08-28-2013 04:25 PM
110 ... 345
  1. JustToClarify's Avatar
    there is no way the best photographer in the world can take a good photo in a low light ambient with some poor iphone and so on and so on

    while I agree that good photographer is more important than a camera, the camera quality is also responsible for a very high part of the image quality else noone would be buying those Hasselblads
    07-15-2013 04:17 PM
  2. rmichael75's Avatar
    Had they priced 1020 lower - the 925/928 sales would take a hit - and those just started to ship.
    That said, much until now - the smartphone choice is more or less defined by OS. But now if you must have the best cameraphone - there isn't any alternative.
    It's good for Nokia to build up high-end perception.
    I think this is why it is priced as such. There is no competition for 1020 at this point of time. and all the r&D that has gone into the camera has to be recuperated..
    07-15-2013 04:37 PM
  3. drbanks's Avatar
    Point #1:

    The last two iPhones I bought (4 and 4S) went at $400/ea on contract. Then again they were 64GB models. Shoot, I was one of the fools who paid the initial $600 unsubsidized price for the original iPhone and still got locked into a 2 year contract on AT&T. So, $300 for a 1020, compared to $300 for a similar spec iPhone 5? No brainer. The iPhone's held back by its OS.

    And quality? Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither HTC nor Nokia have ever told me that I'm holding it wrong.

    Granted, there are a crap-ton of Steventologists who are willing to shell out any price for the latest fashion accessory from Apple, but these are the same people who'd try to kick a dead whale down the beach as long as they thought it made them look cool to do it.

    So, $300 for a 1020? This is a problem. I'm gonna call you guys a wahmbulance. Get a grip.

    Point 2: If you're nitpicking down to the penny, consider this: $300 down and a 2-year contract on AT&T at about $110/month (which is whate I was paying AT&T) comes out to a total TCO of um... 300 + 2400 + 240 = $2940 (you're thinking "hey, look! It's doing math!")

    I will clomp my front hoof once more:

    $600 (off-contract) plus 24 months of $60-70/month to go with an MVNO or T-Mo, and you get... uh (clomp clomp clomp) 600 +1680 = $2280

    That's right. $660 more total cost just to get locked into a contract with AT$T, and you're complaining about the $300 buy in? I wanna play poker with you guys.

    The real rip-off is the 2 year contract, and the $300 subsidized price is just the free taste. If you're that seriously worried about the money, you might start thinking about that.
    07-15-2013 05:03 PM
  4. rmichael75's Avatar
    I think the 299 gives them a lot of room to do specials.. like 100 off now and then.. if they are sitting at 99, you don't have anywhere to go other than 0 dollars.. having said that ... 199 would have been a good one.. I think Nokia is testing waters.. they will price it properly in Europe.
    07-15-2013 05:10 PM
  5. WP7_Genius's Avatar
    I think that phone is for someone who owns a Mark D DSLR and may want quality photos but don't want to worry about the theft of a $3000+ camera and lens.... So to them $299 is fine. Its a niche device. And I don't think its made to compete with other phones because who offers a camera of this status besides NOBODY. Its a class of its own.
    KoukiFC3S likes this.
    07-15-2013 05:26 PM
  6. laserfloyd's Avatar
    Give it time. It'll come down or specials will be run. Soon as they spring a deal, I'm all over this one. :D
    07-15-2013 05:36 PM
  7. jt09xlt's Avatar
    My thoughts, after I just saw the trade-in program to get at least $100 off a new smartphone, is why not trade-in your old devices and get the phone for $199 or less. This is what I am planning on doing when I can get out of my contract with Verizon. Hell at $199 that phone is a steal. I paid $250 for my GNex that I currently use, which at that time was $299, about a year and a half ago. Got $50 off for ordering online. Specs wise 1020 has faster processor, twice as much RAM, same internal storage and a fantastic camera that puts pretty much all cell phones and several point and shoot cameras to shame. Plus it is running WP8 which I am really intrigued by. One more thought, coming from Android, most flagship models were $250-300 for the top tech at initial launch. I am a little intrigued if some people who scoff at the cost got a little too spoiled by the initial cost of the 920 series when it first launched.
    Last edited by jt09xlt; 07-15-2013 at 06:34 PM.
    07-15-2013 05:41 PM
  8. Colby Lee's Avatar
    Considering WP is the weakest ecosystem out there, and WP specs are on par if not weaker than the latest iPhone and well behind Android, its rather sanctimonious and ignorant for you or other people on this forum to be looking down on other people's smartphone choices. The fact that the iPhone 4 isn't a thick heavy plastic brick should account enough for the price premium. And WP users of all shouldn't be talking about specs, because they will get completely trashed by your typical Android phone. Oh wait, in that case, you'll argue specs don't matter. But you said the complete opposite just a minute ago! You want integrity and hypocrisy free discussion? I sure don't see any of that here.
    What? LOL.
    WP itself is not an ecosystem, it is a platform contributing to the Microsoft ecosystem. If you want to go there, however, Microsoft has the strongest ecosystem out there with Windows desktop and Xbox alone, not to mention Outlook, which has more users than Gmail (I forgot the source). Don't forget that Siri is now using Bing...Microsoft is very established as an ecosystem.

    You are right that users shouldn't be criticized for choosing a different platform, and although specs do matter, Windows phone has proven that less power can be as equally efficient given a well-designed OS made to perform well under minimal consumption.
    Connie Litrenta likes this.
    07-20-2013 11:27 AM
  9. Connie Litrenta's Avatar
    Guess I'll disagree with you here. I for one plan on picking up a L1020 this Friday. I currently have a L920 and was just trying out the Galaxy S4 for the last two weeks. Maybe it's just me but I swear my Lumia did better with pics than the S4 and its 13mp camera. In a moment of total clarity, I realized that not only did I like the Windows OS better (even if it does still need to beef up its feature list), but one of the main reasons I brought the S4 back on day 13 was the camera because while I am not always taking pics, I enjoy taking them when I see a good shot (love scenery and city life). The L920 takes great pics so I expect even better from the L1020 even if it does cost me more. I'm quite sure the money will be a deciding factor for some but not me. I look forward to that day when I catch a shot of some "once in a life time" occurence. If that day comes, I plan to be ready.
    Reflexx likes this.
    08-28-2013 10:44 AM
  10. husslord's Avatar
    In the states go to att camera grip is $59
    08-28-2013 04:25 PM
110 ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-15-2014, 08:21 AM
  2. Can't decide on what Tablet to buy......Need Suggestions
    By cre8tivspirit in forum General Desktop, Laptop & Tablet Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-13-2013, 10:19 AM
  3. Exchange Emails Slow to Sync.
    By vane0326 in forum Windows Phone 8
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-29-2013, 08:36 AM
  4. Surface to be sold at Wal-Mart
    By stephen_az in forum General Desktop, Laptop & Tablet Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 08:42 AM
  5. Lumia 1020 Video on At&T!
    By Chris Yahya in forum Nokia Lumia 1020
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 07:39 AM