Home - , , - Motorola moto e5 SUPRA Now Available at Cricket Wireless

Motorola moto e5 SUPRA Now Available at Cricket Wireless

cricket-wireless-motorola-moto-e5-supra
Cricket Wireless has officially welcomed a new addition to its roster of devices. The Motorola moto e5 SUPRA is the latest budget-friendly smartphone to be entered into the AT&T prepaid brand. 

In a nutshell, the moto e5 SUPRA is a rebranded moto e5 Plus that can only be purchased at Cricket. 

With this smartphone, you are getting a large 6-inch HD+ Max Vision edge-to-edge display so you can enjoy viewing content from your handheld device. From within, the moto e5 SUPRA is powered by a 1.4GHz octa-core processor with 3GB of RAM, 32GB of onboard storage, and a microSD card slot for up to 128GB memory expansion. 

One of the best-selling features of this smartphone is the massive 5000mAh battery included in its back with TurboPower charging. The phone also includes a 12-megapixel rear-facing camera with LED flash and FHD video recording. In front, there is an 8-megapixel camera with LED flash. Upon release, the phone runs on Android 8.0 Oreo and comes with M4/T3 hearing aid compatibility rating. 

Starting today, customers interested in the moto e5 SUPRA can purchase it for a price of $179.99. It is available online and at select Cricket authorized retail stores for both new and existing customers. You can get this smartphone along with one of Cricket's qualifying monthly service plans: 


  • 2GB per month plan - $30 per month comes with unlimited talk and text + data access
  • 5GB per month plan - $40 per month comes with unlimited talk and text + data access
  • Unlimited data plan - $55 per month comes with unlimited talk and text + data access with speeds up to 3Mbps
  • Unlimited Max plan - $60 per month comes with unlimited talk and text + high-speed data access 

These plans include monthly taxes, no annual contract, and no overages. 



Source: Cricket Wireless

Tags: , ,

52 comments:

Comment Page :
  1. The Cricket website currently lists it as "out of stock". Just an error or did they sell out or did they make a bad, very low guess about demand?

    Also, notice the lack of port in ("with number transfer") pricing. The full retail price is $179, so the port-in should have been about $99.

    The 5000 mAh battery and 3 GB RAM are nice, although the Snapdragon 435 is middling, and the micro-USB is a disappointment.

    Soon Cricket should release the LG Stylo 4, with a 6.2" display, Snapdragon 450 and USB-C but only 2 GB of RAM and a 3300 mAh battery.

    Decisions, decisions...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3gb of ram? This version of the E5 Plus does not have a confirmed 3gb it probably has 2gb of ram

      Delete
    2. Looks good but I will wait for a better price.

      Delete
    3. Phone scoop says it has 3gb.

      Delete
  2. $180 for a locked phone? It's not even free?

    I can't even fit all this trash in the can.

    Gonna have to start flushin' it like the shit these "deals" are.

    The $200 G6 with $50 of airtime at Best Buy is still a much better deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As with most Cricket phones, you should expect to see ebay services offering unlocks for less than $10 in the near future.

      The phone would still have minor Cricket bloat (Deezer, Defender Security, etc.) but at least they can be disabled, if not uninstalled.

      Delete
    2. I agree. THE Moto G6 deal a BB is much better deal for most people- better specs and universal carrier phone. However, there are be some people who need WIFI Calling and or HD Voice/volte that have buy a Cricket branded Android (or certain iPhone) to get those features.

      Delete
    3. Or you could pay the extra $20 for a significantly better phone that'll be the first to get Peppermint (on the off chance the 2018 E/G series actually does).

      I mean, carriers are literally screwing the pooch here by not heavily subsidizing these trashier, less valuable phones anymore.

      They want the profits from both devices and service, but all they're doing is driving themselves into a niche corner of being dumbpipe-only enterprises once consumers realize they're being shafted.

      Not cutting consumers a good deal on locked devices is basically a blatant anti-growth strategy, and I'm wondering what they'll do when the locked device market goes under and they can't even raise prices for fear of a mass exodus.

      They're basically pulling a Sprint by inflating hardware costs while trying to acquire and retain customers at the same time, and we all know exactly how well that worked out for RingPlus.

      Delete
    4. Now you've gone too far. Sprint charges $288 for the E5 Plus/Supra.

      Delete
  3. Motorola web site indicates 3 GB RAM an many LTE bands

    4G LTE (Cat6), CDMA / EVDO Rev A, UMTS / HSPA+, GSM / EDGE
    4G: TDD LTE band 38/41(Full) FDD LTE band 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/14/17/25/26/29/30/66

    3G: WCDMA band 1/2/4/5/8
    2G: GSM band 2/3/5/8 CDMA BC0/BC1/BC10††

    Question since Moto web is not saying it: Will this phone be a universal phone after unlocking as many of the Moto phones seem to be or is the E series not universal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your answer is in the band list above. But don't expect that Verizon or Sprint will activate it if its not whitelisted. For Verizon, you could activate the SIM in another Verizon phone first. Sprint .... a long story.

      Delete
  4. Still running on Cricket's slow throttled network, so no point in paying almost $200 for a locked phone. Buy unlocked direct from Moto, go to any carrier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Slow" is relative. the Cricket data speed is fast enough to run video, and of course any other less data-intensive application. And due to being on a much better network, it averages out to be faster than anything on Sprint for sure.

      Delete
    2. Slow is also absolute. A limit. Like buying an exotic sports car and never driving it over 55mph. Fast enough to get there eventually, but not enough to really enjoy the ride. Fast enough for you is not fast enough for me.

      Delete
    3. "it averages out to be faster than anything on Sprint for sure."
      Two lines on Sprint here. Over the past year the many speedtest results on two phones averaged 13.6Mbps where we live, shopped, recreated, visited and traveled. Speeds ranged from a few in the 2mbps range to several over 120mbps. Highest was 136, and that was 2 carrier aggregation, not 3. I can say with certainly that Sprint is much more than twice as fast on average as Cricket. Because Cricket does not give the max speed everywhere, every time. At least they replaced the buggy, unreliable, 3rd-party proxy servers last year. That's something. They used to average only 3.5Mbps in independent tests, the slowest carrier surveyed.

      Delete
    4. @10:27am: I’ll bite. What data application do you have that requires you to have greater than 8 Mbps throughput?

      I think the better analogy would be buying a sports car that can only go up to 75mph... which is fine for almost everything except drag racing. I can live with that limitation if i can buy an otherwise functional sports car for a fraction of the price!

      Delete
    5. "Two lines on Sprint here. Over the past year the many speedtest results on two phones averaged 13.6Mbps where we live, shopped, recreated, visited and traveled"

      If you average out ALL areas, without bias, instead of just the few places where Sprint works well (and Sprint customers have chosen to say with because of that), Sprint is a lot slower than you claim. As in, if you look at the half or more of the territory of the lower 48 that has a Cricket (AT&T) signal but nothing at all on Sprint, it's easy to see how if you average in such a huge pile of 0-signal that the average speed will go down.

      That is, if you use any sort of objective test, and not crowd-sourced "data" which stands up to no scrutiny.

      Delete
    6. pal, your analogy only works if your super-high internet speed means stream Star Wars the Force awakens in 4K and speed it up so you can watch the whole movie in about 7 minutes.

      Anonymous June 23, 2018 at 10:27 AM said...
      "Slow is also absolute. A limit. Like buying an exotic sports car and never driving it over 55mph. Fast enough to get there eventually, but not enough to really enjoy the ride. Fast enough for you is not fast enough for me."

      Delete
    7. " if you use any sort of objective test,"
      Wow. The calculations you recommend are totally non-objective. They would be relevant to exactly NOBODY in the USA (330M people).
      FYI, with two phones we used exactly 10MB of roaming data over the past year, and had NO places where a speed test did not work. So my numbers are completely objective for US. YMMV. Crowd-sourced data has advantages and disadvantages compared to drive tests but "stands up to no scrutiny" is just plan wrong. EG, 5.9 billion actual measurements collected from 237,213 mobile devices between Oct. 1 and Dec. 30 of 2017:

      "Sprint makes big gains in both speed and availability (Jan 18, Open Signal)
      Sprint's 4G availability and speed continued to improve in our latest round of tests. In the last year, it's availability score jumped 9 percentage points, and its average tested 4G speed rose by 3 Mbps to 12 Mbps. Sprint still sits in last place in both categories, but it has gone a long way to bridging the big gap between itself and its competitors."

      PC Mag latest drive tests May 1 through May 23, 2018 say Sprint is much faster. Nationally, Sprint averaged 38 Mbps down, with speeds above 5Mbps 79% of the time. They were far slower than other carriers on upload speed. This hit them heavily in the PC Mag ratings.
      https://www.pcmag.com/Fastest-Mobile-Networks/3
      I accept their analysis of the pros and cons of drive vs. crowd-sourced.

      Delete
    8. "What data application do you have that requires you to have greater than 8 Mbps throughput?"
      Strawman question. We're talking wants vs needs here, mike.
      If needs were the only important buying criteria, millions of products and services we can buy now would fail and disappear from the market. Like iPhones and other flagships. Yet flagships sell the best! People WANT them. They are FAST. Not SLOW.
      A sports car that can only go 75MPH but cost a fraction of the price?
      If people actually wanted OR needed a car like that, you could buy one.
      They don't, and you can't. Well maybe a used junker with a crippled drivetrain.

      Delete
    9. "Strawman question. We're talking wants vs needs here, mike."

      Your needs aren't the same as his, Steve.

      Delete
    10. Cricket's throttled speeds affect ALL downloads and uploads. You wait longer for the movie to start. Network congestion means your low-priority downloads could be interrupted, and re-buffering will take longer, so you wait again. You may even lose a tower connection with your low priority. But hey, you saved a few $/month! Repeat that over and over, but don't complain here; you won't get our sympathy.

      Delete
    11. "Wow. The calculations you recommend are totally non-objective."

      The suggestions that I made were to compare data at randomly selected points, not at points selected according to someone's by us which makes everything totally irrelevant. You really need to do some research into statistical methodology. Just a helpful suggestion, you know?

      It is the most subjective possible, because it doesn't include any bias at all. If you want to accurately compare speed among carriers, this is just about the only way to do it.

      An accurate methodology such as I described would be the most useful for the 330 million people in the US, compare to, say Sprint speed measurements from a person who tries to only go to places where Sprint has a good signal. You only like methodologies that make Sprint average speed a lot faster than it is in reality.

      you are instead relying on something that is entirely bogus because it relies on data submitted by Sprint fans who tend to only go in the places where Sprint works.

      I have read that exact PC Magazine test you describe. It relied on anecdotal evidence from people who took just a few road trips. it's about as accurate and reliable as Rush Limbaugh talking about who the best president would be.

      You "accept their analysis", except there was no analysis at all. Just some chattering about what they observed during a few road-trips.

      You said this of the PC Magazine article "Nationally, Sprint averaged 38 Mbps down, with speeds above 5Mbps 79% of the time." Did you even read the article? It said nothing about "nationally". the roadtrippers went on just a few stretches of highway that represented just a fraction of u. S. Interstates and also a tiny fraction of the territory where Americans need to use their mobile phones. it's sort of like eating at a Wendy's in Omaha and then also one in Sacramento and then writing that Wendy's has the best hamburgers in the country!!

      those Bob Hope and Bing Crosby road trip movies might be fun, but you won't see me buying any airplane tickets or making hotel reservations based on what I see in those movies. oh yes, the folly of treating Road Tripper anecdotes as some sort of serious analysis....

      Open signal as well as no validity due to its selection bias. It can't even qualify as an "analysis" because it has a bias to tend to throw away data points that show a speed of 0. They basically rely on T-Mobile data from T-Mobile Fanboys, Verizon data from Verizon Fanboys, Etc.

      What is it about statistical validity and lack of bias that's so scares you?

      Delete
    12. Anon 2:15 You are conflating speed and coverage. Both important but completely different measurements. A speed test measures a carrier's speed where that carrier has coverage. You don't get statistical validity by skewing the results with an unrelated variable.

      This post is about a Cricket phone. There are better places to discuss Sprint speed and coverage.

      Delete
    13. The suggestion of "randomly selected points" would result in completely worthless statistics, so I reject your premise. If your ideal test was useful and worth the expense, companies would conduct them. It isn't so they don't. None of the 330M USA residents could draw any useful conclusions from your random findings at all. The national averages of random points would be worthless to anyone. The probability that any of them would ever take the same random trip approaches zero. The cost and time would be prohibitive unless you kept sample sizes small. And that would mean that the results would be even less than worthless. Unless your single customer is Verizon, and they want to make another misleading commercial based on irrelevant data.
      Current crowd-sourced and road trip studies are statistically valid for the coverage, speeds and availability they are designed to measure.

      Delete
    14. Dennis, average speed, which is what is being discussed, is necessarily related to coverage.

      "A speed test measures a carrier's speed where that carrier has coverage"

      Search results are worthless. the situation is identical to, let's say, a student's average grade if the average grade calculation automatically excluded the F's.

      saying that a carrier is the fastest in the US by arbitrarily including the vast amount of data points where the speed is the worst is like calling some kid an "A" student because he got one "A" on his report card and 5 F's. and using a methodology similar to but open signal does, only the "A" grade is counted for the average grades.

      I do disagree with you. You don't get statistical validity by skewing the results by arbitrarily excluding data points with a speed below a certain level. By logic and definition, if you are measuring average speed, ALL levels of speed should be included in the averages. With no bias.

      Delete
    15. "Your needs aren't the same as his, Steve."
      I completely agree, John. That's why I posted earlier that:
      "Fast enough for you is not fast enough for me."
      But mike still argues that a throttled service that meets his needs and wants is good enough for everyone.

      Delete
    16. I won't be approving any more off topic comments about Sprint's speed and coverage on this post. Please don't waste your time writing them. They are nothing but noise on a post announcing a new Cricket phone.

      Delete
  5. Article says 3Gb of ram!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Using a name on these comments is easy. ..... .... ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. It just goes to show what a dud this device is when people can't really be bothered to stay on topic.

    An unlocked $200 E5 Plus would've sold like hotcakes.

    But instead of giving us the option, Moto decided to let it be locked down and chained up to the point where the E5 Supra was DOA.

    Honestly, Lenovo's starting to completely lose touch with the US market.

    We only wanted the unlocked E5 Plus and G6 Plus without any strings or carriers attached, and now they've gone and blown the entire year by refusing to release either one.

    If they blow it again in 2019, they might as well just pack up and leave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I second that. Lenovo removed so much cost from their low and midrange phones that they look and feel boring and cheap. Moving design to China has ruined them for me because much of the design and functional innovation that began with the first Moto X is gone. 'No mo Lenovo for me.'
      BLU is creating more compelling designs and offering more value for the money now, and they include features like dual-SIM which is rare in US phones. I'd take a VIVO XL3 Plus dual-SIM for savings, or a VIVO 8 for more performance at the same price, over the Moto E5 Plus. Once BLU sells Android One phones and gets Verizon VoLTE cert and/or Sprint 3CA capability, they could put up a good challenge to the 'new' Moto.

      Delete
    2. Yes, it is very disappointing they did this.

      Delete
    3. Rather than buy the Cricket phone, I would pay more and get the unlocked, Dual-SIM international version on Amazon for $229.99. You get all the basic Tmo and AT&T bands and benefit from Dual-SIM. I think that is worth the extra $50 and no warranty. The G6 screen is a lot smaller and it has bad voice quality and no NFC. I don't want a glass back, either.

      Delete
    4. The E5 Plus/Supra is 7.1 oz Heavy and the big screen is only 268 ppi. Not worth the money IMO.

      Delete
    5. LG Stylo 4 has a Full HD screen, Qcomm 450 and Band 71. I would take that and give up 1GB of RAM any day.

      Delete
    6. The 6-month $180 unlock requirement plus Metro's shitty coverage/speeds pretty much ruins what would've otherwise been a good deal were it not an LG brand crapshoot.

      As for Blu phones, they tend not to have universal compatibility or even all the relevant bands.

      And that's ignoring their past datamining shenanigans.

      Delete
    7. BLU convinced Amazon, Dept of Homeland Security and the FCC that they are trustworthy - that the OTA software was a mistake by their supplier. They cancelled their manufacturers' supply agreements with that company.
      BLU fixed the OTA software within one week of learning there was a problem, and within a month or so (12/96) they switched all shipping phones to Google's regular OTA software.
      BLU now have a stronger security program; e.g., they won't install any software on their phones when they don't have its source code to verify in advance.
      Finally, BLU has periodic 3rd-party security reviews to audit and verify that their controls are working effectively. This is more than any Chinese cellphone company does to assure your security and privacy.
      If you really care about Android firmware security and privacy, buy your new phone from BLU, an American company. Don't support Chinese companies ZTE and Huawei that also installed the same OTA software (China version) that BLU shipped by mistake. I doubt those companies really care about your security or privacy. Their close ties to Chinese military intelligence and the Communist Party should give anyone pause.

      Delete
    8. "they are very tiny and hardly anyone knows they exist"
      False! BLU sells on Amazon, NewEgg, Walmart and Best Buy. They have been selling smartphones since 2009. They sold 70,000 phones in 2009 and 4.1 M/year in 2012. They have sold more than 80M phones worldwide. With over 400 employees and two large distro centers they are not "tiny" unless you compare them to the top manufacturers. BLU also has one of the largest product lines in the business. This article about the company is 5+ years old, but has some interesting information about the company, founder and their goals:
      https://www.theverge.com/2013/3/18/4100006/why-blu-products-can-beat-samsung

      Delete
  8. Blu proved they can not be trusted.

    I agree with the comments about Sprint. I suffered from slow data and spotty coverage in an area Sprint maps indicate has strong coverage.

    I didnt want to give up Boost's 5 unlimited lines for $100 so I bought LG X Charge phones with HPUE hoping Sprint's hype was correct.
    I cant tell that HPUE helps at all. Now I am stuck with Boost phones. Unlimited slow data is better than no coverage. I wish I never left Cricket.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy, you sure learned your lesson. Buying 5 lines and phones before you determine that are carrier works well in your area is NEVER a good idea, no matter how good the "bargain."
      BLU has convinced Amazon and the US Government they can be trusted. Unlike ZTE and Huawei.

      Delete
    2. Chinese phone seller BLU has only avoided the fate of Huawei and ZTE because they are very tiny and hardly anyone knows they exist or cares about their spyware-ridden products.

      I talked to my local Best Buy about thr various BLU scandals and they took the phones off the shelves. But the phones were just wasting space there and no one was buying them anyway.

      Delete
    3. BLU is US based. Most, maybe all of their phones, are manufactured in China but that doesn't make them any more of a "Chinese phone seller" than Apple or Samsung.

      Delete
    4. Interestedly' BLU only agreed to stop putting spyware just last month:

      http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-phone-company-blu-settles-with-ftc-over-data-privacy-10319558

      "The company was secretly selling phones infected with spyware that sent users' cell-tower location data, call- and text-message logs, contact lists, used applications, and even the full contents of text messages to a third-party Chinese company called Shanghai Adups Technology."

      I'm glad they finally stopped, but it took them long enough. And from looking at it, I think it is fair to call BLU a Chinese phone. The US fro office is more of a beard than anything, in the phones themselves are actually specific Chinese phone models with a new name slapped on them. Some of the models are listed here.

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gizchina.com/2014/09/10/rebranded-chinese-phones/amp/

      an outfit in the US that Imports trash-bin level Chinese phones then slaps US Name on themis really just a front.


      Delete
    5. BLU pushed a software update that fixed the Adups OTA software in Nov 96. They switched to Google's standard OTA software in Dec 96. The FCC agreement formally settled the privacy issue, but that came long after BLU had changed out the OTA software. Otherwise Amazon and DHS would never have been satisfied and BLU would have had to stop selling phones.

      I don't know why this blogger hates BLU so much, but they post false and misleading info here over and over. BLU phones are a lot safer than those sold by Chinese companies. They are designed by BLU in Florida and manufactured in China, just as it says on every BLU box. If the phone assembler wants to make the same phone to a Chinese company, it will find a way under the loose China laws to do that.

      Delete
    6. BLU was called out on the spyware scandal two years ago. Their first response was to deceive/deny, and then to claim that spyware was good. They strongly resisted and defended until a mere two months ago, just a little bit earlier this year.

      There's no "hate", just the facts in pointing out the major malfeasance of BLU, which put it in such rarified company among the very worst of phone-sellers, sitting alongside ZTE and no-one else.

      Aside from BLU being proud to foist dangerous attacks on its customers for years, there is the fact that their products are shoddy and crude compared to products from competing makers in the same price sector. But that is not NEAR as bad as BLU deciding to assault its customers with ADUPS malware, lying about it when caught, and dragging their feet until very recently to settle matters.

      These are all facts. The only thing "false and misleading" is from the probably BLU shill above, who even went as far as to say in their first sentence that BLU solved the spyware problem in its smartphones in 1996.... 22 years ago, including adopting the "Google OTA" at least a decade before Google created it.

      Delete
  9. No information from any insider source but we were initially told by articles that the 6 inch new Moto phone would not be sold here in the USA.....I am guessing that within a few months the "real" Motorola E5plus will appear on the Moto web site as a universal phone ready for all 4 USA networks and probably with more memory than this Cricket variant. All the blah blah above not-withstanding.....eom..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Motorola's original announcement of the 6 inch E5 Plus in April said it would be available globally, including in the US. It's the 5.9 inch E6 Plus that's not coming to the US.

      Delete
    2. An April PCMag article on the E5 and G6 phones reported the E5 models would only be available from carriers in the USA. The G6 models from carriers and an unlocked version.

      There are international version of the E5 on Amazon, but no CDMA, missing USA LTE bands, no warranty, etc.

      https://www.pcmag.com/news/360523/hands-on-with-motorolas-killer-cheap-phablet-the-e5-plus

      Delete
  10. Anonymous June 24, 2018 at 6:10 AM which significantly better phone do you recommend for $20 more? I would love an unlocked phone with regular updates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E-Bay Used iPhone 6s unlocked from reputable seller for $159. Smooth as silk and will get regular updates for at least 2 more years. Enjoy your day!

      Delete
    2. I easily found one with a 99.7 rating.... that's really good actually.

      Delete
Comment Page :


All comments must be approved before they will appear. The following types of comments will not be approved: off topic comments, insults or personal attacks directed at other commenters, bigotry, hate, sexism and profanity.