backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by CyCl0n3.. on Jul 25 at 3:05 AM

The Lumia 530 will be priced at roughly $115 when it launches in August

The Lumia 530 was first outed earlier this month by EVleaks, but today is its official unveil party. The Lumia 530 replaces the Lumia 520 in Microsoft’s smartphone lineup, and is predictably a budget device with specs to match.
 
The Lumia 530 comes equipped with a 4” 854x480 display, 1.2GHz quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 200 processor, a miserly 512MB of RAM, 4GB of internal storage, and a microSD slot (can accommodate up to a 128GB microSDHC card). While the Lumia 530 features a 5MP rear camera (no flash included), it doesn’t come with a front-facing camera for video conferencing.

 
The Lumia 530 does, however, include Windows Phone 8.1 which means that it gets full access to all the niceties that the latest OS release brings including the Cortana personal digital assistant and support for virtual buttons (which the Lumia 530 includes).
 
The Lumia 530 is available in green orange, white and black, and will be priced at around $115 when it hits the U.S. market (single-SIM version). A dual-SIM variant will also be available and will be priced at roughly $134.

 
The Lumia 520 has been the most successful Windows Phone device to date, and Microsoft is looking to continue those efforts with the 530. With Microsoft’s somewhat odd Android-based X/X2 smartphones all but dead, the Lumia 530 will help the company unify its efforts (and resources) as it does battle with Android and iOS on the global smartphone stage.

Sources: Nokia [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Should have been 1GB
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 8:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of apps that will not run with 512MB. I wouldn't worry about the amount of Flash since it has a memory card slot, and costs have to be cut somewhere, but the amount of RAM is crucial.

I also hate these really low res displays, but I have come to be resigned to the fact that budget phones are going to have crappy screen. Glad I'm not the target market, I would find such a resolution nearly unusable.




RE: Should have been 1GB
By Murloc on 7/23/2014 8:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
can you make an example of app that will not run?
I'm interested in the 530 but I don't know what the limits are.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 8:55:23 AM , Rating: 3
Mostly games like Temple Run and Asphalt 7. The Engadget app, for some reason, also requires 1 GB. The upcoming lock-screen App, but that is supposed to be tuned in the future to use 512MB. I know there are more, but off the top on my head, I can't think of them.

Some are probably poorly coded ports using more memory than they should (looking at you, Engadget).


RE: Should have been 1GB
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 9:26:01 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, seems like several of the apps that used to require 1GB have been updated to run in 512MB. But the ones I mentioned previously all still need 1GB


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Labotomizer on 7/23/2014 9:31:44 AM , Rating: 1
I'm with you. Plus, if developers are still worried over 512 support, they'll never get around to pushing the Icon's internals. Oh well.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 11:19:37 AM , Rating: 3
Much like PC games, it wouldn't be tough to support multiple quality settings. For phones with more memory, it simply means loading higher quality mipmaps. Of course, it actually requires the developers to do so ;)


RE: Should have been 1GB
By crispbp04 on 7/23/2014 12:50:41 PM , Rating: 3
programs that are poorly ported and not tested on the 512mb emulator will not work well, which is the small minority of apps.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By cokbun on 7/23/2014 9:12:25 AM , Rating: 2
using 630 for a week now, it's a nice phone, screen resolution doesnt bother me at all, all apps seems to run just fine, i dont play aspalt / temple run. i don't like those mobile games.battery is a little weak, ( maybe i just play with it too much )


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 9:55:26 AM , Rating: 3
I can get a Moto G for this much, less at some places. Even the Moto E has a better display than this.

I'm with you on the quality of the display, it's WAY too poor for this price point. I really don't get why people think 480 is acceptable even for low-end smartphones these days, it's just not.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 10:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
Hardware is the weakness of the Windows Phone ecosystem right now. Big fan of the OS, not so much a fan of the lack of high-end devices. I love the camera on my 1020, but the hefty image processing can tax the dual-core CPU when trying to take rapid shots. The CPU is more than adequate for every other task I have for it, though. It also screams for removable storage. Why they don't have an memory card slot on a phone that takes 41MP images is baffling.

I want a 1030 with those two issues fixed.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By themaster08 on 7/23/2014 10:24:25 AM , Rating: 3
Both the 530 and 630 are, in my opinion, a disappointment from a hardware standpoint.

The only 2 things that distinguish these devices are the screen size, and the more curved design of the 530. Everything else appears to be exactly the same.

Besides, other than the CPU, the 530 is pretty much the same as the 520.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I also agree with Reclaimer. The Moto G is a much better value device in this price point.

Microsoft/Nokia are quickly allowing this segment of the market to slip through their fingers.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By a5cent on 7/24/2014 7:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder to what degree economies of scale play a role.

The Lumia 520 was sold about 12 million times since release, but most half popular Android handsets sell more than that in a quarter.

I suspect that pretty much guarantees that Nokia/Microsoft have no chance of being price competitive.

They truly have a huge uphill battle.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 11:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
This is my problem with proprietary ecosystems controlled from the top down by as single entity:

You'll never get everything you want or every combination of things you want.

Having said that, Windows Phone still has a good amount of variety. Microsoft didn't go full-retard like Apple with the phone restrictions.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 11:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
I expect it to get better with many new OEMs joining, but I'm also afraid most of them will market to the budget category. I'm interested to see what Lenevo brings out though.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 11:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Lenovo has always had a good track record for high quality business class products. If their phone engineering is even half as good as their laptop line, they should have some pretty nice phones.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 11:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
This really has little to do with being a "proprietary ecosystem." Microsoft has a bunch of OEM partners that are allowed to make Windows Phones which can include a large variety of hardware specs. It's just that Nokia was the only one actually making any. The lack of variety is just due to a lack of marketshare, and thus a lack of interest by OEMs to invest money into lots of different phone models.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 11:40:31 AM , Rating: 1
However those OEM's can only use hardware that Windows Phone supports. They have to wait for Microsoft to update/patch the OS, which can be quite a long wait as their update cycle for Windows Phone seems to be glacially slow. And they cannot alter the OS however they see fit to suit the needs of their devices.

Windows Phone is not open source, so it's absolutely a proprietary ecosystem as I see it.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 11:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
They always support the latest Qualcomm SoCs, which is the same chip flagship Android phones use, so there is nothing inherent in Windows that slows down top end hardware introduction. If anything, it limits the cheap Chinese OEMs as many of them use Mediatek or other Chinese ARM variants that are not supported.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 12:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly does Android support that Windows Phone doesn't, that could also not be implemented with a driver? As far as I can tell WP 8 brought things up to par with things like SD cards, NFC, high end quad core chips, etc. It's running the full windows kernel, after all.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 1:33:14 PM , Rating: 1
????

I haven't used the word "Android" once here.

I always thought Microsoft tied hardware compatibility into Windows Phone versions. Windows Phone 7 didn't support newer hardware, users had to wait for Windows Phone 8 phones. I distinctly remember that happening.

If this has changed, please excuse me and disregard that entire post. And please stop being so hostile...


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 2:28:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I haven't used the word "Android" once here.

It seemed very heavily implied with the references to "proprietary" and "open source" and "variety of hardware" etc etc. If you go back and re-read the chain of posts you can probably see how I might get that impression.

quote:
I always thought Microsoft tied hardware compatibility into Windows Phone versions.

AFAIK it currently only supports a subset of ARM CPUs including Qualcomm and NVIDIA tegra chips (and maybe a few others), but outside of the main CPU architecture, you can pretty much write a driver for anything you want. MS no longer dictates such strict restrictions for what the phone can and cannot have. (Maybe some, but its ultimately pretty customizable now)

quote:
And please stop being so hostile...

Sorry, that's not how I was trying to come across.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 4:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
8.1 greatly eased the hardware restrictions. Microsoft was aiming for a consistent experience with the guidelines, but it ended up minimizing OEM interest so they backtracked.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Labotomizer on 7/23/2014 5:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I think with WP7 it was more to set a minimum bar at the time and optimize the OS accordingly. With WP8 and the move to the NT core that was no longer as important as it was when they were still using the old CE core. WP8.1 lets OEMs use almost anything they want and even removes the requirement for hardware buttons.

Threshold should remove these restrictions completely though and let people do whatever they want. If all Windows versions are on a single code base then phones will support any hardware just as the rest of the windows world does.

The odd thing is R77 is right in that MS was never very vocal about the relaxing of restrictions in modern versions of WP. We knew it supported more current hardware but still seemed tied to OS releases.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Sonicmerlin on 7/23/2014 7:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They have to wait for Microsoft to update/patch the OS, which can be quite a long wait as their update cycle for Windows Phone seems to be glacially slow


Are you serious? MS updating the OS is a huge benefit for both the OEMs and consumers. The OEMs suck at software and generally detest spending money on software engineers, and consumers can be assured even their lowest end, $50 Lumia 520 will be updated. "Glacial pace" is infinitely better than never getting another update, like in Android. In fact why can't Google do this? It's a ridiculous waste of engineering resources to require every single device to be updated individually. The vast majority of Android phones will never see an update.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By a5cent on 7/24/2014 7:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
For what it's worth, it's not the dual-core CPU that is being taxed by those 41MP images, but rather the DSP. The CPU only gets "hold" of the image after all post-capture processing has been completed.

Not that knowing this makes your situation any better, but knowing where the bottleneck truly lies may help with future purchasing decisions ;-)


RE: Should have been 1GB
By CyCl0n3 on 7/25/2014 3:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
This is wrong! In the case of the Lumia 1020 it uses the main System on Chip hardware to process the image. There is no dedicated DSP!


RE: Should have been 1GB
By hughlle on 7/23/2014 11:35:09 AM , Rating: 3
You have never seemed to understand this concept.

If person A finds this resolution acceptable on a low end phone, then that is that. Yet somehow you are always making these statements of peoples personal preferences somehow being wrong because you say so.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Mint on 7/23/2014 11:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't the real price point, just like $180 isn't the real price point for the Moto G.

The Nokia 520 was often available for $60-80. I expect the 530 to have similar pricing.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By hughlle on 7/23/2014 10:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
As you say, you hate them. This has a marginally larger resolution than my original HTC desire and i find the screen on that to be ablsolutely fine. In day to day use i don't even really see a difference between my desire and one M7 that would make me think the pixels were justified.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 11:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
The HTC Desire released four years ago. Think about it.

This has lower resolution than a phone released FOUR years ago.

Four years ago 480p was "fine" on a small phone. Today it's not, even at these price points.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By bug77 on 7/23/2014 11:29:50 AM , Rating: 3
Why?


RE: Should have been 1GB
By hughlle on 7/23/2014 11:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
Did you not read my post? I find the resolution absolutely fine, 4 years later. For every day use, i would not have a single issue using the desire instead of the One. The sole reason i picked up the one was for the larger screen to make texting the missus easier. 4 years later and it is still perfectly sufficient for me on a low end device. I do not need 1080p on a phone, it is pointless.

And the resolution is higher than the desire, not lower.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 11:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
I want 1080p because so many websites are designed with the 1920 width in mind now. Plus it means I can watch HD video in native res, not that I watch a lot of video on the phone, but it is nice when I do.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By hughlle on 7/23/2014 12:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
This is not about the people who have a desire for such a resolution. There are plenty of people with a desire for 4k. I have no issue with that. If you have a desire or requirement for 1080p or above, that's just fine, who am i to judge someone elses usage requirements?

This is about the people who find such inexcusable unacceptable 4 year old resolutions absolutely fine on their phone. But according to reclaimer this can't possibly be true, and anyone who is actually happy with such a resolution, well they're jut wrong. Because that would oppose his opinion on the matter.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 1:27:44 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is for the same money, you CAN get better specs and a better resolution.

We're not saying you CANNOT think 480p is "fine". That's great, nobody is taking your opinion from you.

quote:
But according to reclaimer this can't possibly be true


Please show me where the hell I said that or even implied it.

Yes it's factually true that 480p is an inferior resolution that impacts image quality. Nowhere did I say that a person couldn't acclimate themselves to this.

I'm 37 years old. Ever since I was a little kid I was watching things in 480p on TV and VCR tapes, and later DVD's. And we all thought it was "fine", and it was, until something better came along that is.

Why are you acting so damn offended over this??? If you want to settle for a 480p phone, fine. I see no reason why I should be shamed for pointing out there are much better options out there for the same money!


RE: Should have been 1GB
By bug77 on 7/23/2014 1:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm 37 years old. Ever since I was a little kid I was watching things in 480p on TV and VCR tapes, and later DVD's. And we all thought it was "fine", and it was, until something better came along that is.


Think about this: is Casablanca a better movie in HD?


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 1:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
You picked a bad example lol. The Casablanca 70'th Anniversary Blu-Ray is the finest black and white transfer I've seen on high-def, period, and up there with the best remasters ever created for the home theater environment.

So no the movie isn't "better" in HD, but it's visually AMAZING in it.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By bug77 on 7/23/2014 2:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
But you get my drift: a 4" screen is a 4" screen at whatever resolution. 800x480 looks perfectly fine. 1280x720 may look better, but it will not enable me to do anything I can't do at 800x480.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 2:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yup I got your drift, I just had to go all cinemaphile on ya :)

quote:
1280x720 may look better, but it will not enable me to do anything I can't do at 800x480.


I agree with that, of course.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By ritualm on 7/23/2014 1:46:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The problem is for the same money, you CAN get better specs and a better resolution.

Only because Android is one bloated, inefficient piece of software that requires more hardware to run than everyone else.

Had a tablet with quad A9's, 1GB RAM, 720p display, basically enough hardware to beat a 1st-generation Windows Vista netbook on the spec sheet - and it stutters on low bitrate 480p MP4 video. Higher than 480p? Forget it. HELLO? That 1st-gen netbook could playback the same 480p video just fine, with a bigger software payload and less hardware to boot!
quote:
Please show me where the hell I said that or even implied it.

Your posting history is full of it.
quote:
Yes it's factually true that 480p is an inferior resolution that impacts image quality.

Resolution and image quality are not necessarily mutually inclusive. The megapixel war is replete with examples why less is more.
quote:
Why are you acting so damn offended over this???

Quit acting like a spoiled 9 year old trust fund baby with a Glock, Reclaimer77. You say you're 37 years old, well you're not acting like one at all.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 1:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, it's time I acted my age and just ignored you for the sake of reasonable conversation.

Troll on, brother.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By hughlle on 7/23/2014 6:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
But I don't need it, its fine at the lower res. I don't buy bigger and better just because I can, if I have no need for it. In the case of phones, I buy what I want. If the HTC one was a 720p display, and the Samsung s5 was 1080p, I would buy the HTC. Many people do not buy a phone because if specs, they buy them because they like the phone and it does what they need.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Spuke on 7/23/2014 12:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you not read my post? I find the resolution absolutely fine, 4 years later
You're not understanding his post. What's unacceptable is NOT you liking YOUR 4 year old phone, but having a brand NEW phone with a 4 year old screen resolution. Why do you guys take whatever Rec says as a personal attack? Some of you act like he's your dad or something.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 1:09:23 PM , Rating: 3
I think you're also missing the point.

Reclaimer stated that said resolution is not fine for today's hardware, even at that price point.

hughlle is stating that he, and many others, still find this an acceptable resolution, even four years later, meaning that there are people out there buying a new phone who will also deem it as acceptable.

I actually got to carry around a Lumia 630 for a few days, and as someone who isn't bothered by low resolution smart phones, I was not at all bothered by it. I found it a completely acceptable resolution for allow end phone with that screen size.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer stated that said resolution is not fine for today's hardware, even at that price point.


And why is that a problem? Am I not entitled to say that? Do I no longer reserve the right to an opinion?


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Spuke on 7/23/2014 2:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And why is that a problem? Am I not entitled to say that? Do I no longer reserve the right to an opinion?
This. And, yes, I do believe I get Rec's point.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 3:49:13 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe this is a cultural/regional thing with your choices of wording, since this seems to happen a lot. But this sentence:

"Today it's not, even at these price points."

Is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. You are asserting that "this is not true."

Did you really mean:
"I don't believe that this is acceptable, even at these price points"?

Since we are on the internet and people cannot convey emotion or tone over text (other than things like really heavy sarcasm where it's super obvious), I have no choice but to interpret the things you say literally.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 1:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
I mean really, some days here I think these guys would act outraged if I said the sky was blue.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 3:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
Woah woah woah. In some places the sky is too cloudy to be blue, why do you have to be so biased and act like that's what it's like everywhere!?


RE: Should have been 1GB
By bug77 on 7/23/2014 1:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
If 800x480 was fine for a 3.7-4" screen 4 years ago, why wouldn't that be true today? I've recently upgraded from my old Desire S and I can tell you, I didn't upgrade because the screen was ugly.
Yes, more pixels can be squeezed onto that surface, but to what end? You can't show more text as that would make it painfully small. It would only serve to massage pixel peepers' egos. And increase power draw.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Spuke on 7/23/2014 2:22:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If 800x480 was fine for a 3.7-4" screen 4 years ago, why wouldn't that be true today?
Because tech has changed and a manufacturer no longer needs to have old screen tech in a NEW phone. If people are satisfied with old res phones, then get an old phone with the old res OR the manufacturer should at least reflect that piece of old tech in the price. Charging TODAY'S prices for old stuff is unacceptable especially when you can TODAY'S tech for nearly the same price. Comprende? Geezus, this ain't rocket science people!


RE: Should have been 1GB
By inighthawki on 7/23/2014 3:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, but if it was acceptable 4 years ago, and is still acceptable today, that lower resolution panel an be manufactured at a lower cost, amounting to a device that is cheaper, but still acceptable. I'm fairly certain these low end phones are definitely cheaper than they used to be.

I mean, 4-5 years back we're comparing to an iPhone 3GS/iPhone 4. The screen resolutions were 480×320 and 960×640 and they had 256MB and 512MB of RAM, respectively. By all measures these ultra cheap budget phones are nearly as good or better than a 4 year old high end smartphone, but WAY cheaper. Price is definitely reflected here.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By ritualm on 7/23/2014 1:31:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The HTC Desire released four years ago. Think about it.

This has lower resolution than a phone released FOUR years ago.

Four years ago 480p was "fine" on a small phone. Today it's not, even at these price points.

This little fact matters HOW? When you're making phones for the budget market - where entire handsets are sold for less than $100 without a contract - you have to cut corners everywhere you can. Construction is usually chintzy plastic, just enough RAM and storage so the OS doesn't stutter, smallish displays, etc.

What YOU consider as the minimum spec easily prices the phones out of this market segment. Furthermore, you have zero understanding of user needs - even going as far as claiming wives love their husbands giving them Galaxy Tabs more than they would with Nokia 520s.

Unfortunately, Android as a whole requires more hardware than both iOS and WP. It's not tuned to run smoothly on the low-end hardware that phones in this segment are used to. It needs 720p, fast dual-cores or low-powered quads, lots of RAM and other stuff - not because they make for a "better" sell, but because they're absolutely required to not make the user experience suck. All of those specs drive costs up... the last thing you want to happen for a budget phone.

...

And by the way, that threat I made about moving out of Android and using a WP8 phone as my daily driver months ago? I wasn't bluffing, sir. Getting a 620 by the end of the month.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 1:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
First off why do you assume that's a "threat"? Windows Phone 8.1 is an amazing OS with a feature set finally on par with the competition. And I'm genuinely thrilled that Windows Phone users have been given a digital assistant. I've SAID that here several times.

I hope you enjoy your new phone. Why wouldn't I?

quote:
Unfortunately, Android as a whole requires more hardware than both iOS and WP


Well no offense, but that's just more FUD. Motorola is using basically AOSP ROM's in their budget phones, no special "tuning" or monster specs. And they are getting GREAT reviews from what I can tell.

quote:
even going as far as claiming wives love their husbands giving them Galaxy Tabs more than they would with Nokia 520s.


Sigh..

If you couldn't tell I was joking, you need more help than I believed.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By ritualm on 7/23/2014 1:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off why do you assume that's a "threat"?

Watching you pretending to take the high road here is hilarious. You're not pulling wool over my eyes, dingbat.
quote:
I hope you enjoy your new phone. Why wouldn't I?

You wouldn't, and you said it yourself - the 630 flat out sucks because it has less display res than HTC Desire from 3-4 years ago.
quote:
Well no offense, but that's just more FUD.

Care to explain how can both iOS and WP8 get away with even less hardware than what's packed into a Moto G?

Android is one bloated, inefficient piece of software. That is not FUD. It's a dog and everyone knows this for years.
quote:
If you couldn't tell I was joking

A distastefully bad joke. There is nothing funny about it.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By ritualm on 7/23/2014 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
530, not 630

Edit function works as advertised. /s


RE: Should have been 1GB
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2014 2:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
????

There is NO such thing as a "low end" Apple device. How can I compare iOS to the Moto G, when Apple releases ONE phone model that has the highest-end specs in the entire market?

Even their "budget" iPhone 5C has specs that blow the Moto G away. It was a ~$600 phone!

How does iOS "get way with less hardware" again? There is NO Moto G equivalent running iOS. Get a clue please.

quote:
the 630 flat out sucks because it has less display res than HTC Desire from 3-4 years ago.


More out-of-context BS. I never said that, and the farthest I went was to criticize the RESOLUTION. Nowhere did I say the 630 would "flat out suck" because of it.

You know what, I really am just going to have to ignore you. You are bringing all this angst and hostility to this silly conversation that I don't believe is justified by any statement I've made. Stop being a little brat, honestly.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By nikon133 on 7/23/2014 5:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Android's hardware requirements being higher than iOS or WP seem to be general perception; this might be related to previous versions of Android which were not as optimised as current build, but also to bloatware that Samsung and some others are keen on loading.

In my limited experience with Android devices, my Samsung Ace and Asus Transformer T100 were both very choppy even with basic tasks like scrolling through screens. T100 in particular, as it was released with Android 3.x and any kind of scrolling was atrocious. Android 4 made it significantly better but introduced number of stability and power issues... some were fixed with following updates, but some were not. And Ace was just bad phone.

When I think of iOS and WP devices I played with, things like that just didn't happen. OS available on devices' release was always butter-smooth. Even way back to iOS3 on my old 3Gs and WP7 on Lumia 710. Android historically simply didn't have that balance between concurring OS and hardware releases, at least not all of them.

Sure, while playing with new Sony, Sammy and HTC devices, they feel very different today... but previous experience still lingers in the background, and I still think that on average Android is less efficient than WP and iOS, even if that might not be true any more. In a way, it is like so many people thinking that Vista was broken mess for all it's lifetime, even if it was perfectly stable and functional platform after SP1, roughly. Bad first impression.


RE: Should have been 1GB
By bug77 on 7/23/2014 2:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately, Android as a whole requires more hardware than both iOS and WP. It's not tuned to run smoothly on the low-end hardware that phones in this segment are used to. It needs 720p, fast dual-cores or low-powered quads, lots of RAM and other stuff - not because they make for a "better" sell, but because they're absolutely required to not make the user experience suck.


No, it doesn't. The customizations from various manufacturers do, but look at the lowly Moto G or Moto E. They're just fine. In fact, since there's no real multitasking, most of the time it doesn't even use more than two cores.
What Android needs is a little more memory to run apps (technical stuff, I won't get into that right now). But even so, KitKat will work with only 512MB RAM. And Android L will bring even lower memory usage with the advent of a new runtime engine.


4GB?
By Gunbuster on 7/23/2014 10:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
4GB of internal storage?

Regressing the specs from the 52X is perplexing. My 521 with 8GB is pretty low on storage. I cant imagine it with 4GB...




RE: 4GB?
By Gondor on 7/23/2014 10:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
Could you imagine it with a 16GB SD card ? It will set you back less than $10, plus you can always go bigger if you need more room (and can afford it).

My beef with this phone isn't the internal storage - it's the absurdly small amount of RAM (for 2014 phone) and crappy camera. How does Moto G pack all those goodies (display, CPU, RAM, internal storage, camera) at similar price point ?


RE: 4GB?
By Gunbuster on 7/23/2014 10:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
But you'll get people putting in whatever (class 0) MicroSD they have sitting around. The phone will run like garbage, and they will say WP sucks.

Not a smart move by Microsoft over a chip that costs them $2


Hugely successful?
By bug77 on 7/23/2014 10:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
How do you translate that into market share?
Ok, some buyers expressed interest because of the low price. But "hugely successful"? Really?




RE: Hugely successful?
By HardwareDufus on 7/23/2014 3:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
This phone will end up selling below $80 very quickly. Remember it is the lowest spec'd phone in the entire windows lineup. Despite that, it will be a very capable phone. The 630 on the other hand will probably sell for $140.... So there's it's nearest competitor.

I have the 920 and the 520. In day to day use... I don't detect that much of a difference in the user experience. Most could never justify the fact that my 920 cost me 3X as much as my 520.

The 4GB of storage is a little weak. But 4GB can fit a reasonable amount of applications. You'd then need to put your photos, music and videos on an external microSD. Not a huge deal.

My 920 has 32GB of storage. I'm only using 10GB. I have about 200 songs, 25 HD short videos (training/teaching purposes), 200 photos, some PDF files (training docs) and a TON of applications. Almost all of this can fit on the 520 if I just leave a few apps off and some files. The 530 however, definitely requires external storage... But once someone ponies up the $10 for that.. It will exceed the storage capacity of the 920/925/928/1020!


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki