I recently read a review of this phone by Alan Martin
He talks of the Doogee in comparison to some high end £800 phones. And says, why would you buy a sub £100 phone that is rugged when you can just buy another? Why protect a cheap phone?
Well, I have never owned a £800 phone. Every phone has been less than £230. My list of smartphones is short:
1. Nokia E55 (blackberry clone)
2. Samsung Gallaxy S2
3. Doogee x5
4. Doogee x5 pro
5. Doogee S40
The Nokia was a smartphone, but a Symbian, which went out of date as soon as I got it. I paid far too much for it on a contract.
The Samsung was a reconditioned phone that I got for about £200ish, it lasted me a very long time, but the main issue was that it fell apart from being dropped once too often.
The x5 was hopeless and committed digital suicide and was also full of spyware direct from the makers.
The x5 pro was great, but it fell apart from being dropped once too often.
See a pattern?
So, Doogee offer me a phone that is cheap, but rugged. And Mr Martin doesn't understand why Doogee thought that was a good idea? I can't buy a £100 phone a year.
I did once have an armoured case for my Samsung Galaxy but it made the thing so clunky and big it wasn't worth it. The S40 case is very nice to hold.
The Doogee system has also come on a long way. The x5 was pretty nasty and had a raft of faults. The S40 is a much slicker phone and seems quite capable. The only issue is that the memory is too small and the phone can only take two sims, or one sim and a memory card. That is a step back from the x5,
The other big plus for the phone is the huge battery. Short battery life always annoys me. I rooted the Samsung and ended up with a phone that lasted a week on standby. However, if you actually used it the battery died pretty fast.
The upshot of the S40 though is, yes it may not be the slickest phone on the market, but for the price, and for a phone that actually shouldn't fall apart, I'll take my £700 saving (actually I got it new for £70) my £730 saving, and buy a car or something.