s office, the Moto G Play got slightly more detail of the book covers than the Galaxy A03S, with the latter phone’s image appearing a bit darker. 

However, when it comes to a photo with lots of detail and color, such as with this plant wall, the Moto G Play struggles to discern between the different shades of green. Meanwhile the Galaxy A03S performs much better with discerning the darker green shades from the lighter ones, making for a dramatically different photo.

Neither phone’s camera performs especially well, which is a common theme among phones that cost under $200. For me, this places the Moto G Play’s camera photos squarely into the category of being acceptable for group chats, but not much else. It’s going to take a lot of really good lighting and steady hands in order to make the most of these cameras, and that’s more effort than most people are going to want to make.

There are better options, even when you want to save money

Even when you’re looking for the cheapest possible phone, your device still needs to run most apps without issue and take decent-looking photos. I wouldn’t expect a phone that costs less than $200 to run Fortnite at the highest graphics settings, but I am expecting to use apps with minimal lag. While phones at this price are also typically lighter on features, the perks that are available should bring noticeable value to the experience. The Moto G Play’s Portrait mode and high refresh rate don’t succeed in this regard.  

Instead of buying the Moto G Play at $170, you’re probably better off saving $10 and getting the $160 Samsung Galaxy A03S. While that phone also has unimpressive cameras, it was at least able to multitask more easily.

Although I haven’t reviewed it yet, you might also consider the $199 Samsung Galaxy A14 5G, since it has 64GB of storage and 5G connectivity. Later this year, a number of TCL 40 phones will arrive in the US, which will include 5G and 128GB of storage for under $200. Those devices might be worth waiting for if you aren’t in dire need of a cheap phone right now.

Moto G Play (2023) vs. Samsung Galaxy A03S, TCL Stylus 5G, OnePlus Nord N300 5G

Moto G Play (2023) Samsung Galaxy A03S TCL Stylus 5G OnePlus Nord N300 5G
Display size, type resolution, refresh rate 6.5-inch IPS TFT LCD; 1,600×720 pixels; 90Hz refresh rate 6.5-inch LCD; 1,600×720 pixels 6.81-inch; 2,400×1,080 pixels 6.56-inch IPS LCD display; 720p resolution; 90Hz refresh rate
Pixel density 269ppi 269ppi 395ppi 269ppi
Dimensions (inches) 6.58 x 2.95 x 0.36 in 6.5 x 2.9 x 0.3 in 6.67 x 3.01 x 0.35 in 6.4 x 2.9 x 0.3 in
Dimensions (millimeters) 167 x 77 x 9.4 mm 165.8 x 75.9 x 9.1 mm 169.6 x 76.5 x 8.9 mm 163.8 x 75.1 x 7.99 mm
Weight (ounces, grams) 203 g (7.16 oz) 202g (7.13 oz) 213g (7.51 oz) 190g (6.7 oz)
Mobile software Android 12 Android 11 Android 12 Android 12
Camera 16-megapixel (main), 2-megapixel (macro), 2-megapixel (depth sensor) 13-megapixel (main), 2-megapixel (depth), 2-megapixel (macro) 50-megapixel (main), 5-megapixel (wide), 2-megapixel (macro), 2-megapixel (depth sensor) 48-megapixel (main), 2-megapixel (depth lens)
Front-facing camera 5-megapixel 5-megapixel 13-megapixel 16-megapixel
Video capture 720p at 30 fps 1080p at 30fps 1080p at 30fps 1080p at 30fps
Processor MediaTek Helio G37 Octa-core processor MediaTek Dimensity 700 5G MediaTek Dimensity 810
RAM, storage 3GB + 32GB 3GB/32GB 4GB/128GB 4GB/64GB
Expandable storage Up to 512GB Up to 1TB Up to 2TB Up to 1TB
Battery, charger 5,000 mAh; 10W charging 5,000mAh; charger not included, does not support wireless charging 4,000mAh; 18W charging 5,000mAh; 33W charging
Fingerprint sensor Rear Side Side Side
Connector USB-C USB-C USB-C USB-C
Headphone jack Yes Yes Yes Yes
Special features 3-day battery life, Moto Gestures, Auto Smile Capture, Portait Mode Stylus with built-in storage, producitivity software, NxtVision HDR mode Dual speakers, NFC, Face Unlock, HDR, Portrait, Face retouching
Price off-contract (USD) $170 $160 $258 $228

Technologies

Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Monday, May 19

Here are the answers for The New York Times Mini Crossword for May 19.

Looking for the most recent Mini Crossword answer? Click here for today’s Mini Crossword hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Wordle, Strands, Connections and Connections: Sports Edition puzzles.


Today’s NYT Mini Crossword is pretty easy. 5-Across, «one for whom every day is Boxing Day,» stumped me because I really wanted the answer to have something to do with cats. (Spoiler: It did not.) Need some help with today’s Mini Crossword? Read on. And if you could use some hints and guidance for daily solving, check out our Mini Crossword tips.

The Mini Crossword is just one of many games in the Times’ games collection. If you’re looking for today’s Wordle, Connections, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands answers, you can visit CNET’s NYT puzzle hints page.

Read more: Tips and Tricks for Solving The New York Times Mini Crossword

Let’s get at those Mini Crossword clues and answers.

Mini across clues and answers

1A clue: Network satirized on «30 Rock,» for short
Answer: NBC

4A clue: Sport played on horseback
Answer: POLO

5A clue: One for whom every day is Boxing Day?
Answer: MOVED

6A clue: Like correct letters in Wordle
Answer: GREEN

7A clue: Blend together
Answer: MELD

Mini down clues and answers

1D clue: «Invisible Man» or «Little Women»
Answer: NOVEL

2D clue: Run in the wash
Answer: BLEED

3D clue: What bourbon whiskey is primarily made from
Answer: CORN

4D clue: Tiny hole in the skin
Answer: PORE

5D clue: Longtime movie studio acquired by Amazon in 2022
Answer: MGM

How to play more Mini Crosswords

The New York Times Games section offers a large number of online games, but only some of them are free for all to play. You can play the current day’s Mini Crossword for free, but you’ll need a subscription to the Times Games section to play older puzzles from the archives.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Today’s NYT Connections: Sports Edition Hints and Answers for May 19, #238

Hints and answers for the NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle, No. 238, for May 19.

Looking for the most recent regular Connections answers? Click here for today’s Connections hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Wordle and Strands puzzles.


Connections: Sports Edition might be tough today if, like me, you don’t know what «loge» means. Read on for hints and the answers.

Connections: Sports Edition is out of beta now, making its debut on Super Bowl Sunday, Feb. 9. That’s a sign that the game has earned enough loyal players that The Athletic, the subscription-based sports journalism site owned by the Times, will continue to publish it. It doesn’t show up in the NYT Games app but now appears in The Athletic’s own app. Or you can continue to play it free online.  

Read more: NYT Connections: Sports Edition Puzzle Comes Out of Beta

Hints for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Here are four hints for the groupings in today’s Connections: Sports Edition puzzle, ranked from the easiest yellow group to the tough (and sometimes bizarre) purple group.

Yellow group hint: Brag.

Green group hint: Where’s my seat?

Blue group hint: City that never sleeps.

Purple group hint: Opposite of go.

Answers for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Yellow group: Boast

Green group: Stadium seating sections

Blue group: New York Knicks

Purple group: ____ stop

Read more: Wordle Cheat Sheet: Here Are the Most Popular Letters Used in English Words

What are today’s Connections: Sports Edition answers?

The yellow words in today’s Connections

The theme is boast. The four answers are crow, gloat, grandstand and showboat.

The green words in today’s Connections

The theme is stadium seating sections. The four answers are bleacher, loge, suites and upper deck.

The blue words in today’s Connections

The theme is New York Knicks. The four answers are Bridges, Hart, McBride and Towns.

The purple words in today’s Connections

The theme is ____ stop. The four answers are back, jump, pit and short.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Blade Runner: 18-Rotor «Volocopter» Moving from Concept to Prototype

It may look "nutty" and like a "blender," but the designers say the craft could challenge helicopters

Inventor and physicist Thomas Senkel created an Internet sensation with the October 2011 video of his maiden—and only—test flight of a spidery proof-of-concept 16-rotor helicopter dubbed Multicopter 1. Now the maker of the experimental personal aviation craft, the European start-up e-volo, is back with a revised «volocopter» design that adds two more rotors, a serial hybrid drive and long-term plans for going to 100 percent battery power.

The new design calls for 1.8-meter, 0.5-kilogram carbon-fiber blades, each paired with a motor. They are arrayed around a hub in two concentric circles over a boxy one- or two-person cockpit.

After awarding the volocopter concept a Lindbergh Prize for Innovation in April, Yolanka Wulff, executive director of The Charles A. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation, admitted the idea of the multi-blade chopper at first seems «nutty.» Looking beyond the novel appearance, however, she says, e-volo’s concept excels in safety, energy efficiency and simplicity, which were the bases of the prize.

All three attributes arrive thanks largely to evolo’s removal of classic helicopter elements. First, the energy-robbing high-mass main rotor, transmission, tail boom and tail rotor are gone. The enormous blades over a normal chopper’s cabin create lift, but their mass creates a high degree of stress and wear on the craft. And the small tail rotor, perched vertically out on a boom behind the cabin, keeps the helicopter’s body from spinning in the opposite direction as the main blades, but it also eats up about 30 percent of a helicopter’s power.

The volocopter’s multiple rotor blades individually would not create the torque that a single large rotor produces, and they offer redundancy for safety. Hypothetically, the volocopter could fly with a few as 12 functioning rotors, as long as those rotors were not all clustered together on one side, says Senkel, the aircraft’s co-inventor and e-volo’s lead construction engineer.

Without the iconic two-prop configuration, the craft would be lighter, making it more fuel efficient and reducing the physical complexity of delivering power to the top and rear blades from a single engine. Nor would the volocopter need an energy-hungry transmission. In fact, «there will be no mechanical connection between the gas engine and the blades,» Senkel says. That means fewer points of energy loss and more redundancy for safety.

E-volo’s design eliminates the dependence on a single source of power to the blades. As a serial-hybrid vehicle, the volocopter would have a gas-fueled engine, in this case an engine capable of generating 50- to 75 kilowatts, typical of ultralight aircraft. Rather than mechanically drive the rotors, the engine would generate power for electric motors as well as charge onboard lithium batteries. Should it fail, the batteries are expected to provide enough backup power so the craft could make a controlled landing.

Whereas helicopters navigate by changing the pitch of the main and tail rotor blades, the volocopter’s maneuverability will depend on changing the speed of individual rotors. Although more complex, it is more precise in principle to control a craft using three to six redundant microcontrollers (in case one or more fails) interpreting instructions from a pilot using a game console–like joystick—instead of rudder pedals, a control stick and a throttle.

Wulff’s first impression about the volocopter’s design is not uncommon. E-volo’s computer-animated promotional videos of a gleaming white, carbon-fiber and fiberglass craft beneath a thatch of blades recall the many-winged would-be flying machines of the late 19th century. This point is not lost on Senkel.

«I understand these skeptical opinions,» he says. «The design concept looks like a blender. But we really are making a safe flying machine.»

That would be progress in itself. Multicopter 1 looked like something from an especially iffy episode of MacGyver, complete with landing gear that involved a silver yoga ball. Senkel rode seated amid all those rotors powered only by lithium batteries. Multicopter 1 generated an average of 20 kilowatts for hovering and was aloft for just a few minutes.

There’s a reason why the experimental craft flew briefly and only once.Senkel describes that first craft as «glued and screwed together.» Seated on the same platform as the spinning blades, he says, «I was aware of the fact that I will be dead, maybe. Besides, we showed that the concept works. What do we win if we fly it twice?» he asks rhetorically.

Other than putting the pilot safely below the blades, the revised volocopter design would operate largely the same as the initial prototype. The design calls for three to six redundant accelerometers and gyroscopes to measure the volocopter’s position and orientation, creating a feedback loop that gives the craft stability and makes it easier to fly, Senkel says.

The volocopter’s revised prototype under construction could debut as soon as next spring. The first production models, available in perhaps three years, are expected to fly for at least an hour at speeds exceeding 100 kilometers per hour and a minimum altitude of about 2,000 meters, still far shy of standard helicopter’s normal operating altitude of about 3,000 meters. «This could change our lives, but I don’t expect anything like that for 10 years,» Senkel adds.

Given that most of the technology needed to build the volocopter is already available, «this idea is fairly easy to realize,» says Carl Kühn, managing director of e-volo partner Smoto GmbH, a company that integrates electric drive systems and related components.

Like Senkel, Kühn has modest short-term expectations despite his repeated emphasis on the standard nature of the technology involved. «I guess that e-volo will have [a prototype] aircraft in three years that can do the job—that it will lift one or two persons from one point to another,» he says.

The biggest immediate limitations appear to be regulatory. For instance, European aviation regulators consider any electrical system greater than 60 volts to be high voltage and regulate such systems more aggressively, Kühn says. As a result, the volocopter will operate below that threshold. The craft will also need to weigh no more than 450 kilograms to remain in the ultralight category, which is likewise subject to fewer government aviation regulations, according to Senkel.

The Lindbergh Foundation’s Wulff says the organization’s judges felt e-volo had «a greater than 50 percent chance of succeeding, or they wouldn’t have given them the innovation award.» Asked if she would line up to fly one someday, she says, «I sure would. It looks very compelling to me.»

Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs.Visit ScientificAmerican.com for the latest in science, health and technology news.
© 2012 ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media