Lumia 635 4G Windows Phone priced at just $99 off-contract with AT&T

On Friday, Nokia announced that its new entry-level 4G Windows Phone, the Lumia 635, had gone on sale in various parts of the world, with more markets to follow. A launch in the US was also mentioned, although no timeframe was given - but that has all changed today. 

Richard Hay over at WindowsObserver.com reported that the Microsoft Store had today sent a text message to some of its customers, letting them know that - as of this morning - the Lumia 635 is available to preorder in the United States. Even better news than this is that the price is a good deal lower than expected.

Nokia said previously that the device would go on sale for around $189 before taxes and subsidies. It appears that AT&T and T-Mobile are subsiding the new handset pretty generously, since the pre-order prices off-contract are just $99 and $129 respectively. 

The Lumia 635 is virtually identical to the 630; the only technical difference is that the 635 includes 4G LTE support, whereas the 630 is 3G-only. The 635 is also sold with glossy dual-layered polycarbonate shells, whereas the 630's shells have a matte finish. 

No details have been given regarding exactly when the 635 will be delivered to customers that pre-order in the US - for now, the only indication given is that the handset will "ship when available". 

Source: Microsoft Store via WindowsObserver.com | upper image via Nokia

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google acquires Alpental Technologies for 5G tech

Next Story

Microsoft: Trade in your MacBook Air, get up to $650 off Surface Pro 3

22 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Good luck with that Verizon wants big profits per phone. Also manufacturers won't make a verizon version of a phone that isn't high end because they can't sell it anywhere in the world besides verizon

512MB of RAM is a joke in 2014. I'd buy it if it had 1GB. They can charge me the extra .75 cents for the RAM.

AR556 said,
512MB of RAM is a joke in 2014. I'd buy it if it had 1GB. They can charge me the extra .75 cents for the RAM.

It isn't with Windows Phone. I've been pleasantly surprise to see the majority of new apps (especially Universal ones) working just fine on my kids' 520's. True, I'd like to see 1GB as well for full app-store compatibility. But it's not as much a liability as you might think.

512MB is a problem when you see "resuming" when waking up your phone. I see that since 8.1 on my 920 and its got 1GB. The limited RAM will prove to hurt the phone in the long run as WP gets more and more advanced. I guess you could argue that for the price, you'll have a different phone next year, but still....

Point is that 1GB of RAM would cost them virtually nothing these days. There is no excuse to skimp on RAM other than for product segmentation.

While I agree that they should have included 1GB, you can't really use the developer preview as an example. We don't know what optimization remains to be done nor do we know what if any telemetry code is running. 8.1 also has changed the way multitasking works and not all apps will fast resume properly.

The drawbacks for this phone (and price-point): No camera button, no front camera, no flash, no auto-dimming display, only 512MB of RAM.

The pluses: Full Windows Phone 8.1 with Cortana, a decent back camera, microSD storage expansion, OneDrive space, decent performance and screen

Me, I go for flagship phones, but this would be a pretty good "first" SmartPhone, imho, or if you're really on a tight budget. Not like you're going to get an iPhone for anywhere near this price.


I wonder why they removed the camera button and auto-dimming (not that it worked well on the 52x line)?

Sounds like a perfect fit for businesses.

I have a question: does quad core (L635) perform better than dual core (L520)? I mean, is it really noticeable? The both have same RAM. Thanks.

It is faster than 52x & 62x devices and even compares favorably in some cases to mid range devices of last generation. But I do miss the additional RAM and physical buttons that hopefully will remain on mid to high end phones.

No front camera is one thing but omitting a flash on a modern smartphone no matter what price point in 2014 is a joke.

Cyborg_X said,
No front camera is one thing but omitting a flash on a modern smartphone no matter what price point in 2014 is a joke.

Not that this has the low-light capability of a Pureview, but for comparison, I almost NEVER use a flash on my 920 (nor does my wife on her 1020). There are times when we do, but of the pictures we take, far less than 1% are taken with a flash.

I don't know how much a flash adds to the cost, but when cutting price, it seems a reasonable thing to omit.

Its a great phone but wished it had a front camera, even a basic one with 1GB of RAM :D, like Moto E perhaps !!!

Ok, 512MB in Windows Phone, but no front camera ??? Ahh..

If they go the route of removing the camera & capacitive buttons, I don't see this being any different than a 63x device. If I were them, I would not release a 53x unless it improved upon 52x. The good news is this year will probably be the last we see of Nokia's convoluted numbering scheme.

JohnCz said,
If they go the route of removing the camera & capacitive buttons, I don't see this being any different than a 63x device. If I were them, I would not release a 53x unless it improved upon 52x. The good news is this year will probably be the last we see of Nokia's convoluted numbering scheme.

I don't know if they're going to drop the numbers, I bet they're not going to drop the brand at least.