Let's be honest - this thing isn't going to compete at $299
- Thread starter bigkevbosky
- Start date
This announcement of the Lumia 1020 got me excited for Windows Phone and Nokia. I can't purchase the phone because Im in Australia and I barely got to properly enjoy my NLumia 920 and Surface Pro combination. However, You r right bout the pricing...It makes sense that the price is high but I do believe that the number '41' at the back does justify that pricing: a DSLR in your pocket! My Canon EOS 550D costed like $700 and its heavy and hard to handle and I NEVER seem to have it at the right time.
I believe that Nokia is going for the hardcore artists with this phone and its pricing, but I also believe that this is not the right time for this hardcore experiment: Nokia is struggling. I know that Nokia is keen to strut its stuff with some big numbers and innovations but AT LEAST, sell a phone alongside the 1020 that is $99 in US, like the 820 to the 920. The Nokia 10xx(whatever NK calls it) can have the gimmicks, but lose the 41 shooter and opt for a 16mp with 6 lenses watever or something to keep up with Sammy's number game with 13mp on their s4 (like it or not, megapixel counts does matter to the dumb 95% of the consumers), this phone can be lighter at like 133g and have a aluminium & polycarbonate combination.
Did my imagined phone sound familiar? It should be, and that leads to my next point. Nokia could have waited a few weeks later to announce the 925 (928 maybe) alongside the 1020 as a trio, if you think bout it, the 925 makes a perfect bridge from 920 to 1020, it is the first to have the six lenses and a new design that all people love, it has the low-light abilities that partiers love and a great AMOLED screen. The 928 was enough as a international reboot for Windows Phone; it was just a upgraded 920.
I believe that Nokia is going for the hardcore artists with this phone and its pricing, but I also believe that this is not the right time for this hardcore experiment: Nokia is struggling. I know that Nokia is keen to strut its stuff with some big numbers and innovations but AT LEAST, sell a phone alongside the 1020 that is $99 in US, like the 820 to the 920. The Nokia 10xx(whatever NK calls it) can have the gimmicks, but lose the 41 shooter and opt for a 16mp with 6 lenses watever or something to keep up with Sammy's number game with 13mp on their s4 (like it or not, megapixel counts does matter to the dumb 95% of the consumers), this phone can be lighter at like 133g and have a aluminium & polycarbonate combination.
Did my imagined phone sound familiar? It should be, and that leads to my next point. Nokia could have waited a few weeks later to announce the 925 (928 maybe) alongside the 1020 as a trio, if you think bout it, the 925 makes a perfect bridge from 920 to 1020, it is the first to have the six lenses and a new design that all people love, it has the low-light abilities that partiers love and a great AMOLED screen. The 928 was enough as a international reboot for Windows Phone; it was just a upgraded 920.
I have two points to make. As an Australian, I get things months after half the world, so its not a happy life for a guy who just likes every gadget he has to be brand new. I think Nokia made a hell of a phone here and its price is fully justified: A DSLR grade shooter in your pocket! It brings a whole new meaning to the saying: 'The best camera is the one you have with you.' If a measly tiny shooter is the best...I cant live. Speaking of DSLRs, I do have a Canon EOS 550D, but it never seems to appear when amazing things happen. However, I also believe that Nokia is not going for the casual audience with this beast: a bad move for a struggling company who I hate to see die and a bad move for a misunderstood OS that I fell in love with barely a year ago. I know that Nokia is keen to strut its stuff with big numbers and innovations that it still manages to create, but AT LEAST, release a more mainstream phone for an average guy/girl on the street, who likes taking selfies that does not allow zooming into all his/her various imperfections.
The phone that should have being announced alongside the 1020 needs some powerful but more modest premium feel to it, it should come cheap at $99 US (I don't know what ur US paying methods is, so I just guess) on contract, it can have all the usual gimmicks the 1020 have, but lose 41 beast and just put a more simple 16 mp in there without all the loseless zooming and dual-resolution jargon that consumers normally don't care bout. I said 16 because I know megapixel counts does matter to 95% of the consumers, and 16 beats the 13 Sammy had crunched in the S4 (and then theres the **** xoom or zoom: just a cheap dslr strapped to a phone). It should have a thin and light form, with a combination of aluminium and polycarbonate design, weighing like 133g.
Does this sound familiar? It should be; which leads to my next point. The Lumia 925 should have waited a few more weeks and be announced with the 1020 with a different name (1005 or something); like the 820 to the 920. It makes sense because the 925 acts just like a bridge from the 920 to the 1020: It upgrade the camera lenses from 5 to 6, it improved the software aspects with new apps, and it appeals to the mass market with its design and weight. The 1020 and 925 just feels...right as a couple, while the 720, 520 and the 928 as a trio for April made more sense to treat the world while they waited. In Australia, my point makes even more sense: The availability day of the 925 is like July 27: EXACT date as the 1020's anyway. So now that 1020 is announced: the 925 sound like a oldie so out of the equation altogether for tech-savvy Aussies. If the 1020 was announced with the 925; its a whole different story.
So Nokia, a understandable but bad choice of marketing and product announcements, in fact, I still think the next generation of Lumias should have been announced much later than this: Windows Phone 8.1 any1?
The phone that should have being announced alongside the 1020 needs some powerful but more modest premium feel to it, it should come cheap at $99 US (I don't know what ur US paying methods is, so I just guess) on contract, it can have all the usual gimmicks the 1020 have, but lose 41 beast and just put a more simple 16 mp in there without all the loseless zooming and dual-resolution jargon that consumers normally don't care bout. I said 16 because I know megapixel counts does matter to 95% of the consumers, and 16 beats the 13 Sammy had crunched in the S4 (and then theres the **** xoom or zoom: just a cheap dslr strapped to a phone). It should have a thin and light form, with a combination of aluminium and polycarbonate design, weighing like 133g.
Does this sound familiar? It should be; which leads to my next point. The Lumia 925 should have waited a few more weeks and be announced with the 1020 with a different name (1005 or something); like the 820 to the 920. It makes sense because the 925 acts just like a bridge from the 920 to the 1020: It upgrade the camera lenses from 5 to 6, it improved the software aspects with new apps, and it appeals to the mass market with its design and weight. The 1020 and 925 just feels...right as a couple, while the 720, 520 and the 928 as a trio for April made more sense to treat the world while they waited. In Australia, my point makes even more sense: The availability day of the 925 is like July 27: EXACT date as the 1020's anyway. So now that 1020 is announced: the 925 sound like a oldie so out of the equation altogether for tech-savvy Aussies. If the 1020 was announced with the 925; its a whole different story.
So Nokia, a understandable but bad choice of marketing and product announcements, in fact, I still think the next generation of Lumias should have been announced much later than this: Windows Phone 8.1 any1?
coip
New member
- May 21, 2013
- 975
- 0
- 0
That part was just kind of a joke. That said, I do think the Xbox Games on Windows Phone is a huge selling point. Microsoft should absolutely not release any more Xbox games for iOS and Android (there are a few, like Kinectimals and the upcoming Age of Empires). Doing so is undermining a big selling point: exclusive Xbox games on your phone. I cannot count the number of times that my friends have seen me whip out my Lumia 928, open the Xbox games app and say, "Whoa! You have Xbox games on there!" Fast forward a week and now I'm playing against them in Skulls of the Shogun (them on their Xbox 360s and me on my Windows Phone) and they're all now intrigued with Windows Phone. Microsoft really needs to be marketing this part better, and they also need to get better at getting more of those XBLA games over with cross-platform play (e.g., Carcassonne was a big hit on Xbox 360 and it should've been set up for cross-platform online play of the Windows Phone version too).
JustToClarify
New member
- Mar 11, 2013
- 276
- 0
- 0
do you seriously think Nokia/WP can sell like modern iOS device for the same price? Yes we all know that 1020 is a bit more capable device but explain that to zillion of Apple sheep who will just laugh when they see the price is same...
JerseySal
New member
- Aug 7, 2012
- 674
- 0
- 0
Why do the Androidian s-stirrers bother coming here along with others to talk about it? It's not really that unpopular if they stop by here....or does it just say something about about what pathetic jack***ses they are while proving their assinine theories wrong
maj71303
New member
- May 11, 2012
- 231
- 0
- 0
I think folks are missing something here. This $299 price seems to be At&t walking back all this subsidies for some of these phones. It's starting to look like the big subsidy game is coming to an end. I think it's a test run to see if it can indeed sell for this price. If not At&t will lower the price to make sure it cleans out stock. Seems to be a test run of sorts in my eyes, I don't think something this weak especially compared to other phones can just all of a sudden go for this price point. Other than the massively improved camera it offers nothing new and substantial to the game. The specs are also starting to wear on some people, and I see a lot more spec reading people now because of the way a lot of android phones ran like crap on some hardware.
mr_808
New member
- Oct 30, 2012
- 64
- 0
- 0
Agreed. Hardware will only take WP so far and right now it's not the hardware that is holding it back. I can't believe we have to wait until 2014 for an upgrade that will finally bring unified notifications. You ask anybody why they don't like WP and it's because it still can't do things that should be a staple for all modern mobile OS's. If Ubuntu gets released with more functionality than WP I may jump ship(to where? I don't know) because at that point the wirting will defintitely be on the wall for MS.
Harjit Minhas
New member
- Feb 23, 2013
- 38
- 0
- 0
100% buying this in November or December dont want to buy a launch model cause of the defects, but the phone has its strong points. Its something different which is what most people want, if your a tech savy guy you will know that the 1020 is a brilliant device.
maj71303
New member
- May 11, 2012
- 231
- 0
- 0
in November or December you might be seeing the real flagship as this is just a stopgap by all i'm seeing.
- Nov 22, 2011
- 496
- 0
- 0
But you're still comparing incorrectly. Let me put this in a different perspective.
In the "online streaming world" Netflix seems to be king, with Hulu and Amazon right behind them. Let's say a new company starting streaming content - only they had 1/3 as much as everyone else for the same price. Why would you "switch" or join that "new" company when you can get more for the same money?
The only way the "new" company could get you to check it out, is if it offered its product at a very cheap price.
Apple and Google have built up massive ecosystems that people are tied in to. In order to convince them to "give that up", there HAS to be an incentive. The 41mp camera IS an incentive, a big one - but NOT at $299. My point is that if they had just taken a small loss here, you could've had huge adoption of the platform. At $99 on contract with the free pro grip, you have MILLIONS of NEW WP8 users. Instead, at $299, you've got, I dunno, maybe a few hundred thousand throughout the world? And most of those will probably be people already in the Windows Phone world.
The idea here is to gain marketshare, not stick with the 5% you have now.
People seem to forgot how aggresive Nokia was with their Lumia 900 launch - it shocked people how great of a deal it was when it launched. And THAT didn't sell that well. So they think the answer is to go super expensive? WTF?
Nataku4ca
New member
- Jun 7, 2011
- 435
- 0
- 0
reading some of the comments since I last posted on pricing reminded me of a very interesting point that a instructor of one of my previous job's boss brought in said (product manager class)
my instructor was coaching a nail polish company on selling their products, they had a really good nail polish line that they decided to sell at low price to beat the market (apparently these polishes are as good as if not better then the high end ones... don't ask me i don't know what high end nail polish means....) but they didn't sell at all, after a month they brought the instructor in and he asked them to raise the price to comparable price to other high end nail polish without doing anything else (such as rebranding/marketting/etc) and they sold out of all those nail polish that were sitting in the warehouse within a week
What he basically told us was the fact that having a cheap price doesn't mean it will sell the product, sometimes it will actually be seen as a negative
So here is my perspective after remembering this class, we are techies, we know good tech from bad tech, but for the regular joes they evaluate products based on their own knowledge and a big easy "spec" that helps a lot of the time and that is the price, usually a higher priced product "should" be better than the ones lower it (i know it isn't really that way, but that's how many people buy things) So if a 32GB L1020 sells lower than the 32GB iphone5 its easy to make the assumption that the L1020 doesn't work as well as the iphone
now I know this might sound strange, but pricing a product isn't as simple as some of us may think, cheaper != easier to sell sometimes, cheaper is always easier to sell after the original price is high though, (part of the reason why some retailer deliberately post a high regular price then cut it in half to con buyers into thinking it's much cheaper now and they are getting a great deal....)
another point would be that Nokia is trying to get a product at every price point, and I guess this is the ceiling of that
my instructor was coaching a nail polish company on selling their products, they had a really good nail polish line that they decided to sell at low price to beat the market (apparently these polishes are as good as if not better then the high end ones... don't ask me i don't know what high end nail polish means....) but they didn't sell at all, after a month they brought the instructor in and he asked them to raise the price to comparable price to other high end nail polish without doing anything else (such as rebranding/marketting/etc) and they sold out of all those nail polish that were sitting in the warehouse within a week
What he basically told us was the fact that having a cheap price doesn't mean it will sell the product, sometimes it will actually be seen as a negative
So here is my perspective after remembering this class, we are techies, we know good tech from bad tech, but for the regular joes they evaluate products based on their own knowledge and a big easy "spec" that helps a lot of the time and that is the price, usually a higher priced product "should" be better than the ones lower it (i know it isn't really that way, but that's how many people buy things) So if a 32GB L1020 sells lower than the 32GB iphone5 its easy to make the assumption that the L1020 doesn't work as well as the iphone
now I know this might sound strange, but pricing a product isn't as simple as some of us may think, cheaper != easier to sell sometimes, cheaper is always easier to sell after the original price is high though, (part of the reason why some retailer deliberately post a high regular price then cut it in half to con buyers into thinking it's much cheaper now and they are getting a great deal....)
another point would be that Nokia is trying to get a product at every price point, and I guess this is the ceiling of that
ninjaap
New member
- Dec 10, 2008
- 2,512
- 2
- 0
I completely agree with everything you just said. I think that is exactly what Nokia is doing. I see all the time at department stores like Macys. With that said, I still won't pay $300 when I know I can get a good deal from Amazon.
I wonder what device they have planned for the $199 price point?
Last edited:
Nataku4ca
New member
- Jun 7, 2011
- 435
- 0
- 0
- Nov 22, 2011
- 496
- 0
- 0
Sure. But I can't think of an example in tech where a struggling company INCREASED a price and succeeded. Here's two high priced tech products of recent memory I can remember failing because they were high priced.
The HP Touchpad came out and was priced the same as iPad. Nobody bought them. When they dropped to $99/$149, there were lines at Best Buys for them.
Recently, Blackberry priced the Z10 at $199 on contract, competitive with the Samsungs and Apples of the world. Nobody is buying them at that price, despite better multitasking, better messaging and email, blah blah blah. So now they have to slash prices to $49 on contract. If they had launched at $49 on contract, maybe the Z10 becomes a surprise hit.
Kenny G Jr
New member
- Feb 2, 2013
- 18
- 0
- 0
Let's be honest - this phone is not for the average user. People will pay crazy prices for phones, so it's impossible to say this won't sell well at $299. We'll have to wait and see.
coip
New member
- May 21, 2013
- 975
- 0
- 0
Did you not read it all? I clearly showed that Nokia Lumia 1020 has access to Halo: Spartan Assault whereas iPhone does not. Case closed :wink:
Joking aside, yes iPhone can sell at that price because of the name recognition. It's actually really frustrating how na?ve most consumers are. A friend just went and bought an iPhone 4 because it was an iPhone and "it was free!". I tried telling her that she got ripped off buying a nearly 3-year-old phone with outdated specs that is stuck on 3G and how she would've been much better getting a different free phone (Nokia Lumia 822 or the HTC8X, which was recently free, etc.) but she had never even heard of them and didn't even think about looking into other options. It's a huge hill Microsoft and Nokia need to get over.
That said, it would've been nice if Nokia could've offered this a little cheaper--even $250 would've been fair and $199 would've been a steal; $99 is just way too cheap; Nokia is already bleeding money and can't afford to take a hit on every phone it sells. If they wanted to really get it out there, they should've put it for $199 on all major carriers. This is the type of phone that has a ridiculous selling point (41MP camera) so it doesn't need the "benefits" of exclusivity. Putting it exclusive on AT&T in the U.S. was a terrible decision. Even with a lower price point it wouldn't have taken the market by storm because people just don't switch carriers very often. Everyone is embedded in their massive family plans and getting six other people on staggered contracts to change carriers just isn't going to happen. More than the price point, that was the disappointing part. Nevermind that Nokia probably just really pissed off Verizon (who just got the 928) and T-Mobile (who still don't even have the 925) by already trumping their exclusive Lumias.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
Post pictures of your latest purchase- Started by Laura Knotek
- Replies: 3K
-
How to pare down the length of the file explorer context menu in Windows 10- Started by musicollector
- Replies: 0
-
Blu Win Jr. LTE Windows Phone 8.1 Redux
- Started by ChrysatusAuratus
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram