I think you're hoping in vain. The press release states quite clearly the 800C is tailored specifically for the Chinese market. Why get all excited? EDIT: Aren't Microsoft and Nokia partnering with AT&T? They use GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, HSPA, HSPA+, LTE for data. Sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers
Nokia also sells the Lumia 710 through T-Mobile. There's been informal rumors suggesting that Sprint and Verizon will get Nokia Windows Phones when Windows Phone 8 drops later this year. So the AT&T thing isn't an exclusive.
No. T-Mobile (which has the Lumia 710) is not a CDMA carrier; US Cellular (which I use) is. I was using the T-Mobile Lumia 710 to contradict "Aren't Microsoft and Nokia partnering with AT&T?" The Lumia 610 and 800C are CDMA phones; the 710, 800, and 900 are not.
Right. And I said it had the potential to come here for US CDMA networks, not that they had already announced that it would. You really, really are intent on having the final word here, aren't ya? Would it make you happier if I just said Microsoft sucks and always will and everyone should use Android?
Okay where is this potential? Has anybody said the 800C is going to the USA? What is it specifically that is giving you this hope the 800C is going to be released in the USA? No actually I don't think everybody should use Android. People should use whatever meets their needs. A diverse market promotes competition and innovation. Diversity is healthy. The issue here is you have some how convinced yourself Nokia's Lumia range is some sort of magic bullet to slay Microsoft's mobile market woes despite all the evidence to the contrary. Your reasoning boils down to "just because".
No. That's not my reasoning. Boston Globe: Nokia, Microsoft's Lumia 900 gets it right New York Times: Two underdogs produce, but in time? Huffington Post: Lumia 900 Review: Nokia's New Smartphone Is Easy To Use, Nice To Look At ABC News: Nokia Lumia 900 review FoxNews: Hands-on with the Lumia 900 (negative conclusion because the reviewer thought it was too big and the screen was oversaturated, but the meat of the review is positive). CNN: Nokia Lumia 900 is the best Windows Phone ever CNN Money: A $99 Lumia 900 is just what Microsoft and Nokia need Those should demonstrate that the Lumia 900 is generating a lot of buzz in the US, and not just in tech forum circles, but among the general population. You don't normally see the New York Times, Boston Globe, FoxNews, and ABC News all covering the launch of a new smartphone. The iPhone might be the only exception. The Lumia 900 is getting Americans talking, big-time.
So it takes a while for apps to load? The iPhone 4S and Galaxy S II still take better pictures than the spanking new Nokia Lumia 900 inspite of the fact Nokia's Symbian based super phone reportedly has the best camera of any phone in the world bar none. What's going on here? Is this a hardware issue or a software issue? Why isn't it better than it's rivals? Neither Nokia nor Microsoft have been underdogs for a long time. Don't believe the headlines. It's a bigger but cheaper display. Engadget claim it has 16GB? Who's getting their facts wrong? These articles try to be positive. But when you dig into the detail this package is still missing a lot of stuff. I mean still no Dropbox? What's taking so long? And it seems AT&T have exclusivity on the 900. And why is the 900 being compaired to 2G phones? Why not compare it to the 808 Pure View or the N9? Two current generation Nokia super phones. I hope your new phone works well for you. At least it'll have fast web access.
Well there's a loading animation that takes maybe a half-second for native apps. Attractive and refined but not immediate. Think of it like the "genie effect" when you minimize a window in OSX...attractive but objectively slower than instant minimization. I don't recall claiming that this $99-with-a-contract phone was better than every other phone sold in the world in every respect, regardless of the price of those other phones. You're cherry-picking criticisms and changing the goalposts continually in this conversation (I noticed how you gloss over all the superlatives about the operating system, the screen, and the stylish design in all of those reviews), insisting on having the last word and having that last word be negative. You said you had no reason to think that the Lumia 900 release was going to be a big deal. I gave you ample proof. Now instead of admitting that it's generating a ton of buzz over here, you're changing the conversation. For camera aficionados, the Titan II is the best Windows Phone, not the Lumia 900. No model is best-of-the-best in every single respect, regardless of OS. A Windows Phone doesn't have to be better than every single other phone on the market in every single way in order to be a success, does it? Nobody makes a device immune from any criticism whatsoever. They're both underdogs in the US smartphone market. These are US publications talking about the US smartphone market. Nobody got it wrong; they're talking about different things. 16 GB of storage; 14 GB of free space. My phone was the same way out of the box. It has 16 GB of storage, 14 of which are free for me to fill up with stuff. You know when you have a 750 GB HDD on your computer with 50 GB of system files and recovery partition, so you have 700 GB of free space? Yeah, it's like that. Ask Dropbox. Dropbox is responsible for making a Windows Phone Dropbox app. That's not Microsoft's job. For now, yes. But remember that the iPhone started as an AT&T exclusive in the US as well, and now it's on several carriers. Neither sold in the United States. Why would a US publication writing for US readers compare the phone to something that's not sold in the US? So instead, they compared it to the most recent iPhone and a best-selling Android phone. Seems fair to me.
The Lumia 900 is supposedly Nokia's new "flagship phone". It's going up against phones like the iPhone 4S and the Galaxy S II. So yes it has to equal or match those phones. Otherwise why would anybody want it? From what I can see from the articles you've quoted it falls well short of matching the capabilities of those phones. The very fact there isn't a Windows Phone on the market that can match the top of the range iPhone and Android models is one would assume the reason why Microsoft are in the doldrums right now. Otherwise what's the problem? Why aren't Windows Phones selling? They've been around for 18 months already.
You just said that you didn't think that the Lumia 900 should be compared to the iPhone 4S or the Galaxy S II, but against other Nokia models from other markets. Now you're comparing them yourself. It's half the price of those two models, and it beats them in certain aspects but lags behind in others. That's what happens with competing models. You never have one model beat another in every way, whether we're talking cars, computers, or phones. You have displayed a willingness to respond to ANYTHING I post in this thread with a wall of negativity, and a dogged insistence on having the last word. I give up. Say that Windows Phone poisoned your dog and have the last word. I don't care anymore. For anyone who cares, substantive first-hand reviews by an actual user and owner can be found at posts #1, #12, and #50. A big ice-cold glass of internet haterade can be found in the rest of the thread. If anyone else besides AikiWolfie actually wants to talk about this phone OS instead of saying again and again and again and again and again that (1) it's not yet taken over the market, and (2) the hardware it runs on is not better in every single way than every other phone on the market, let me know.
No I said the Lumia 900 shouldn't be compared to 2G phones. You're just making stuff up now. I'm simply offering up the other side of the argument. And I genuinely hold the opinion the Lumia 900 isn't going to make Windows Phone 7 a success. You've offered your side of the argument. I've offered counter points. You listed a few recent articles as some sort of vindication for your opinion. I pointed out that on closer inspection those articles aren't the glowing report you thought they were. I'm sorry if that offends you. I can't change the truth. Microsoft and Nokia are massive corporations with far more experience of the mobile market than either Google or Apple. They shouldn't be struggling. But they are. If the problem isn't in the product then it's somewhere else.
The Lumia 900 was released this weekend. On the US Amazon.com site, in the category "cell phones with service plans," the black Lumia 900 with AT&T is currently the best-selling phone in the United States. What's the second best-selling phone? The blue Lumia 900 with AT&T. And two more colors (white and red) will be released later this month. That's right--even dividing its sales numbers between different colors, the Lumia 900 has managed to take the first AND second places in the best-selling phones on Amazon.com's US site. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Cell-Phones-Accessories-Service-Plans/zgbs/wireless/2407747011/ref=zg_bs_nav_cps_1_cps"]Amazon Best Sellers: best Cell Phones With Service Plans[/ame] Still think the model's going to be a failure? PS--Average user review so far is five stars out of five. To put that in perspective, the iPhone 4S and the Samsung Galaxy Nexus both average (a still-respectable) four stars out of five. EDIT: Forbes offers some further analysis of sales numbers so far. This is really, really an impressive showing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2012/04/09/no-denying-strong-lumia-debut-at-att/
Your link doesn't show any phones. But I found it anyway. It's a region thing. Something to note is only 2 out of the top 20 are Windows Phones. And they're basically the same model. Point one from the Forbes article tells us why this phone is doing so well out of the gate. It's aggressively priced by AT&T and benefits from an extra subsidy from Amazon. I doubt anybody will be making a profit on these handsets. While point two asks the really important question. Can these sales be sustained? It's a good early start. But the fat lady ain't singing yet.
I think the word you're looking for to describe the Lumia 900 is "vanguard." The Lumia 900 is the vanguard to build interest and consumer acceptance of Windows Phone. There's a big difference between "aggressively priced" and "selling below cost." Windows Phone is made to do more with less, and Nokia (unlike HTC and Samsung) gets this and is capitalizing on it. The Lumia 900 is a single-core phone with 512 mb of RAM, half of what the Android flagship phone HTC One X offers on both fronts, which keeps the Lumia's price down. It's got a nice screen, and its pixel density looks just fine the way the Windows Phone OS is designed, but doesn't have anywhere near the pixel density of an iPhone 4S, which keeps the Lumia's price down. Its polycarbonate unibody looks very nice, but is less expensive than high-end metal cases (remember Apple used to use polycarbonate unibodies on the MacBook laptops that were cheaper than the aluminum MacBook Pros). The Lumia 900 costs less than an iPhone or an Android flagship because it's less expensive to produce, not because they're selling it at a loss. This is part of the long-term business strategy of Nokia for Windows Phones--target the mid-range smartphone market, not the high-end market, offering a stylish, zippy, and refined experience for your typical non-power-user while undercutting the Android and Apple flagships on cost. HTC and Samsung haven't followed Nokia's business model on this front because they're still pitching their Android flagships first and foremost. That's why the HTC Titan II is priced at $199 on-contract, just like HTC's Android flagships, even though it has the same CPU, memory, and screen resolution as the $99 Lumia 900. HTC doesn't want to cannibalize its profitable Android sales. Nokia doesn't have to worry about that. You're trying really, really hard to stay negative just for the sake of being negative, aren't you?
The Lumia 900 is now #30 on the list of bestselling phones and accessories on Amazon. That's comparably popular to the original Motorola Droid in December 2009, even before you consider that the Droid only came in one color at launch and the Lumia is dividing its numbers between two colors. http://www.slashgear.com/att-nokia-lumia-900-continues-to-climb-sales-charts-10222251/
What makes you think the dual core ARM chips are more expensive than the single core chips? If there are more devices using the dual core chips, then they become more economical to manufacture and the price drops like a stone. And while it may seem counter intuitive. A dual core chip can be better for battery life because the CPU doesn't need to work so hard. I'm sorry but when a phone is priced "aggressively" it is being sold as a loss leader. The margins on phones are razor thin. On top of that "aggressive pricing" by AT&T, the Lumia 900 is also being subsidised by Amazon. Which means Amazon are basically paying part of the true cost of your phone. Amazon are not making a profit from the Lumia 900 directly. It's being sold as a loss leader. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't mean it's a bad product. AT&T and Amazon will recoup their investments from "marketing dollars" from Microsoft, which Nokia also gets and from data plans and accessories. No the HTC Titan II costs $199 on-contract because HTC aren't subsidising the phone as heavily as Nokia, Microsoft, AT&T and Amazon. The 800C which you were drooling over a few posts back costs £360 unsubsidised. That's USD$570.77. The Lumia 800C according to the article is Nokia's cheapest smart phone. Now if we were to assume the Lumia 900 was the same price (which I can't be given it's a higher spec device) that would be at least whopping $471.77 subsidy all the various parties involved in selling Lumia 900's to punters are stumping up to achieve a price tag of $99. Sorry dude. The Nokia Lumia 900 is getting more subsidies than a French farmer. And to be clear. Subsidised handsets are the norm in the mobile phone industry. Especially attached to a contract. http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/news/item/14518_Nokia_Lumia_800C_announced_for.php No I'm not. I said it was a good start. But even your own link from Forbes said what matters is what happens in the next few weeks.
Because single-core Android phones tend to be free-with-a-two-year-plan (Sony Xperia Play, Samsung Illusion), not $200-with-a-two-year plan like the Titan II. The Samsung Droid Charge has a single-core processor, a 4.3" AMOLED screen, and 4G LTE capability, and it's $99 with a two-year Verizon contract. The Titan 2, considering its specs, is overpriced at $199 with a two-year contract. Compared with other US smartphone pricing, it's not that the Lumia 900 is underpriced, it's that the HTC Titan 2 is overpriced. I don't think you quite understand how phones are priced in the United States. Data plans are artificially high here and phone prices are artificially low (so long as you sign a two-year data contract when you buy the phone). In America, your data plan pays the majority of the cost of your hardware. That's why there are so many phones that are "free with a two-year plan" in the US, and almost no phones, even higher-end smartphones, that cost more than $199 with a two-year plan. In the US, buying a cell phone is basically financing it, with the "price" being a down payment and your data plan including a monthly payment for the hardware as well as the cost of the data. That's why an iPhone 4S and a Motorola Droid 4 each cost a mere $199 with a two-year plan, instead of $500 to $600 if US data plans weren't effectively financing schemes. So basically a Lumia 900 is $100 less than an iPhone 4S or a Droid 4, not $500 less...it's just that it feels like you're paying half as much as an iPhone because the $100 off constitutes half the down payment. So since a Lumia has less fancy hardware than the iOS and Android flagships that cost $100 more, it's unlikely that it's selling at a loss. Instead, it's "aggressively priced" in the sense that it's unusual to see a phone that looks and feels so premium and luxurious that costs $100 with a contract instead of $200 with a contract.
Please don't patronise me and get out more. I do own a contract mobile phone. Mobile phones are sold in exactly the same way the world over. I understand perfectly fine how they are priced. Please stop pretending the US mobile phone market is some how special and different from any other around the world. It's not. The article I linked to gave the "real price" of the Lumia 800C which is what I based my figures on. Your own article states very clearly the Lumia 900 was being "subsidised" by Amazon. It's no secret Microsoft are giving Nokia a huge bundle of cash to develop the Lumia range and Windows phones in general. Nobody is making a profit from a Lumia handset. "Aggressively priced" means subsidised to hell and back.
