Motorola Triumph Review

A review on Motorola's mid-range phone, the Motorola Triumph
Our Rating:
Franz Bicar - Franz has worked in telecoms and consumer electronics for over 10 years, working in quality control, allowing him to get his hands on the latest gadgets. He’s been writing reviews on these for over 5 years now, as well as news and blogging with a number of online publishers.

Motorola-Triumph-2

The Motorola Triumph is probably the best mid-range phone out in the market today. While manufacturers are scrambling to release top of the line smartphones with dual-core processors or 4G connectivity, Motorola focused part of their resources on the average consumer who really doesn’t need all that power.

As a mid-range phone, the Motorola Triumph is a sleek piece of technology. In fact, it probably looks better than Motorola’s Droid X2 and the Droid 3. At 4.80 by 2.60 by 0.39 inches, the Triumph is significantly shorter and thinner than other Motorola smartphones and, at 5.04 ounces, much lighter.

The Triumph sports a 4.1-inch WVGA display and does an excellent job of displaying crisp and clear images. The only problem really is when you take it outside. In direct sunlight, it’s a bit difficult to see anything. But indoors, the Triumph has images that are much sharper with colors that look far more natural than Motorola’s more expensive models.

The Triumph runs Android 2.2 Froyo with its stock Vanilla user interface. Technically, what you will see on the Motorola Triumph, is what Android would have looked like if loaded directly into a device. This means the user interface (and most apps) that you’ll see won’t be from the manufacturer (which places their own UI wrapper and some apps to give the OS its own “idenitity”) but stock from Android.

There are some preloaded apps though, but nowhere as bad as with other higher end models.

The Motorola Triumph has a single-core 1GHz processor. But Motorola did some tweaking and the Triumph actually performs like a dual-core device. It can jump in and out of various applications with ease and runs applications smoothly. The Triumph is also very responsive when doing screen swipes and on-screen keyboard typing. The Triumph’s fantastic performance might be the result of the absence of a custom overlay, but who knows really.

The call quality on the Motorola Triumph is not that bad, but it’s not that good either. Battery life is what you would expect from a smartphone. After 4 hours of heavy use, the battery dropped from 100 percent to 65 percent. If you love to download a ton of apps or play games for countless hours on your phone, you’ll probably want to keep a charger with you just in case. If not, you can probably make it an entire day on a single charge.

The Motorola Triumph uses the stock Android 2.2 camera interface. Although the interface doesn’t have as many bells and whistles as the ones by other brands, it does the job just as well. The Triumph has two cameras: a rear-facing 5-megapixel camera capable of shooting 720p video, and a front-facing VGA camera for video chatting.

The rear-facing camera capturs decent photos, though it’s a bit slow to focus and take the picture. Indoor images come out slightly darker and could have been sharper. Images using the flash could have used more sharpness, too, but not as washed out as images taken with a dual-LED flash.

Videos are clear, but audio sounded muffled when played through the phone’s speakers. When audio is played through a headphone, voices sounded slightly tinny, though clearer than they did over the phone’s speakers.

The front-facing camera takes satisfactory photos and videos for a VGA camera, though unfortunately the Triumph has no preinstalled application to take advantage of the camera for video chats.

 

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Visited 4447 times, 1 so far today

Summary

We liked
  • Surprisingly fast and responsive
  • Sharp and Clear display
  • No custom UI wrapper from the manufacturer
We Disliked
  • Single-core processor
  • Audio and video recording average to poor quality