Not all Android smartphones are created equal, the vast number of Android smartphones that are available in the market are made in such a way that there are some that are vastly superior to others. For example, some Android devices are standouts and will always be a beater while others are affordable but merely decent. There are some which come at moderate prices but are still able to handle all the tasks expected from a high-end smartphone whereas others are faulty and riddled with bugs. In this article, we discuss the Android phones that have been a letdown using our metrics to compare performance that have enticed consumers with lower prices which inevitably turn out lower quality devices.
Micromax Canvas 6 Pro
In terms of durability, mobile devices go through thousands of hours of usage through many different environments before being replaced. This includes cold, hold, wet, and humid environments that phones must undergo on a regular basis and be able to adapt to. Micromax Canvas 6 Pro, however, has been manufactured utilizing cheap materials that has led to the cheap pricetag associated with the device. Although cheap, the device lacks durability and is often reviewed as a phone which breaks down quickly after a short period. Beyond durability, issues also exist in the operation system that comes with the device as the Micromax device contains a lot of bloatware coupled with an incomplete service layer known as “Around Yu” which is extremely buggy. Couple these issues with the fact the camera produces low quality images while the performance lags compared to the competition, the Mircomax Canvas 6 Pro is the first Android device that should be avoided.
HTC Desire 520
Although on this list, the HTC Desire 520 contains functionalities which make it stand out in a positive light that should be mentioned. Firstly, the device itself is compact and affordable with loud front-facing speakers. Secondly, the phone features a microSD card slot as well as a user-replaceable battery to maximize convenience if the battery is broken or needs to be swapped out quickly.
Moving to the negatives of the device, however, it is clear that a mere look at the screen can be disappointing. The 4.5-inch screen appears outdated, dull, and is dim while the colors are diluted. Images on the device are seen in low resolution as they become pixelated once zoomed in. Even worse, one would expect the battery life of the phone to be great given the dim screen and poor resolution performance. However, it is clear that using the HTC Desire 520 for a long period of time can lead to the device quickly dying. For example, simple usage such as playing music and watching videos does not drain the batteries but heavier tasks such as playing games or calling can result in short battery life.
Furthermore, the phone comes with what is commonly referred to as a cheap plastic casing which is able to bring the price of the device down at the cost of quality and durability. In terms of software, there are a few noticeable delays while trying to switch from app to app. Even while scrolling through the home screen, lag is evident which hinders the user experience.
As a result of advancements in features and specs of smartphone technology, finding a higher-end low-cost device which offers great value can be a difficult task. For example, the low price of the ZTE Speed can tempt consumers into purchasing the phone but will ultimately yield disappointing results. Despite the name “Speed”, it is surprising that the quad-core processor of the ZTE Speed lags even with the smallest tasks. Featuring a 5-megapixel camera, the ZTE also produces low-quality photos similar to that of the HTC Desire 520. Furthermore, the device has a low-resolution display that needs a few repetitive taps from time to time as a result of its unresponsiveness. Even in the camera, users will often have to wait a few seconds between taking photos so that the device is able to properly load. Although the price of the ZTE Speed may be enticing, other devices which offer better value exist in the market and should be sought prior to this device.
Featuring a moderate price, the LG Leon comes with expandable memory and makes reliable calls over both Wi-Fi and cellular services at the expense of camera and operating system performance. To exemplify this, the performance of the phone is sluggish at best while loading apps can take a while. The reviews left by users have indicated that in certain cases, the performance has rendered the phone to be insufficient where a forced reboot is necessary to get out of a stuck screen. Furthermore, with only 8GB of built-in storage, this space is taken up quickly and users will most likely be forced to add an additional microSD card to supplement the memory. Although poor in performance, this device does have considerable battery life which can last for up to 9 hours in video playback mode.
Sony Xperia XA
Finally, the Sony Xperia XA is the last Android smartphones to be avoided on this list. Firstly, the phone is extremely blocky and the term “stylish” is questionable when referred to the device. Although it has the low-resolution, the moderate price of the Sony Xperia XA does not accurately reflect his fact. Even more, the specifications of the phone are unimpressive when compared to other smartphones in the price range. For example, the internal storage is very limited where most of the space has been occupied by Android system files along with some other unnecessary apps. Furthermore, the Sony Xperia XA does not feature a fingerprint scanner which is disappointing due to the fact that most of the recent Sony smartphones come with this feature. Overall, the combination of a short-lived battery, a low screen resolution, as well as an insufficient amount of built-in storage makes this device one that should be avoided.
While many great Android devices exist in the market, the ones listed in this article should be avoided when looking to purchase a new device. Despite some being cheap to moderately priced, the performance and durability is questionable which makes these devices unattractive to have.