10-28-2013 04:35 PM
116 ... 2345
tools
  1. Moiz Mian's Avatar
    The question is, how long are we going to be waiting? It was originally rumored that the device was going to be released in 2013. Then it was rumored to be launched specifically in November, 2013. Then Rubio tweeted that we wouldn't be seeing it until Q1 of 2014.

    It can still certainly launch in November even if it's not mentioned in October. Remember the Lumia 928 was released on Verizon 6 days after the official announcement event was held by Nokia.
    I believe it's launch will be like the 928. Low key and will go on sale days after the announcement.

    edit: they should also change the name lol, 929 makes no sense in Nokia's naming schemes. It should be 93x or 94x
    10-23-2013 04:27 PM
  2. Indistinguishable's Avatar
    The 929 will probably be a Win 8.1 phone now.
    The press release photos have already been taken. They're not going to sit on them for another 8 months.
    10-23-2013 04:40 PM
  3. falconrap's Avatar
    The biggest issue I have with Nokia on going this route is that Verizon, with just the 822 and 928, and with the 822 dropped from VZW's lineup for about a month or two, managed to sell about as many Lumia's as AT&T which has now had 3 flagship Lumia's plus the 820 and 520. They had the 920, 925, and 1020, and have only recently caught back up to Verizon. If the 1020 and 520 were also on Verizon, AT&T would still be looking at Verizon's bumper from a few miles back. Heck, putting the 1020 and 520 on Verizon would probably add another half million phones to Nokia's sales for this past quarter.

    If you are going to go exclusive, why not go to the carrier that sells the most WP's even though it's hardly trying?
    10-23-2013 05:27 PM
  4. Joe Acerbic's Avatar
    Because if Nokia sold more phones, shareholders might demand that MS pay more for the phone division.
    10-23-2013 05:41 PM
  5. Nogitsune Micah's Avatar
    The biggest issue I have with Nokia on going this route is that Verizon, with just the 822 and 928, and with the 822 dropped from VZW's lineup for about a month or two, managed to sell about as many Lumia's as AT&T which has now had 3 flagship Lumia's plus the 820 and 520. They had the 920, 925, and 1020, and have only recently caught back up to Verizon. If the 1020 and 520 were also on Verizon, AT&T would still be looking at Verizon's bumper from a few miles back. Heck, putting the 1020 and 520 on Verizon would probably add another half million phones to Nokia's sales for this past quarter.

    If you are going to go exclusive, why not go to the carrier that sells the most WP's even though it's hardly trying?
    Perhaps att is a better partner to work with. Its not secret ever since kin, Verizon has been meh towards windows phone.
    10-23-2013 06:52 PM
  6. warrentaye's Avatar
    Looking carefully at this vid, the att model does seem a bit slimmer the curvature on the back is a bit different than what was seen at launch.

    It could also just be wishful thinking on my part lol

    JamesDax likes this.
    10-23-2013 07:33 PM
  7. Dave Blake's Avatar
    I am okay with the exclusives as long as the other carriers get comparable devices. Its nice that Nokia is able to give each carrier their own device style.
    psudotechzealot likes this.
    10-23-2013 08:49 PM
  8. bryantest's Avatar
    I am okay with the exclusives as long as the other carriers get comparable devices. Its nice that Nokia is able to give each carrier their own device style.
    Excuse me? Are you saying that it's OK that Nokia make non-AT&T customers WAIT? Why do you think that after 3 years WP still has a minuscule market share in the US? SMH
    Last edited by bryantest; 10-23-2013 at 11:24 PM.
    10-23-2013 11:12 PM
  9. cckgz4's Avatar
    It sucks when you don't have good AT&T coverage in your area, but it's your choice to be on a carrier that isn't AT&T for any other reason. I missed out on PLENTY of phones over the years that I wanted to use but couldn't because they were on other carriers:

    Pixi Plus (only on Verizon and AT&T, I was on Sprint)
    Pre 2 (AT&T only, was on Sprint)
    The original Droid (I was on T-Mobile)
    The last generation of sidekicks (switched to Sprint)
    HTC Surround (was on Simple Mobile, and would not had a strong data connection)
    Nokia E71 (was on Sprint)
    Blackberry Curve 8900 (REALLY wanted this but was on Sprint)
    iPhone 4 (was on T-Mobile before they started to disperse the iPhone to every carrier)

    And so forth. The "outrage" is ridiculous coming from folks that CHOSE the competition. If coverage is awful, then that's very unfortunate and I can understand. But the others need to move on
    10-23-2013 11:57 PM
  10. rpm1984's Avatar
    There are a lot of us here that coverage is the issue. I can only get ATT coverage in my area in a few select areas. Also they don't even have LTE in 3/4 of my state. Verizon has nearly all of it covered. I understand your point of stop whining but ATT is getting the 1520..........they got the 1020 and that has not even made it to Verizon yet. The 1020 and 1520 have come to ATT both since the release of the 928 on Verizon. So ATT gets 520, 820, 920,1020,1520. Verizon 822,928. That is frustrating.
    10-24-2013 07:35 AM
  11. pmich's Avatar
    I'm in Canada and i'm sick of exclusives.. From what i can tell AT&T doesn't even promote Windows Phone well (especially after hearing the attack at the general meeting a few months ago) so i don't know why Nokia keeps doing this.
    metalchick719 and In Limbo like this.
    10-24-2013 07:48 AM
  12. M L's Avatar
    I'm in Canada and i'm sick of exclusives.. From what i can tell AT&T doesn't even promote Windows Phone well (especially after hearing the attack at the general meeting a few months ago) so i don't know why Nokia keeps doing this.
    Agreed, I just stopped into an ATT store yesterday and they had ...ZERO Windows Phones on display. Everyone who says the exclusives are in exchange for carrier support, I'd like to know What support does att give? They're not promoting or supporting Nokia or WP8 in any way that we can tell, if Nokia could have it's top model available on every carrier we might just see that market share increase.
    10-24-2013 07:56 AM
  13. wapoz's Avatar
    There's not really much Nokia or MS can do about it. Unfortunately most carriers, especially in North America won't even touch a new phone unless they can get it exclusive to them for X amount of months and hardware changes to the phone as well. Apple has been the only OEM to get around this due to their clout from being the first out in the modern touchscreen smartphone era, and a rabid, fanatical fanbase. I strongly doubt exclusives are anything MS/Nokia wants for WP- they would rather a new model launch simultaneously on all carriers. Even when they do get a carrier to sell one of their phones, Carriers only do it with minimal effort to promote it and while actively discouraging customers from buying WP, in order to push another product. This problem is especially evident and at it's worst in the US where most carriers push the iPhone first, Samsung android products second, all other android products 3rd, and then BB/WP in a distant 4th.

    Until someone forces an end to carrier exclusives, it's the sad reality we all have to live with.
    10-24-2013 08:02 AM
  14. In Limbo's Avatar
    Count me in as sick of the BS. I have AT&T, but exclusives are just plain unjust.
    10-24-2013 08:17 AM
  15. M L's Avatar
    I'm in Canada and i'm sick of exclusives.. From what i can tell AT&T doesn't even promote Windows Phone well (especially after hearing the attack at the general meeting a few months ago) so i don't know why Nokia keeps doing this.
    Agreed, I just stopped into an ATT store yesterday and they had ...ZERO Windows Phones on display. Everyone who says the exclusives are in exchange for carrier support, I'd like to know What support does att give? They're not promoting or supporting Nokia or WP8 in any way that we can tell, if Nokia could have it's top model available on every carrier we might just see that market share increase.
    10-24-2013 08:56 AM
  16. mtmjr90's Avatar
    It sucks when you don't have good AT&T coverage in your area, but it's your choice to be on a carrier that isn't AT&T for any other reason. I missed out on PLENTY of phones over the years that I wanted to use but couldn't because they were on other carriers:

    And so forth. The "outrage" is ridiculous coming from folks that CHOSE the competition. If coverage is awful, then that's very unfortunate and I can understand. But the others need to move on
    It's not about that. I have personally had terrible experiences with AT&T and I strongly dislike their business practices. Any day I can not give them my money is a good day.

    (Forewarning, I'm about to get unfiltered.) It's this type of carrier apologist reasoning that leads to this situation. We shouldn't just accept that this is how it is and that one must lie down and take whatever their carrier overlord has chosen for them. That manufacturers have no ability to sell direct and that consumers are too stupid to figure out how to buy direct.

    There's not really much Nokia or MS can do about it. Unfortunately most carriers, especially in North America won't even touch a new phone unless they can get it exclusive to them for X amount of months and hardware changes to the phone as well. Apple has been the only OEM to get around this due to their clout from being the first out in the modern touchscreen smartphone era, and a rabid, fanatical fanbase.
    Please read through this thread. For convenience, please consider the GS3/4, Note 2/3, LG G2, HTC One, HTC 8X, BlackBerry Z10/Q10. All of these, in addition to the iPhone, are available on 3+ US carriers, with either zero or very minor changes across each version.
    metalchick719 likes this.
    10-24-2013 09:00 AM
  17. ALpHa.Q.RoUgH's Avatar
    How soon people seem to forget that (Iphone 1, Galaxy S1, Nexus) all started off as exclusives. We would all like for exclusives to go away in a perfect world, but I dont see any manufacturer just walking in to the U.S. Market demanding access to all carriers. Google tried to do the direct buying idea with the Nexus 1 but closed that shop up. Yes, the iPhones and Galaxies sell now all across carriers, but that was after some years of generating a fan base and clout to do be able to do that.

    The best thing to hope for is for variants. The 920 got two other spinoff's and the 800 as well. The one thing about exclusives is that they dont last forever which is good, it's mainly a basis to see what the demand is before opening up all access to see if they make a profit from a business sense. Palm had to do the same thing and the hype wasn't there. I feel other carriers will get variants as the 1520 is a big deal (no pun intended) lol.
    Nogitsune Micah likes this.
    10-24-2013 10:23 AM
  18. mtmjr90's Avatar
    How soon people seem to forget that (Iphone 1, Galaxy S1, Nexus) all started off as exclusives. We would all like for exclusives to go away in a perfect world, but I dont see any manufacturer just walking in to the U.S. Market demanding access to all carriers. Google tried to do the direct buying idea with the Nexus 1 but closed that shop up. Yes, the iPhones and Galaxies sell now all across carriers, but that was after some years of generating a fan base and clout to do be able to do that.

    The best thing to hope for is for variants. The 920 got two other spinoff's and the 800 as well. The one thing about exclusives is that they dont last forever which is good, it's mainly a basis to see what the demand is before opening up all access to see if they make a profit from a business sense. Palm had to do the same thing and the hype wasn't there. I feel other carriers will get variants as the 1520 is a big deal (no pun intended) lol.
    1. We live in 2013, not 2007 (iPhone), 2009 (Palm), or 2010 (Galaxy S1, Nexus One). The Nexus One came out in 2010. The first Windows Phone came out in 2010. Carrier/OEM dynamics have changed (obviously not enough, but nonetheless, they've changed.)
    2. Exactly which fervent US LG fanbase made it so that the G2 could be one all carriers?
    3. Exactly which fervent US BlackBerry fanbase made it so that the Q10/Z10 could be on 3+ US carriers?
    4. Exactly which fervent US HTC fanbase made it so that the One & 8X could be on 3+ US carriers?
    5. As an early adopter, I (and likely many people in the Mobile Nations forums community) am not willing to wait 6 months for exclusivity to end. By that time, the phone will be outdated and not worth spending $650+ on.

    Believe me, I know my smartphone history and I know how and why device exclusives were so important in the past. However that doesn't mean it must always be that way. People are starting to recognize and identify with specific device models & brands that are not exclusive to carriers, much to the carrier's chagrin I'm sure. Additionally, as I've said in a couple other posts in this thread - it should be painfully obvious that AT&T WP exclusives are not working. US WP marketshare is still abysmal and 2+ years of AT&T Nokia flagship exclusives has barely moved the needle. It's time for a different approach.

    What I'm starting to think is that Nokia must have made a similar deal with AT&T that Apple did in 2007. That AT&T was willing to bet on Nokia/WP if and only if they got a 3+ year exclusivity deal on all Nokia flagships. I guess we should thank our lucky stars that AT&T was generous enough to allow variants on other carriers months after initial flagship release? A lot of good that's doing WP in the US overall marketshare.
    10-24-2013 10:36 AM
  19. ALpHa.Q.RoUgH's Avatar
    1. We live in 2013, not 2007 (iPhone), 2009 (Palm), or 2010 (Galaxy S1, Nexus One). The Nexus One came out in 2010. The first Windows Phone came out in 2010. Carrier/OEM dynamics have changed (obviously not enough, but nonetheless, they've changed.)
    2. Exactly which fervent US LG fanbase made it so that the G2 could be one all carriers?
    3. Exactly which fervent US BlackBerry fanbase made it so that the Q10/Z10 could be on 3+ US carriers?
    4. Exactly which fervent US HTC fanbase made it so that the One & 8X could be on 3+ US carriers?
    5. As an early adopter, I (and likely many people in the Mobile Nations forums community) am not willing to wait 6 months for exclusivity to end. By that time, the phone will be outdated and not worth spending $650+ on.

    Believe me, I know my smartphone history and I know how and why device exclusives were so important in the past. However that doesn't mean it must always be that way. People are starting to recognize and identify with specific device models & brands that are not exclusive to carriers, much to the carrier's chagrin I'm sure. Additionally, as I've said in a couple other posts in this thread - it should be painfully obvious that AT&T WP exclusives are not working. US WP marketshare is still abysmal and 2+ years of AT&T Nokia flagship exclusives has barely moved the needle. It's time for a different approach.
    Well blackberry has been around for years thus the reason why and many companies use them for business that's their niche. I get your point but you keep naming phones that came after the fact. Yes now they have the marketability to bring to all carriers but it hasn't been that way. These carriers here are not so feverish to jump out and try to sell Windows Phones. It's hard as a semi-new company to come in and get everyone to buy into your product. It doesn't have to be this way I agree but do you want one brand trying (keyword is trying if they really are) to put the effort to sell this phone because they know they the only one that has it, or you want it spread about being suppressed by Iphones and Galaxy commercials because their is no incentive to promote. The business idea is to get one company to promote the hell out of your product so that it sells and the demand is high to make other carriers want the phone because the demand is there to justify a profit. If there is no such demand generated then what reason is there to sell. I see your point though, I'm just looking from a business point of view.
    10-24-2013 11:07 AM
  20. Dave Blake's Avatar
    If you are upset about carrier exclusives you should be complaining to Motorola and Verizon. Motorola stopped making devices for other carriers with the Droid line of devices. Its just been this last couple of years that Motorola has started giving other carriers Droid quality devices. I know carrier exclusives have been around fora long time but Verizon, Apple and Motorola made it popular. The other carriers are just trying to keep up.
    10-24-2013 11:29 AM
  21. mtmjr90's Avatar
    If you are upset about carrier exclusives you should be complaining to Motorola and Verizon. Motorola stopped making devices for other carriers with the Droid line of devices. Its just been this last couple of years that Motorola has started giving other carriers Droid quality devices. I know carrier exclusives have been around fora long time but Verizon, Apple and Motorola made it popular. The other carriers are just trying to keep up.
    I have no problem blaming Verizon (or any carrier) for the mess we're now. As for Motorola, that deal worked well for them for a couple years, but look where they are now (I mean in terms of profitability). Carrier exclusives are like a crash diet. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Even if they work, it's damn hard to maintain the success afterwards. In Nokia's case, the crash diet isn't even working.

    I definitely do my part to send a message to carriers/OEMs. I buy unlocked & full retail, will not sign contracts, switch between prepaid services often, and when possible, try to buy from as close to the source (Apple Store, Microsoft Store, Google Play Store) as possible to skirt the carriers. But I'm just one person and the majority of the US consumer base a) genuinely doesn't think or care about this, especially due to the warped pricing model introduced by subsidies and/or b) is complacent with the current carrier-centric model.
    10-24-2013 11:50 AM
  22. VengenceIsMine's Avatar
    A lot of you are either just dumb or retarded. Obviously Nokia would love to have their products on all the major US carriers but it's the carriers who have the leverage here. AT&T makes it a condition that they get an exclusive or they won't carry it. They are using their market power over a company without any leverage, Nokia needs AT&T much more than the reverse so if Nokia has to choose between AT&T and T-Mobile, they will chose AT&T because of AT&T's larger market share. Apple and Samsung have much, much more leverage so they get what they want. Nokia has next to none, so they have to dance to AT&T's tune. AT&T gets first crack because they are GSM and their bands line up better with the rest of the world compared to Verizon who demands even more control than AT&T. Apple was in the same boat when they released the iPhone. Do you think they wanted to be restricted to just 1 carrier? Of course not. So please, spare us all the stupidity and put the blame where it belongs, AT&T and a compliant FCC who lets the borderline monopoly carriers abuse the market however they want.
    Nogitsune Micah likes this.
    10-24-2013 03:23 PM
  23. metalchick719's Avatar
    And so forth. The "outrage" is ridiculous coming from folks that CHOSE the competition. If coverage is awful, then that's very unfortunate and I can understand. But the others need to move on
    Excuse me, but some people can't afford to pay AT&T's ridiculously jacked prices or don't want to overpay for their cell service. I would much rather pay the $79.98 for two lines that I get on T-Mobile than deal with the B.S. AT&T resorts to with overpricing on plans. So the "outrage" is perfectly warranted, especially when they take months to provide updates to phones they have exclusion to when they're supposed to be the so-called "premier" partner of these devices.
    10-24-2013 03:33 PM
  24. scottcraft's Avatar
    Has the Verizon/Motorola partnership really worked that well for Motorola? Even running a popular operating system in android Motorola isn't doing that great. The bottom line is Verizon has sold windows phone fairly well and updated them just as fast or faster than AT&T. I understand AT&T cuts Nokia a good deal in return for these exclusive devices, but how many more phones could Nokia sell if their top phone launched on all major carriers in the US in the same month?
    Joe Acerbic likes this.
    10-24-2013 04:25 PM
  25. JamesDax's Avatar
    As a happy AT&T customer I'm going to have to say no.
    10-24-2013 04:34 PM
116 ... 2345

Similar Threads

  1. AT&T in NYC - Epic Windows Phone Failure
    By nasellok in forum Windows Phone 8
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 04:55 PM
  2. Watch Nokia discuss the hardware and features of the 2520
    By HeyCori in forum Nokia Lumia 2520
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2013, 08:56 AM
  3. Why AT&T in US>? Any update on release date in India?
    By dvrsrikar in forum Nokia Lumia 1520
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2013, 05:35 AM
  4. Instagram App Exclusive to Lumia?
    By Nogitsune Micah in forum Applications
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-22-2013, 03:53 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD