Smartphone for about €200 advice please

dinneenp

Hi,
So I broke yet another iPhone so I'm looking to get a new phone.
Not going to bother getting the iPhone fixed, it's iPhone 3 and has a few bits broken.

So I'm going to get a new phone. I'm on Meteor, my wife, her mum and sister are too so I'll probably stay with Meteor for the free Meteor to Meteor calls.
I pay about €20 for free meteor to meteor, 200 mins & texts to any other network. I'm on 30 day rolling contract

I'm happy to buy from Amazon etc or buy into contract if it works out not too expensive.

I see the Sony Experia P is free on 18 month contract, €25 per month.
don't really know how to compares to Samsung Galaxy 3 etc.
Anyone have any advice for about €200 max?
I use the phone for calls, e-mail, browsing, apps etc.
cheers,
Pa.

fermanagh_man

Nokia Lumia (windows phone)

Different models out there but you will get the 800 for less than €200

andrewdeerpark

Previous poster is on the right track go for either the Lumia 520 or 620. Far better than those cheap and nasty Android low end phones. Great performance, expandable memory to 64GB, excellent camera and so easy to use.

Here's a review.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/nokia-lumia-620_Mobile-Phone_review

All operators except Three sell them they will shove a Samsung at you

dinneenp

Thanks, just had a quick look at them.
They're both only €30 with 18 month contract.
The 820 is better specs over the 620, bigger screen etc. so presume that'd be the one to go for.

andrewdeerpark

My wife has the 820 since xmas its an excellent phone cannot go wrong. Just remember to create a microsoft account (if you have a hotmail address you are already sorted) install skydrive and all your content (photos, docs) and contacts are automatically backup up to the cloud you get 7GB data.

goz83

at least you will have a few quid left over to buy a good case, which you definitely need.

circadian

Unless you're crazy about modding etc I'd go the windows phone route in that budget. The Lumia 620 is packed with features and although people complain about lack of apps there's almost everything you need and the marketplace is growing.

I'm using an older 7.8 device but anyone I know that made the move to WP8, especially the budget range, has been delighted with the reliability, speed and smoothness of the system.

Francie Barrett

I would avoid those cheap Lumia's to be honest. Compared to the equivalent Android phones, they are under specced both in hardware and software terms. If you're talking about spending €200 you will get a much superior Android phone.

For example, Expansys have the Acer Cloud Mobile available sim-free for £170 http://www.expansys.com/acer-cloud-mobile-white-238638/.

It runs Android 4.0, it has twice the RAM that the Lumia has, it has a vastly superior CPU, it has a vastly superior and bigger screen, it has NFC, it actually has a frontal camera, etc.

circadian

The difference in hardware is more to do with OS requirements rather than value for money. Android seems to need a lot of power to get running compared to windows.

andrewdeerpark

Windows phone is really fluid and fast when compared to Android. The Acer Cloud phone mentioned is a good phone let down by a bad camera. All the Nokia's have excellent camera's.

pleasant Co.

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I would avoid those cheap Lumia's to be honest. Compared to the equivalent Android phones, they are under specced both in hardware and software terms. If you're talking about spending €200 you will get a much superior Android phone.

For example, Expansys have the Acer Cloud Mobile available sim-free for £170 http://www.expansys.com/acer-cloud-mobile-white-238638/.

It runs Android 4.0, it has twice the RAM that the Lumia has, it has a vastly superior CPU, it has a vastly superior and bigger screen, it has NFC, it actually has a frontal camera, etc.

True, these phones couldn't run android well, but since they run Windows Phone they're absolutely brilliant as it doesn't need the kind of hardware android needs in order to function reactively well, in fact these phones as "under specced" as they are by android standards run smooth as butter on windows phone. It really is amazing to see just how much power android requires just in order to operate.

dinneenp

goz83 wrote: »

at least you will have a few quid left over to buy a good case, which you definitely need.

It was like something out of Final Destination-
one of my kids handled and dropped the phone breaking the case. That evening I sat on the couch, iphone fell off, bounced on my Croc (don't comment about Crocs, they are ugly but very comfortable) and landed in a cup of tea...

Francie Barrett

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Windows phone is really fluid and fast when compared to Android. The Acer Cloud phone mentioned is a good phone let down by a bad camera. All the Nokia's have excellent camera's.

That's not true at all. My wife has a Lumia 800 and it consistently produces blurry out of focus shots even in good sunlight.

I had a Lumia 920 and it was so disappointing it was unreal.

Francie Barrett

pleasant Co. wrote: »

True, these phones couldn't run android well, but since they run Windows Phone they're absolutely brilliant as it doesn't need the kind of hardware android needs in order to function reactively well, in fact these phones as "under specced" as they are by android standards run smooth as butter on windows phone. It really is amazing to see just how much power android requires just in order to operate.

Those lower end Windows Phones will not run a lot of apps because of limited RAM. If they're not running many apps on the Windows Store today, the situation will be even worse in a year.

BabyMonkeyy

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Those lower end Windows Phones will not run a lot of apps because of limited RAM. If they're not running many apps on the Windows Store today, the situation will be even worse in a year.

What are you talking about? The windows app store has gotten much better as of late and with demand for windows 8 phones on the rise it is only going to get better.

Francie Barrett

BabyMonkeyy wrote: »

What are you talking about? The windows app store has gotten much better as of late and with demand for windows 8 phones on the rise it is only going to get better.

Apps like Subway Surfer and Temple Run require 1GB of RAM, the lower/mid-range of Lumia's only have 512MB of RAM.

The Windows Phone app store is still awful. Yes, volume is increasing, but the quality of apps is awful in many cases.

con___manx1

go into a phone shop and ask if they have any trade ins. i got an iphone 4 for 100 euro. not a mark on it

BostonB

Francie Barrett wrote: »

That's not true at all. My wife has a Lumia 800 and it consistently produces blurry out of focus shots even in good sunlight.

I had a Lumia 920 and it was so disappointing it was unreal.

Sounds like there an issue with the user interface on focusing from here

http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/reviews/item/13750_Nokia_Lumia_800-Part_3-Camera_.php

http://mywpstory.com/2012/04/camera-tip-taking-better-photos-with-your-new-nokia-lumia-900-windows-phone/

Some people can obviously take good shots so theres a knack to it. On my Ace 2 its struggles to get a quick focus on default mode, but switch to sport mode and its vastly better. But it doesnt remember it, so you have to switch to it each time. You have to wonder do they test these properly at all.

BostonB

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Apps like Subway Surfer and Temple Run require 1GB of RAM, the lower/mid-range of Lumia's only have 512MB of RAM.

The Windows Phone app store is still awful. Yes, volume is increasing, but the quality of apps is awful in many cases.

They are games not apps, if you want to be picky.

Curiously enough these games don't need that much ram on other devices, like the IOS. Which suggest this is a bad port. They optimised Angry Birds Star Wars and Angry Birds Space to use less RAM. On the 610 with 256mb.

PaulieC

I had an 800 and now have a 920 and I can take sharp pictures with both.

Francie, you're becoming no better than a troll with your neverending slagging off windows phones. I would instantly disregard your opinion on anything WP related as you seem to have a particular, irrational hatred for all things Microsoft (reading your posts in the tablet forums too).

Francie Barrett

That's not true. I had a lot of praise of the Lumia 800 when it was €130, I even bought one for my wife. When you compare like for like though, Windows Phone falls flat on its arse when compared with iOs and Android. This isn't just my opinion, IDC only just came out and put Windows Phone market share at 3.2%. That's an abysmal figure for an OS that's 2.5 years old at this stage and has had so much money thrown at it.

For the moment, Joe Soap on the street is better off with Android or Apple. For the record, I am not even a fan of either. I have a Nexus 4 for development and testing, but my daily phone is still a Nokia E7.

Source http://www.macrumors.com/2013/05/16/android-and-ios-continue-to-dominate-smartphone-market-as-windows-phone-shows-signs-of-life/

wilser

Yes but for €200 you can't compare like with like as ios doesn't exist in this price bracket.
op like others have said I think you are better off going with wp8, as a low spec android phone is torture.

TBi

I'd put my weight behind WP8 too. I used all three OS's and Windows phone stands shoulders with iOS for me. Android on the other hand... ugh... maybe AOSP on a top of the range handset it would be good. I used a mid range phone and it was bad, i can't imagine how bad it could be on a sub €200 phone.

BostonB

Problem with Windows Mobile was it didn't have any top end phones and no budget phones, and WP7 was missing a lot of stuff. With Wp8 and new low end phones. Its market share should improve now. I use Android on budget and mid range devices, its a little clunky IMO. I'd consider a budget Wp8 to play with though.

Francie Barrett

wilser wrote: »

op like others have said I think you are better off going with wp8, as a low spec android phone is torture.

Huh? The phone I linked to for €200 is much better specced than the equivalent Windows Phone.

It runs Android 4.0, it has twice the RAM that the Lumia has, it has a vastly superior CPU, it has a vastly superior and bigger screen, it has NFC, it actually has a frontal camera, etc.

Francie Barrett

TBi wrote: »

Android on the other hand... ugh... maybe AOSP on a top of the range handset it would be good. I used a mid range phone and it was bad, i can't imagine how bad it could be on a sub €200 phone.

So you've used Android once on a "mid range" phone an undetermined time ago?

What was the phone, how long ago was it?

BostonB

Android really needs a dualcore processor and at least 512mb of ram if not more.

dinneenp

con___manx1 wrote: »

go into a phone shop and ask if they have any trade ins. i got an iphone 4 for 100 euro. not a mark on it

Do you mean trade in my iphone or ask if they sell trade ins?
Also do you mean a phone shop like O2, Meteor or a shop that unlocks phones?

cunnifferous

Have to say that acer for £170 has excellent specs for the price. Lumia 820 has similar specs (lower res screen actually) but in most places I've seen it is at least €100 more.. Just my 2c anyway

TBi

Francie Barrett wrote: »

So you've used Android once on a "mid range" phone an undetermined time ago?

What was the phone, how long ago was it?

Motorola Defy when it was released. Bloody painful, i changed from it to a cheap Windows Phone (HTC Trophy) and the difference was unbelievable.

*Sits waiting for the obligatory "Oh that phone was a BAD Android phone, the other ones are SOO much better" argument...*

cunnifferous wrote: »

. Lumia 820 has similar specs (lower res screen actually)

Just to say, lower res does not mean lower quality. Colour definition/ backlight bleed and colours changing if you are not looking straight on are problems with cheap screens, no matter how high the resolution is. I'd prefer a lower res screen with better quality than a high res that's crap.

Also specs are different from Windows Phone, it doesn't need a massive dual/quad core to run smooth like Android.

Dan_Solo

Have a look over at the Jiayu thread. Top quality build Android 4.1/4.2 phones, 4 inch screen, 1Ghz/1.2Ghz dual/quad cores, 1Gb min RAM etc. All well under €200. They'll play GTA3 which is good enough proof of their power for me!

Francie Barrett

TBi wrote: »

Motorola Defy when it was released. Bloody painful, i changed from it to a cheap Windows Phone (HTC Trophy) and the difference was unbelievable.

*Sits waiting for the obligatory "Oh that phone was a BAD Android phone, the other ones are SOO much better" argument...*

Haven't used one personally, and it probably wasn't even the worst Android phone of its era. I remember spending €500 for a Sony Xperia X10 a few years back thinking that I was getting the creme de la creme of Android phones. It was perhaps the worst phone I ever owned. You could only install 3-4 apps at anytime before getting an out of memory error. The Sony UI layer (Timescapes or something) was an absolute pig that crapped out constantly. There were zombie tasks constantly running that could never be shut down properly. The list of issues was endless and I ended up selling it after a few weeks. It was so awful I didn't go anywhere near Android for several years.

The main issues with crap Android devices isn't so much memory or the CPU that's being used. The biggest issue is when a manufacturer bundles their own UI on top of Android. The Sony Ericsson I had was probably one of the worst examples of a manufacturer UI that ever graced an Android phone. HTC's was a little better, but unfortunately their hardware is appalling and has a tendency to pack in just after the warranty expires. Even though Samsung's UI was clunky it worked ok and their hardware at least was excellent. It wasn't until the Samsung Galaxy S2 was released in mid-2011 that we got anywhere near a decent Android and the end of 2011 until we got a pretty decent version of Android without any customization at all (the Samsung Galaxy Nexus).

The new 4.0+ devices that either run stock Android or a version of Android with very little customization are a world apart from the crap we used to see.

circadian

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Huh? The phone I linked to for €200 is much better specced than the equivalent Windows Phone.

It's been stated before that the specs for WP will be different because it doesn't need that kind of power to run smoothly.

You're like a dog with a bone, I remember your posting in the Lumia 800 thread where you constantly tried to write off any positives of the WP platform.

OP ultimately it's your choice, the Lumia 620 is a cracking little phone and you could probably pick it up on amazon around €200. You should pop into a phone store and spend a few minutes with each platform and see what flavour suits you.

AntiVirus

I'd only consider getting Android phone if it has a quad core cpu and at the very least 1GB of ram.

FGR

The Galaxy S3 Mini is not much more than 200 on Amazon at the moment. If I can't get my Lumia 800 repaired I'll more than likely be going down that road.

dinneenp

Thanks for the many replies.
I guess it's a personal thing so there's no clear winner.
I've been checking many online, including
Sony Xperia P, T, Samsung Galaxy III mini, Huawei ascend g510.
And just saw the comment about the Jiayu now, will check them.
It doesn't make it easier when you can't play with most of them instore.

BostonB

The Galaxy S3 Mini would be my vote. Removable battery latest OS, SD slot, decent camera, decent screen. The Sony, has poor battery life and no slot ( i prefer it otherwise). Huawei cameras don't tend to be as good the Sony/Samsung. The only issue with the S3 Mini is the price.

andrewdeerpark

I cannot understand the hatred of the Windows phone platform by the Android camp. At every opportunity they criticize without actually providing any facts apart from the limited apps argument. These people are blinded by their everything Microsoft hatred keep that in mind when reviewing some posters here.

Francie Barrett

If you're referring to me, I am not in the "Android camp" - my daily phone is a Nokia E7. Android doesn't meet a lot of my daily requirements, however, I accept that it's the best choice at this time for the majority of users.

For the record, I have phones on all the major platforms. I even have a Lumia 920 sitting in a drawer gathering dust. Beautiful hardware, but just far too crippled by Windows Phone to be of use to me.

As for me being biased, the Windows Phone fans here are worse. I have recommended a Windows Phone on lots of occasions. The Lumia 800 on clearance was a great deal (and I would certainly advise picking up one over a Lumia 520).

circadian

Francie Barrett wrote: »

For the record, I have phones on all the major platforms. I even have a Lumia 920 sitting in a drawer gathering dust. Beautiful hardware, but just far too crippled by Windows Phone to be of use to me.

As for me being biased, the Windows Phone fans here are worse. I have recommended a Windows Phone on lots of occasions. The Lumia 800 on clearance was a great deal (and I would certainly advise picking up one over a Lumia 520).

Crippled how? Also, have you ever used a 520?

I'll admit I love my WP, but I also loved my old Android. It's just at this price, there's no way I'd pay for a lower budget Android and expect it to run smoothly 6 months down the line. I've had my 710 for over a year and have experienced NO ISSUES whatsoever in relation to slowdown, lag, crashing, freezing or anything else of the sort.

In fact the only issue I've had is when I dropped it and cracked the screen, which still works fine.

dinneenp

Hi,
Any thoguhts on the Motorola Razr I? Getting very good reviews and price is good too.

Alpha Dog 1

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
Any thoguhts on the Motorola Razr I? Getting very good reviews and price is good too.

Sorry, haven't read the rest of the thread but for a cheap android phone you cannot go wrong with either the Huawei ascend or the y 300. Both very good phones for the money! The y300 even runs 4.1