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

The Lard

New member
Aug 29, 2014
79
0
0
Visit site
Arguable though we should be talking about 830 vs 820 and 930 vs 920, not 9 vs 8. And the 820 did have significant compromises - screen resolution, camera, battery, design was a bit lame etc, and these are the areas they've improved on with the 830. You could even go as far as to say the 920 had compromises if you consider no SD card support, fixed battery, bulk/weight to be such - none of these things really bothered me but they did some people. Again, you can't have everything - there's always a trade off. Even the true 'flagship' 930 had to sacrifice Glance for the sake of a 1080p AMOLED screen. Not a choice I would have made if it was up to me. Ideally you'd just be able to mix and match your own features and have your own bespoke device made to spec. How cool would that be?!
 

HelloLudger

New member
Jul 5, 2014
103
0
0
Visit site
I'm sorry, but you are white washing the stupid decisions which lead to this phone.
They say it's the affordable flagship, but right now it's not affordable nor a flagship.

For 330?+tax they could have easily added a Snapdragon 800. Just compare prices with other manufacturers and I don't even talk about Xiomi, etc.

Or they could have made it really affordable. With a retail price of 249? they had every right to call it the affordable flagship, but not now.

Btw, the Lumia 930 is 395?+tax on Amazon.de.... Why should anyone care for the 830?
 

The Lard

New member
Aug 29, 2014
79
0
0
Visit site
Btw, the Lumia 930 is 395?+tax on Amazon.de.... Why should anyone care for the 830?


Ignore the 'affordable flagship' stuff, that's just marketing. It's not a flagship. The flagship is the flagship.

I understand what you're saying about the price but you can't compare the announced launch price of a phone with another's current price on Amazon. The price is likely to drop lower than the RRP by some amount not too long after initial launch, particularly through large retailers like them.
 

HelloLudger

New member
Jul 5, 2014
103
0
0
Visit site
The RRP is of course higher than the street price. But it still have to make some sense. And this doesn't , it's an embarrassment for Microsoft and Nokia since they doesn't seem to have any understanding of the current smartphone market.

I just read a blog of one of Germanys biggest online retailers.

The RRP of the 830 is 399?. Do you know what the RRP for the new Moto G is? 199?.

And they are basically the same phones. Sure Nokia's camera will be better, so will probably the build quality. But still, the 830 is a bad joke, an insult to any informed customer.
 

Keith Wallace

New member
Nov 8, 2012
3,179
0
0
Visit site
Arguable though we should be talking about 830 vs 820 and 930 vs 920, not 9 vs 8. And the 820 did have significant compromises - screen resolution, camera, battery, design was a bit lame etc, and these are the areas they've improved on with the 830.

The 820 had compromises to the 920, but they weren't major ones. The screen honestly looks fine. The battery wasn't even a compromise, because the lower resolution and AMOLED display makes it so that my sister's 822 has better battery life than my 920 and its larger battery--so, again, I wouldn't call the battery a compromise. The camera was something of a compromise, but still did its job. The 820's design was fine, though the 822 looks pretty ugly, but even then, that's a personal preference assessment, not really a compromise you can guarantee as fact.

What I'm saying is that the 820's "compromises" weren't significant. By 2012 standards, everything but the display resolution was pretty solid, even next to a Galaxy S III. The problem arises when you have a similar device launched in 2014, because the compromises become more noticeable.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
322,914
Messages
2,242,888
Members
428,004
Latest member
hetb