<story><title>Moto 360 review – Beautiful outside, ugly inside</title><url>http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/moto-360-review-beautiful-outside-ugly-inside/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>UnoriginalGuy</author><text>This article is very strange, on page 2 they spend tons of time lamenting the 360 for having a terrible CPU, then run tests they themselves created which don&amp;#x27;t really support the level of disdain they&amp;#x27;re showing.&lt;p&gt;They then almost completely ignore the results of their own tests but tack on a point about &amp;quot;well floating point sucks, so that explains our criticisms.&amp;quot; Except it doesn&amp;#x27;t. A much more likely candidate (which they themselves hint at) is using poorly performing storage or having software glitches.&lt;p&gt;So I cannot tell if the author didn&amp;#x27;t understand the results or just wanted to moan that the 360 had an old CPU and didn&amp;#x27;t really care what the data actually said (they also provide no source for the power consumption claims).&lt;p&gt;I won&amp;#x27;t be buying a 360 simply because it has terrible battery life and costs $250. But this article is a little off. The second page just isn&amp;#x27;t consistent with itself.</text></comment>
<story><title>Moto 360 review – Beautiful outside, ugly inside</title><url>http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/moto-360-review-beautiful-outside-ugly-inside/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>post_break</author><text>The battery life is crucial on a device like this. Moto screwed this device up big time. Old outdated processor that isn&amp;#x27;t as power efficient as current gen processors. Battery that lasts 24h at most, for a watch, that is off unless you turn your wrist. I would have paid more for higher battery life and a modern processor. This processor is from 2010, I just don&amp;#x27;t understand.</text></comment>