Someone guess at a price for the Lumia 830 in ? Sterling

[The Lard]

As per the title.

 

[hasasimo]

If it sports a SD 400 I'll go with $299 (?181.66)

If it's a SD 800 my guess is $349 (?151.28)

Of course, the price difference isn't a simple currency conversion, so these are really only my guesses in U.S. dollars. It appears these devices tend to be a bit more expensive in the U.K. than in the U.S. initially.

 

[The Lard]

Of course, the price difference isn't a simple currency conversion, so these are really only my guesses in U.S. dollars. It appears these devices tend to be a bit more expensive in the U.K. than in the U.S. initially.

This is basically exactly what I was going to say after I'd just read the first bit. Bound to be at least ?200 here :-(

 

[The Lard]

Actually ?250+ wouldn't surprise me.

 

[nicfromwales]

$299 will translate as ?299, as bloody usual.

 

[AlexanderPD]

$299 will translate as ?299, as bloody usual.

you can come to italy, it will translate in €299! Just a little more cheap!

 

[The Lard]

How much was the 820 when it was first out, anyone remember?

 

[AlexanderPD]

How much was the 820 when it was first out, anyone remember?

in italy it was about 500€, don't know about US or other countries

 

[The Lard]

330 Euros = ~?260, + VAT = ~?310.

So I reckon you could maybe get an unwanted upgrade off eBay for about ?200 after a couple of months when the dust has settled.

 

[rafal soboczynski]

I would say they will price it on par with galaxy s5 mini and HTC one mini 2

 

[Keith Wallace]

If it sports a SD 400 I'll go with $299 (?181.66)

If it's a SD 800 my guess is $349 (?151.28)

Of course, the price difference isn't a simple currency conversion, so these are really only my guesses in U.S. dollars. It appears these devices tend to be a bit more expensive in the U.K. than in the U.S. initially.

I just wanted to point out the hilarity of this, just because they gave the thing s Snapdragon 400 and have its Euro price in-line with $433. That's bad.

 

[The Lard]

True, the SoC is disappointing considering the price point. I do think though that the masses generally wouldn't even know the implications of it having a SD400 - they will however choose a device based on design, display size and quality and possibly resolution (and it is still HD after all). So the 830 might do OK after all - once the price drops a bit.

In fact I think it's quite possible that in the mass market the choice of 10MP sensor could actually be more damaging than the choice of processor given some of the alternatives available for a similar price - I'm sure there are still a lot of people that subscribe to the megapixel myth (unfortunately) and consequently manufacturers will churn out devices with higher numbers to take advantage when as we all know there's no real world benefit (natutally I'm referring to devices with ~16MP sensors but standard smartphone optics as opposed to high-res Pureview tech that utilises pixel oversampling).

 

[hasasimo]

I just wanted to point out the hilarity of this, just because they gave the thing s Snapdragon 400 and have its Euro price in-line with $433. That's bad.

Funny thing is I thought that, if anything, my estimate might be on the high end.

 

[hasasimo]

True, the SoC is disappointing considering the price point. I do think though that the masses generally wouldn't even know the implications of it having a SD400 - they will however choose a device based on design, display size and quality and possibly resolution (and it is still HD after all). So the 830 might do OK after all - once the price drops a bit.

In fact I think it's quite possible that in the mass market the choice of 10MP sensor could actually be more damaging than the choice of processor given some of the alternatives available for a similar price - I'm sure there are still a lot of people that subscribe to the megapixel myth (unfortunately) and consequently manufacturers will churn out devices with higher numbers to take advantage when as we all know there's no real world benefit (natutally I'm referring to devices with ~16MP sensors but standard smartphone optics as opposed to high-res Pureview tech that utilises pixel oversampling).

Yeah, after all the back and forth today I think I might still be on board, but now I face the unexpected challenge of getting a U.S. LTE-compatible variant.

 

[Keith Wallace]

True, the SoC is disappointing considering the price point. I do think though that the masses generally wouldn't even know the implications of it having a SD400 - they will however choose a device based on design, display size and quality and possibly resolution (and it is still HD after all). So the 830 might do OK after all - once the price drops a bit.

In fact I think it's quite possible that in the mass market the choice of 10MP sensor could actually be more damaging than the choice of processor given some of the alternatives available for a similar price - I'm sure there are still a lot of people that subscribe to the megapixel myth (unfortunately) and consequently manufacturers will churn out devices with higher numbers to take advantage when as we all know there's no real world benefit (natutally I'm referring to devices with ~16MP sensors but standard smartphone optics as opposed to high-res Pureview tech that utilises pixel oversampling).

In that case, you sell the user the 1020. The internal components will rival those of the 830, but you'll get the 41-MP sensor. In fact, I don't get why you'd go 830 over 1020, if you care about a camera.

 

[The Lard]

In that case, you sell the user the 1020. The internal components will rival those of the 830, but you'll get the 41-MP sensor. In fact, I don't get why you'd go 830 over 1020, if you care about a camera.

Fair point. I get that no device can have everything as there always has to be a trade-off somewhere, be it thickness, power, battery life, whatever. Guess I was more just trying to illustrate that Joe Public will be looking more at the likes of megapixel count etc than they would at the SD400 vs 800 SoC - something most people know, understand and care little about.

 

[AlexanderPD]

coming back to topic:
it should cost 330€ + taxes. How much are taxes? its not only VAT.

Based on what happened when Lumia 720 was released, Nokia said it had to cost 250€ + taxes. Real price was 350€ (here, in italy).
So taxes increased the final costs by 40%. If this is true with Lumia 830 too it final cost is 462€. So its likely to see it at 470€.

I love this phone but i can't pay 470€ for a snapdragon 400 400€ is my maximum price for this but i don't think we will ever get that price.

I'm really considering a nexus 5 (s800, full hd, wireless charging and same dimension of lumia 830 but 20g lighter) at ~310€ and switch back to Lumia with 1030.

uff not satisfing at all

 

[worldspy99]

Yeah, after all the back and forth today I think I might still be on board, but now I face the unexpected challenge of getting a U.S. LTE-compatible variant.

I think we'll probably get a 830.3 variant of this phone in the USA at some point in time and will probably match the current price of the Lumia 1320 six months after launch.

 

[1101x10]

With the current exchange rate EUR 330 into UKP + 20% VAT = ?314

 

[Keith Wallace]

Fair point. I get that no device can have everything as there always has to be a trade-off somewhere, be it thickness, power, battery life, whatever. Guess I was more just trying to illustrate that Joe Public will be looking more at the likes of megapixel count etc than they would at the SD400 vs 800 SoC - something most people know, understand and care little about.

I agree, a number the folks don't understand but can easily read is easier than trying to translate what the SoC difference means.

However, I'll say that there wasn't much of a compromise with my 920 in 2012. The battery life wasn't perfect, but I started yesterday around 85% battery, left for the day (6:15 AM until about 3:30 PM), never turned anything off, and ended up home in the 50% range just fine (though usage wasn't heavy). My phone can last me probably 24-36 hours.

That said, the battery life is the biggest downside on the 920 to me, and I don't mind it one bit. The thickness is a plus to me, as I have larger hands and like the feeling of durability. The SoC at the time was basically the best you could get. The wireless charging was a nice touch, and 32 GB of internal storage has served me well over these 22 months. The display is great, and I honestly don't see how another will improve on it (resolution/pixel density is beyond the eye's capability of perception, highest refresh rate in a smartphone, size is just fine). The camera is more than what I need, since I'm not big on the media capturing. It had the OS I wanted, and it's the OS I still want in the future. Oh, and the thing only cost $50 on-contract and came with the $50 wireless charger for free, making the price great.

Point being, the 920 from 2012 had nothing about it that felt like a compromise to me. However, when I look at the 830 in 2014, I see compromises all over the place. The display isn't great for being an alleged flagship. The SoC is a step above low-end, but far from flagship-quality. The camera is good, but not at the level of a flagship device. The design looks nice, but the coloring doesn't (hate the aluminum). The wireless charging is nice, but in 2014, AT&T is stripping out Qi from devices it sells, so I lose that. It's an OK-ish mid-range phone, but it's price just below the high-end stuff, which is isn't even close to competing with.

I feel that the 920 had everything I wanted and more in 2012. Its only lacking quality in 2014 is an old SoC, which isn't its fault. The 830 has something comparable inside, but it's 2 years later, so it is harder to defend these specs.