Microsoft Lumia 650 review: great design, terrible chipset

Microsoft has announced the Lumia 650, and there’s already a review of the thing.

This is such a shame, as this would have been a great Windows phone if only it had a decent processor inside it. Battery life was very respectable at 11h 36m in our continuous video playback test with the screen brightness set to 170cd/m2, and its screen and build quality are practically second to none in its price range. However, when it’s so crippled by its bad choice of chipset, the Lumia 650 just can’t measure up to its infinitely superior predecessor. If you’re looking for a cheap Windows handset, the Lumia 640 is still your best choice, as you can now pick one up for £120 SIM-free or £90 on pre-pay. The only silver lining is that this could be the basis for a great mid-range Windows phone just around the corner.

I have no idea what Microsoft is doing with Windows Phone at this point. Nobody wants an underperforming Windows Phone device, and those that buy one without being aware of the bad chipset will just feel bitten.

Either give Windows Phone the proper love and attention it so badly needs in both software and hardware, or just kill it with dignity. What Microsoft is and has been doing to Windows Phone is a travesty.

37 Comments

  1. 2016-02-16 12:27 am
  2. 2016-02-16 12:33 am
    • 2016-02-16 2:42 pm
  3. 2016-02-16 2:22 am
    • 2016-02-16 5:27 pm
      • 2016-02-17 12:29 am
  4. 2016-02-16 7:00 am
    • 2016-02-16 1:39 pm
      • 2016-02-16 2:30 pm
      • 2016-02-16 7:40 pm
  5. 2016-02-16 7:54 am
    • 2016-02-16 8:00 am
      • 2016-02-16 9:23 am
        • 2016-02-16 10:26 am
          • 2016-02-16 12:06 pm
          • 2016-02-17 1:02 am
    • 2016-02-18 2:22 pm
  6. 2016-02-16 8:19 am
    • 2016-02-16 8:30 am
      • 2016-02-16 10:32 am
        • 2016-02-16 6:46 pm
    • 2016-02-16 3:00 pm
  7. 2016-02-16 2:46 pm
    • 2016-02-16 5:21 pm
      • 2016-02-16 7:06 pm
    • 2016-02-16 7:45 pm
      • 2016-02-16 7:48 pm
        • 2016-02-16 9:34 pm
        • 2016-02-17 8:59 am
          • 2016-02-17 9:23 am
          • 2016-02-17 1:34 pm
          • 2016-02-17 2:45 pm
          • 2016-02-17 10:26 pm
          • 2016-02-17 10:41 pm
      • 2016-02-17 7:00 pm
        • 2016-02-18 12:01 am
          • 2016-02-18 4:54 pm