x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA

Nokia X Review

Nokia X 4.5

Posted: , by



Nokia X Review
Nokia X Review
Nokia X Review
Nokia X Review
Nokia X Review
Nokia X Review

One of the forefathers of the modern phone industry, Nokia is revered by many to this day for the level of build quality of its devices, and yet that didn't help the company when it was caught off guard by the stratospheric surge in demand for smartphones. Many thought that the Finnish company made all the wrong decisions, especially when it decided to go for an infant of an operating system in Windows Phone. The thought of what Nokia could have been like if it instead at least had hedged its bets, and adopted Android as well, is still stuck at the back of the heads of many industry watchers, not to mention fans.

We won't be having a miraculous remake of history today – it's too late for that – but we all finally have the opportunity to see what Nokia hardware powered by Android feels like. With its X-line, Nokia surprised many by finally seeing fit to experiment with Android, though hardheaded as the company is, this is still a fork of the platform. The 4-inch, dual SIM entry-level Nokia X that we'll be looking at today, then, comes with all the signature Nokia services like its app store and HERE Maps, but none from Google. There's no Play Store, no Google Maps, and many, many more. And while there's a degree of inter-compatibility (ergo, normal Android apps will usually run just fine on the Nokia X's software), it's still a halfhearted stab at the world's most popular mobile OS. Is that necessarily a bad thing? We were very intent on finding out and share our impressions with you, so keep on reading.

In the box:

  • A power plug with a permanently-attached microUSB cable
  • Headphones


The Nokia X borrows inspiration heavily from the Lumia 525 and Asha 503 – the X is a typical rectangular slab with sharper-than-average corners and excellent build quality

Whether it's because it is a near-flawless look-alike to the latest Asha 503, or because the Asha, in turn, draws inspiration from Nokia's Lumia 520/525, we felt like we knew the Nokia X from the get-go. The X inherited the singular capacitive 'back' button from the the Asha line, and the rectangular frame with its moderately sharp edges. The removable rear shell is made of solid matte plastic, same as the buttons on the right side of the X. Both the volume rocker and the power key provide profound feedback, and there's a nice amount of travel to them.

Handling the Nokia X is easy – the small device is perfect for one-handed use – but we couldn't shake off the feeling that we're using a toy phone. And it's not just the jubilant palette of color options – it's also the profoundly plastic, but very solid exterior that made us feel like we're operating a reinforced, child-proof piece of hardware. On the bright side, while there's no arguing this looks and feels like an entry-level device, the overall build quality is impressive.

Nokia X
4.55 x 2.48 x 0.41 inches
115.5 x 63 x 10.4 mm
4.54 oz (129 g)

Nokia X

Motorola Moto G
5.11 x 2.59 x 0.46 inches
129.9 x 65.9 x 11.6 mm
5.04 oz (143 g)

Motorola Moto G

Sony Xperia E1
4.65 x 2.46 x 0.47 inches
118 x 62.4 x 12 mm
4.23 oz (120 g)

Sony Xperia E1

Samsung Galaxy Ace 3
4.77 x 2.47 x 0.39 inches
121.2 x 62.7 x 10 mm
4.22 oz (120 g)

Samsung Galaxy Ace 3

To see the phones in real size or compare them with other models, visit our Visual Phone Size Comparison page.


Reflective, dim, and completely off when it comes to proper color reproduction

When looking at the 4-inch 480x800 pixel resolution IPS display on the Nokia X, the results speak for themselves, and align very well with our initial impressions. For starters, this isn't the sharpest panel out there, though at 233ppi, we didn't find much reason for complaint.

But it's in color reproduction that the panel totally disappoints – it's got a very cold color temperature of 9320K, resulting in a noticeably bluish fringe throughout. This problem is especially noticeable when the display has to render differing shades of gray. But that's not all – specific colors, like magenta and cyan, are seriously messed up. Greens and reds are also problematic.

Worse yet, the display isn't very bright, managing 359 nits at its very best. This, combined with the highly reflective glass on top of the display, amounts to a frustrating outdoors viewing experience. It's also relatively bright even at the lowest setting, meaning that usage in complete darkness may tire out your eyes quickly.

Display measurements and quality

Maximum brightness (nits)Higher is better Minimum brightness (nits)Lower is better Contrast Higher is better Color temperature (Kelvins) Gamma Delta E rgbcmy Lower is better Delta E grayscale Lower is better
Motorola Moto G 429
Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 399
Sony Xperia E1 367
Nokia X 359
View all

  • Options

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:15 7

1. jaytai0106 (Posts: 1888; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)

This phone is a middle finger from Nokia to Android and to itself... Making a test device and see if there will be market for them, I'll give you that Nokia. But putting a crappy camera like that, you are just ruining your image as the camera king of the smartphone world

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:19

20. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

Why Nokia would use a Cortex-A5 CPU for their first run with an Android type phone is beyond me. In fact every WP from them has always has a much higher class CPU. The other thing is who cares what Ghz or the number of cores are in this CPU, or the fact that it came from Qualcomm. Its still a Cortex-A5 class CPU. The bottom of the barrel. Don't get me started on the 512Mb of ram this thing has, or the 4Gb of storage, or the camera at 3mp with no flash, an what a front facing camera (lack there of). This thing should have never made it to the drawing board. Let alone calling itself an Android phone with no normal Google apps and services. Things that most normal people associate when actually using an Android phone.
I wouldn't want to get the Nokia X wet. The moto g is a much better buy, and you are getting a much better phone compared to the Nokia X.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 15:25

49. domfonusr (Posts: 384; Member since: 17 Jan 2014)

I am not surprised at all. I said from the beginning that this could only ever be an Asha replacement... all these Android fans day-dreaming of a Nokia Android flagship - it just was never going to be that way, ever. At best, Nokia X will become the new Asha. At worst, it just won't take off, and Asha devices will remain for a little while longer. Nokia really does need a replacement for Series 40 that they can actually call a "smartphone" OS without lying.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:18 12

2. sipha (Posts: 434; Member since: 12 May 2012)

4.5/10 is well deserved for this!! But that its rated above the Jolla smartphone disturbs me..

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:37 6

6. Chris.P (Posts: 560; Member since: 27 Jun 2013)

It's a completely different price class, though.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:57 6

12. kshell1 (Posts: 1143; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)

For the same price I have my Moto G. Which is amazing for the price.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:15 3

19. aayupanday (Posts: 574; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)

Indeed. The Moto G is Best in the World at that price

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 10:21 2

35. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3689; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)

+1million for Moto G. Excellent phone even without considering price. It has never let me down the whole month. Great user experience. But regardless of the score this POS is going to sell millions thanks to die hard nokia fanboys.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 10:22 2

36. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3689; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)

P.S Not to be confused POS=NOKIA X lol ;-)

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:18 7

3. tech2 (Posts: 3451; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)

Find no reason to chose this phone over Moto G. If storage is very-very important to you (although Moto G offers 65GB cloud storage with G Drive):

Moto G has water resistant coating
Front cam
Main cam with flash
Significantly better display
Tremendously better app store
1 GB ram (Nokia with only 512 ram, wth?!)
Android 4.4 vs Nokia built on 4.2 (Also better support)

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:08 1

15. true1984 (Posts: 823; Member since: 23 May 2012)

i thought the x was built on 4.0?

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:25 1

21. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

The Nokia X is built on Android 4.1 jellybean.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:28 1

25. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

You are also missing the moto g can take slow motion videos, and if you want add more storage on the moto g, you can just go buy a USB otg cable for around $2-$5. Then you can use regular USB flash drives on the moto g. There is even more elegant ways to add more storage to Android like the Sandisk Connect, which was reviewed on phonearena.com

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:22 5

4. drazwy (Posts: 198; Member since: 15 Jan 2014)

What is that? A phone for ants?

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:39 2

8. amasog (Posts: 346; Member since: 22 Aug 2013)

have u seen an ant with phone? hahhahahahaha!

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:30 3

26. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

This one will be. Because the only one that will be playing with it, is the ants at the landfill dump site.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:28 11

5. Killua (Posts: 270; Member since: 25 Nov 2013)

4.5 is pretty generous for this crap. The UI is ugly, the spec is so so. Zenfone4 is way better than this crap. Kinda pity those who bought it. Well, not my problem though, they can waste their money on whatever they want.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:38 4

7. omaar97 (Posts: 14; Member since: 05 Apr 2012)

4.5, as expected from this crap

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:43 2

9. redmd (Posts: 1268; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)

Nokia what are you thinking?

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:48 5

10. akki20892 (Posts: 3901; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)

Crap = charming rich affordable phone.
Fix it for everyone.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:52 3

11. ihavenoname (Posts: 1693; Member since: 18 Aug 2013)

Moto G and Lumia 520/525=charming affordable rich phone
This is like Galaxy Trend, cheap and average at best, but mostly crap. Actually Trend beats this some ways, especially with MUCH MUCH better app store and Google apps. Maybe even camera.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 07:59 2

13. Planterz (Posts: 2070; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)

What's the point of this phone? A Lumia 520/521 would be better than this hunk of junk (and cheaper), and I'd never recommend a 520/521 to anyone that wasn't an enemy that I didn't want to suffer through the agony of using a mediocre Windows phone. WP's app selection might suck, but it's better than what this phone offers.

If you want something cheap to hack and tinker with, pick up a used Galaxy Nexus or S2 for cheap, or spend a bit more for a Moto G. Hell, almost any 2 year old used or NOS phone would cost as much, yet be far better.

If the reason to purchase this is because it supports dual sim, then this isn't my area of knowledge, but I'm sure there are better options than this (like the Sony E1).

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:15 1

18. NokiaFTW (Posts: 2071; Member since: 24 Oct 2012)

People should overlook this phone and consider the Lumia 525, which is overall a much better phone than this. If this phone would have ran WP, it would be fast and smooth, but it runs Android so...

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:32 3

27. ihavenoname (Posts: 1693; Member since: 18 Aug 2013)

Sorry, this phone is crap, thanks to Nokia and M$. Android has nothing to do with it.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 13:03

42. corporateJP (Posts: 2431; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)

"Sorry, this phone is crap, thanks to Nokia and M$"

No, thanks to Elop and Microsoft.

If Nokia was left independent, I guarantee you would have got a full Android experience on a 1020-like device.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:48

28. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

NokiaFTW now you are clearly showing the world you technical knowledge, or lack thereof. The Nokia X is using a Cortex-A5 CPU which is the bottom of the barrel, as far as ARM CPU's are concerned in todays world. Every WP uses a higher Cortex-A9 or above CPU. In fact WP never supported anything lower then a Qualcomm Cortex-A9 CPU.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 15:43 1

50. domfonusr (Posts: 384; Member since: 17 Jan 2014)

And that is the point of this phone... it is too cheap to run Windows Phone. Android was the only smartphone OS option left that could be wrangled into something this underpowered. Now, that ought not to be a bad reflection on Android - Android is wonderfully scalable, made to suit a wide range of hardware, from the best of flagships to the cheapest of working garbage. In order to make this an Asha replacement, it had to come in at the cheapest end of the spectrum, and I'm still not convinced that it will work out for Nokia/Microsoft the way they wanted it to. It is still too expensive to be a better value than either a Moto G or a Sony Xperia E1, and still comes in at the high end of the cost curve when compared to an Asha device. For something that was supposed to be this 'cheap', it actually isn't inexpensive enough. The price needed to be sub-$100.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 10:28 1

37. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3689; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)

Lololol temple run needs 1gb ram ouch

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 08:25 2

23. Commentator (Posts: 3684; Member since: 16 Aug 2011)

Maybe Nokia is trying to say "look how terrible Android phones are! Buy WP!"

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 09:01 1

29. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

You mean Microsoft since Nokia is owned by Microsoft.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 09:13

30. NokiaFTW (Posts: 2071; Member since: 24 Oct 2012)

And you are showing the world your lack of general knowledge. Both MS & Nokia clarified that this phone was in the works before MS buying Nokia. MS has nothing to do with anything related to this phone or the X series. This is completely Nokia's undertaking. So keep you pathetic trolling comments to yourself.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 13:07 1

43. corporateJP (Posts: 2431; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)

Elop kept stomping on the ant hill when the developers in-house kept trying to put out a beast.

Make no mistake, my friend, this phone had HEAVY Microsoft influence.

They only want it to succeed in the "third world" realm, that's all.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 14:46 1

45. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

Do you honestly believe that Microsoft had no hand in these Nokia X devices? Yeah right! Mr Elop left Microsoft and within the same month of leaving Microsoft, then he started working for Nokia as its CEO controlling the company and its direction. Not to mention Microsoft was kicking in 250 million per quarter for a few years. He outsourced the symbian developers and killed Meego before it really got off the ground. Now that Microsoft bought Nokia's phone division guess who is back at Microsoft again? You guessed it Mr Elop who is heading up the devices and business division at Microsoft. Mission accomplished, now Microsoft has Nokia's phone division for a song and a few bucks.
Now does anyone believe that Nokia would release an Android type phone in February 2014. When all this time they could have released an Android phone, but they didn't. Why? Because Microsoft's WP was still not ready for the world. Its been 4 years since the world was first introduced to the world at MWC 2010. WP still had no dual sim support, and it could not support lower classed ARM CPUs like Qualcomm's Cortex-A5/A7 CPUs. Microsoft was running around scared because WP has poor sales compared to Android. Not to mention a billion Android phones are suppose to be sold in 2014 (thats before Nokia announced their 3 Nokia X phones). That's a billion users NOT using Microsoft apps and services. WP8.1 will have dual sim and support lower CPU's like Qualcomms cortex-A5/A7, but that won't be released to the public until June 2014. So that is a half a year of Android devices being sold and very little WP sales once again. Even the new CEO of Microsoft (Satya) said services first. So the only way to do it was to use Android, because it already supported all the needed hardware, and could be up and running in no time, with Microsoft's apps and services. Naturally Microsoft doesn't want any of Google's apps and services on their phones. So that is exactly what they got. Microsoft has no shame in using the competitors OS and name in order to push their apps and services.
I like to deal in facts. I will let you and Microsoft handle the lies and propaganda.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 15:14

46. NokiaFTW (Posts: 2071; Member since: 24 Oct 2012)

Wow, that was a huge load of crap!
Symbian was stale and was getting outdated, hence abandoning was the best decision. Meego never really go going because of its inconsistent nature and no apps. WP was the best decision taken by Elop. WP is different than your stupid icons and widgets and it looks sexy on Lumia hardware. Android on the other hand, is being used by everyone and is getting boring. WP is the best choice for Nokia and it rocks. No amount of BS from your part will change that.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 16:22

51. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

Everything I said is the truth. Please point out all that was not true.

posted on 20 Apr 2014, 09:07

72. sgodsell (Posts: 3627; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

I should have added if Android is getting boring. Then Android gives you the ability to change the UI. So it can look and feel like any other OS out there on the market. Even when WP8.1 is officially released you still won't be able to change the UI. Oh yes WP8.1 will now give the users some new capabilities like background wallpaper, notification and quick toggles, even a voice assistant cortana. But for the most part these are once again catching up to what is already out there.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 09:29 2

31. r3trokiller (Posts: 17; Member since: 30 Mar 2014)

Well, Moto G is not the best phone in this price range in whole World. Talking about Nepal, Moto G 8 GB costs NPR 25000 i.e. 230 US $ and 16 GB costs NPR 28000 i.e. 250 US$ . And Nokia X costs just 13000 NPR i.e. 120 US $. Moto G doesnot even have memory card and there is not even a single care centre in Nepal. Its same with all SouthAsia . So, how the crap Moto G becomes best in world.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 09:46

34. refillable (Posts: 1046; Member since: 10 Mar 2014)

Indeed, the Moto G is relatively expensive in our country. But Nokia with this phone competing with it's own 520/525 is just nuts. The X is 25% more expensive than the 520 here.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 09:40 1

32. 7thspaceman (Posts: 1544; Member since: 14 Feb 2011)

Many say the Moto is better. Nokia is a come back KID and will do better than this. Remember the Nokia 900 was no prize then came the Nokia Lumia 920 a winner From what info I get about the X phones only the Nokia XL is worth looking at. I think Nokia made critical Mistakes Nokia in their Forked Android OS I hope Microsoft corrects when they take it under their control later this month are 1=Microsoft must make the UI look like Windows 8 . 8.1 smart phones. 2= Microsoft must put the Android API"S and files necessary for the Nokia "X" phones to use access and use Google play store Apps and Google services. the second suggestion I made may seem counter productive to Microsoft's goals of getting People to buy and uses Microsoft Apps and services but it wont be because all Microsoft has to do is warn Folks if they replace the Microsoft Android UI and certain system tiles they will void the Warrantees on the Nokia/Microsoft Xphones however they will be free to use Google Play store Apps and services to their hearts content. I think that most people wont change the New Nokia/Microsoft UI and will keep and use the Nokia snd Microsoft Apps and services they desire to use on the New Nokia/Microsoft OS "X" Phones. of the Nokia "X" phones. I think only the Nokia "XL" will survive the Market place

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 09:43 1

33. refillable (Posts: 1046; Member since: 10 Mar 2014)

This is a 99% trojan horse Phone. The 1%? Probably for the attempt to gain profit from the allegedly 'Android Nokia'. I mean the 520 and the Moto G is Soooo much better. If you disagree with me then you are not competent at all.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 10:28 2

38. hemedans (Posts: 511; Member since: 01 Jun 2013)

all of the above moto g, xperia e1 and galaxy ace3 they cost twice or more here in africa.
moto g more than 400,000tsh
galaxy ace 3 around 350,000 to 400,000
xperia e around 400,000 e1 will be much higher

but nokia x cost only180,000 and make it very cheap.

in its price category nokia x is best than any phone and stop comparing it with expensive smartphone

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 11:11 1

40. dorian827 (Posts: 155; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)

Why do people expect so much from an affordable market phone? Dont expect expensive and high spec features its not a flagship.

Nokia X, X+ and XL < Nokia Lumia (Most Devices)

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 12:22 1

41. samzkrnd (Posts: 14; Member since: 02 Feb 2013)

Yea..you all are right.moto g is better from nokia x,because its available in your region.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 13:12

44. corporateJP (Posts: 2431; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)

Waiting on the XL, rooted and ROMed...

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 15:17

48. NokiaFTW (Posts: 2071; Member since: 24 Oct 2012)

WP > Symbian > BB7 > iOS > WebOS > Android.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 19:48 1

53. gigaraga (Posts: 1454; Member since: 29 Mar 2013)

I'm sure you typed it in the wrong order. Android>iOS>WebOS>BB7>Symbian>WP ANYDAY

posted on 18 Apr 2014, 09:38 1

66. dorian827 (Posts: 155; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)

I sure its Android > iOS > Windows Phone > BB7+ > Symbian

posted on 18 Apr 2014, 10:22

68. domfonusr (Posts: 384; Member since: 17 Jan 2014)

I still miss Symbian. Android is definitely better than Symbian now, but I still miss Symbian.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 17:58 1

52. rkoforever90 (Posts: 227; Member since: 03 Dec 2011)

this phone cost only half the price of moto g

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 19:48

55. gigaraga (Posts: 1454; Member since: 29 Mar 2013)

And here we have another horrible device from Nokia. At least its running Android better than that horrible WP, but the device itself is still pretty poor for an Android device.

posted on 17 Apr 2014, 20:01

57. garyII (Posts: 160; Member since: 26 Feb 2014)

it is at the bottom of the list for every benchmark..lol, but overall i love the green color and base on those photo taken with regard to its screen, it seems that its resolution wasn't so bad..!

posted on 18 Apr 2014, 19:04

70. alexvv (Posts: 162; Member since: 16 Oct 2013)

at last a fair review of the nokia x. im sorry but its rubbish even for the proce.. under 100euro with taxes and it should be ok

posted on 21 Apr 2014, 12:55

73. samirsshah (Posts: 61; Member since: 10 Mar 2011)

I was recommending to Microsoft that they continue with Nokia X. But WITH THIS they should get rid of it ASAP.

posted on 23 Apr 2014, 22:36

75. dowill2014 (Posts: 1; Member since: 23 Apr 2014)

Stupid comparation !!! ... not equal device

posted on 25 Apr 2014, 17:53 1

76. DisCHORD (Posts: 35; Member since: 25 Apr 2014)

Windows phone 8 is my preferred OS. Its more fluid than any other, its UI is the best of all 3, it has a good amount of apps I want and a lot of exclusives that weren't for the other two, (dragons blade, sequencer, etc.) and its display is customizable on nokias with the ability to change contrast from natural to vivid, and the ability to make the display cooler or warmer. Name another phone that can do that! And they also have a built in EQ, which I, being an audiophile with an e11 amp and akg k240 headphones, love. I had a choice between any phone and a Lumia 925, so my choice was clear: Lumia 925. My sister got a galaxy S4, and my dad and mom got nexus 5's, and my dad likes my phone a lot more than his. My sister just wanted her phone because its popular. I got my phone for fluidity (wp8 is absolutely tied for most optimized OS with IOS. A dual core 1.5 GHz won't get you crap in Droid.) I was looking at the HTC one, but that had beats audio enhancer which is bad because it modifies music when on and off, and it puts out less power to headphones than my 925. Now that the M8 is out, I wouldn't mind it. I still prefer WP8 over everything. The only reason I would look at the M8 is because of the power output it has. More voltage to headphones than an iPhone, iPod touch 5G, etc. The speakers are loud, but not insanely so. I'm more interested in output... Now to my point: This Nokia X could have been a lot better. I would have slapped a quad core with 3 gigs of ram in there, a 20 mp camera with flash, 1080p 4.5 inch screen, included google play store, and advertised to high hell. That is what should have happened. But it didn't, so I hope Nokia will recall this abomination and work on another one. And to anyone who disagrees, you are entitled to your opinions. If you wish to quarrel like dogs, find someone else. Yes, performance matters, i agree, but Nokia Lumia's have a customizable display, sound, and home screen, with my favorite OS for its fluidity, UI, and a few apps none of its competitors have.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 14:30

78. dorian827 (Posts: 155; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)

I couldn't agree more, most consumers are just followers and don't even use a 10th of specs or features from most flagships.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 02:25

77. manus88 (Posts: 10; Member since: 25 Feb 2014)

This review sound like it comes from a Nokia hater tbh, srs. Reading through it the only bad things are screen colors, browser(which you can change) and battery(which is average for the category).
Call quality is great, camera is great for a 3MP(just look at pictures and videos, they don't look like they're from a 3MP camera at all), general performance from the processor is good.
Also it will have an awesome cyanogenmod.
I give it a 7/10, and a 7.5/10 with a good cyano.

posted on 01 May 2014, 20:14

79. DisCHORD (Posts: 35; Member since: 25 Apr 2014)

Ah! Windows phone 8 now supports dual sim according to the latest update! Now I know they didn't make this just for the dual sim card feature! Microsoft and Nokia are playing a hidden card here...

posted on 08 May 2014, 22:01

80. GoJin (Posts: 10; Member since: 05 Feb 2013)

.I waited for Android on a Nokia device but I did not expect this piece of ....!

I would choose this Nokia X over Samsung's Galaxy Y anytime, though.
I'm using only Galaxy Y for torrent downloads and secondary phone.
yes, torrenting on a SGY, here in my country (Philippines) where the average internet speed is a mere 3mbps, SGY's 7.2mbps modem is not even maxed-out.

I'll be waiting for the Nokia XL, let's see whazzup with that one.

posted on 16 May 2014, 10:50

81. carlgemarino (Posts: 1; Member since: 09 May 2014)

Here in the Philippines,

Moto G costs Php 10,400 or 237.50 US$;
Xperia E1 costs Php 6,990 or 159.63 US$;
Xperia E1 dual costs Php 7,890 or 180.18 US$;
while Nokia X just costs Php 5,999 or 136.99 US$.

There are other Android devices here (China phone brands and many local brands) but they just can't be compared to Nokia (in my opinion).

I want this phone other than any phone because it's the only one I can afford from Nokia (Nokia XL will be more expensive, obviously), and that this series might be the last Android devices from Nokia. They might release another Android device in the next ten years, but I can't wait, and it's not still sure. Lumia devices will be there, other Android devices will also be there, but this might be the last Android device from Nokia.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Nokia X

Nokia X

OS: Android
view full specs
Display4.0 inches, 480 x 800 pixels (233 ppi) IPS LCD
Camera3 megapixels
Qualcomm Snapdragon S4, Dual-core, 1000 MHz, ARM Cortex-A5 processor
0.5 GB RAM
Size4.55 x 2.48 x 0.41 inches
(115.5 x 63 x 10.4 mm)
4.54 oz  (129 g)
Battery1500 mAh, 13.3 hours talk time

Latest stories