Final Words

Designing an affordable phone is always going to have compromises. In this case, Nokia has hit on some reasonable compromises but gone too far in others. The lack of a proximity sensor was something that I didn’t miss at all, and the phone has no issue relying on the touch screen to know if it’s against your face for a phone call. This worked flawlessly in my experience, so it was the right call. The lack of an ambient light sensor was too much for me though, as I’ve come to count on it for using a device outdoors.

Another such compromise was the 512 MB of RAM, which is definitely one that went too far. It limits a good chunk of the app store’s game library from being able to be installed at all, which is just not acceptable in 2014. But again the storage of only 8 GB is no problem at all due to the included microSD card being able to add another 128 GB if needed, and Windows Phone 8.1 supports SD cards better than any other mobile OS.

The display is yet another compromise. Here we have a display which is almost at the top of our charts for accuracy, yet has a lowly resolution of 854x480. The lack of Glance screen support is another knock against it especially when the 620 of last year did include this feature.

One thing that Nokia nailed though is both the size and design. A 4.5” phone is a nice fit in the hand, and doesn’t run into any of the issues larger screened devices do with one handed use or being able to fit in your pocket. The phone is also nice and light, and with a great feel to it. I love the texture of the polycarbonate for this model with its matte finish. It never felt like it was going to slip out of my hand. The colors, as usual with Lumia phones, have a great range from pedestrian black to eye popping orange.

Using the 630 as a daily driver for a couple of weeks wasn’t a bad experience, and that says a lot about a phone with a retail price of around $160. Unfortunately for me, I found the phone had compromises in certain areas that were just too painful and would be issues for everyone. The first is the display resolution, which is just too low for 2014 and a device of this size. The second is the lack of RAM, which compromises the Windows Phone experience by limiting the number of apps available in the store.

I’ll admit my expectations were high when I received this phone after a good experience with the 620, and they were not quite met. Going forward in time, we generally expect progress and there’s not a clear case of progress here. As a successor to the 520, it does fairly well, and with the price of the 630 it’s much closer to the initial price of the 520 than the 620. The device is certainly faster than last year’s model and that’s a good thing, but the loss of features like the ambient light sensor and dedicated camera button make for a phone that’s not always a pleasure to use. If you don’t do a lot of gaming on your mobile device, you can get by with the 630. It’s always difficult to get the compromise just right, and in this case I think it’s very close but comes up a bit short in a few key areas. Price isn’t one of them though, and once again you get a decent smartphone experience for not a lot of money, but it’s just not the clear upgrade I was hoping it would be.

Software and SensorCore
Comments Locked

83 Comments

View All Comments

  • kyuu - Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - link

    Maybe the app, but there's no way for them to prevent you from using Google search in general.

    Regardless, who cares? Use Bing.
  • skiboysteve - Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - link

    using google search on a windows phone is a really bad idea. I'm glad they got rid of this option. The bing integration is absolutely fantastic and has a great, fast, beautiful, and intuitive interface when you hit the 'search' button.

    plus if you sign up for bing rewards, simply using your phone for a month gives you enough points for free gift cards
  • Cerb - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    What exactly is integration of search good for, compared to any other searching?
  • skiboysteve - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    Why do we even have apps instead of going to mobile websites? Same thing
  • Cerb - Saturday, July 26, 2014 - link

    That doesn't make any sense to me, either, when there is a website to use. My phone is quite capable of using most desktop website versions, and doing so is typically much quicker and easier than trying to deal with app, or a mobile site (crazy cluttered sites, like IMDB, are exceptions, but luckily, they aren't the norm).
  • tuxRoller - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    This is sort of how fxos works, and, since the browser engine is always running, starting those apps should be quite fast.
    If you look at eideticker (the fxos performance tool/dashboard) you can see startup times for various "apps". Even on low end hardware they're pretty good (and the nightlies are so much faster still).
  • 1d107 - Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - link

    T-Mobile version, Lumia 635, has LTE and internet sharing with Wi-Fi devices. Would be nice to get speed tests for it. Is there any difference in other features between 630 and 635?

    On the other hand, for a slightly higher price, a two-year old old HTC 8X has a lot more features, while being nearly the same size and weight.
  • Brett Howse - Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - link

    The 635 is identical except for the SoC which is the MSM8926 which supports LTE, but has the same quad-core Cortex A7 and Adreno 305 GPU.
  • SydneyBlue120d - Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - link

    Do You plan to do a review of the Nokia 930 too? Thanks.
  • frostyfiredude - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    This I'd be interested in, I'm semi looking at it for my next phone. My HTC 8X is nearing it's end so it's looking like a good replacement right now.

    So close to a potential 64-bit and 20nm FinFET release makes me question it though, for the sake of future proofing going 32-bit today seems iffy.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now