AT&T Nokia Lumia 1520 to have only 16GB of storage? Say it ain't so!

Nokia Lumia 1520

It looks as if the cannibalization of the AT&T Nokia Lumia 1520 Windows Phone hasn't stopped. First you have the omission of the built in wireless Qi charging. Now it appears as if the Lumia 1520's internal storage will be 16GB instead of 32GB that was noted during Nokia World.

Specs for the AT&T Nokia Lumia 1520 at Windowsphone.com and at Nokia's U.S. product page for the Lumia 1520 lists the storage as being only 16GB. The only saving grace is that it is noted that the Lumia 1520 will have expandable memory (micro-SD card slot) up to 64GB.

We aren't sure as to why AT&T has chosen to reduce the on-board storage, just as it is a mystery that they would drop the internal Qi charging.  There's still a chance that this could be a typo but for the specification to show up on both websites makes this unlikely.

One can only hope that the storage reduction will translate to a lower pricing point for the Lumia 1520 otherwise, it's another case where the customers are getting the raw end of the deal and could effect Lumia 1520 sales.

Thanks, jholso, for the tip!


Reader comments

AT&T Nokia Lumia 1520 to have only 16GB of storage? Say it ain't so!



It's not even that. It's that they just want you to buy new phones, period. They make more money that way keeping you locked in there ecosystem. 

By neutering the new phones (16GB 925, now 16GB 1520), they're not making me want to buy a new phone at all.

I have a 1020, and I would take a 16GB with expansion slot over 32gb without any day. I dont think it's a bad trade off, being able to install a 64GB MicroSD card is way more effective than what the 1020 offers in fixed storage.

The issue is that the 1520 originally comes with 32GB AND SD expansion up to 64GB. There isn't a trade off with the ATT 1520....it is nothing but a loss for the consumer and I will be SUPER surprised if ATT passes the savings to the customer. I am assuming it will be priced at $299. If the cut in storage brings the 1520 down to $199 then that is easier to digest. Lowering the price is the LEAST ATT can do considering we would be getting a device that has been reduced from its original specifications.

After they're done gimping this phone it better be $450 off-contract. What's up Verizon or TMO might be time to find a new carrier.

Take a look at the price you'd pay with T-Mobile. They lack the phone selection, but it is so much ridiculously cheaper that it is worth it to me. I am tired of AT&T's anti-consumer business practices (not so much the GDR2, but their prices and suspicious charges).

You _do_ end up paying out of contract pricing for AT&T exclusive phones (via Rogers in Canada, which does not disable the T-Mobile compatible frequencies unlike AT&T). If you want a phone supported directly by T-Mobile, then they will subsidize the price, but they won't hide it from you _and_ you actually stop paying once it's paid off, unlike Sprint, AT&T and Verizon, where the "subsidized" price continues forever even after your contract is up.

Except for things that can't go on the storage card, like apps, I agree with your point, but at this point why not say f it and give 32GB plus the storage card slot :/

dude go f... yourself not everyone wants what you want. Im pissed that a dog s..t company like att never seems to never give people the option to chose from what is fully available. Not everyone thinks the same and want the same things... People should have the right to chose what they want from what is available...
If people have the balls they should boycot att for two momths, let them see how it would feel if their bottom line is affected... a..holes.

I agree that starting a Boycott campaign is the only way that will make AT&T/Nokia to listen.  We should demand the following:
1.  We want not only 32GB but also a 64GB version.
2.  We want inbuilt wireless charging with L1520
3.  We want an end to the AT&T exclusivity permanently
Enough is enough.

Most people are in contracts and I doubt they will be able to boycott anything lol. Anyway my contract is up, so I will consider my next phone carefully I don't think there is a place for 16gb phones in 2013. However the bulk of what takes up my space is music and podcast most of my photos are on my unlimited skydrive data package. All of which can go on to an SD card, so what this will come down to is the price of the device if it is $200 then I will buy one if it is $300 this will give me cause to reconsider, but the unfortunate truth is as long as this device remains exclusive to ATT I won't have much of an option to move to another carrier.. >_>

Surprised AT&T didn't offer a 32GB 925 just for the jab at TMoUS. Instead, they jabbed their customers by charging double for the upfront cost. But they are AT&T, so they can get away with it.

You don't want the USA system. The device price is initially less but the contract prices are fricking ridiculous.

I don't have $700 out of pocket, on the "device" line of my budget. I'm American, but I'm not rich. :)

Seriously? Americans can't afford anymore credit debt, which is what post-paid is essentially. I'm rocking a 1020 (paid for) on at&t gophone $60 a month plan and always get a discount on service cards thru eBay, usually 10% at least. If you can't afford a 1020 get a 520 and be happy, its a great phone, my wife loves it!!

I think a $700 credit card debt is cheaper than paying subsidies to the carrier. But factor in when you buy the phone youre going to pay 100 to 200 already so you're really using credit of $500 dollars.

You forget your using their service which costs money.... Say you pay $80/month and $20/month of that goes directly to paying for the phone.... That amounts to ONLY $480 over the two years and you are paying $2/day for service... Which works out to be 4 calls on a payphone a day...

No bro, you can use similiar prepaid services such as ATT prepaid, Straight talk, AIO, H2o wireless just to name a few at $50 or less. There's no contract and usually is a flat price with tax included. So there is a $30 differences plus any activation or upgrade fee that isn't included. You're paying way over $700 for the course of 2 years.

Granted there are some expections, but the 1020s at the at&t stores are $199 with contract. If you can get it for $0 that's great and probably make sense to sign a contract. But in my case it's not worth it. Straight talk is about $41 a month for me. Savings of $937 instead of going with At&t. So even if I buy a Lumia 1020 at $650 out of contract it's still way cheaper.

Yes, you do, started in August...I have StraightTalk 4G LTE with a AT&T compatible micro SIM running in my AT&T Nokia Lumia 920...you have to order online at StraightTalk...the $41.00 price point is if you pay for unlimited everything for one year...$495.00 + tax = $543...and no cell phone bill for 12 months...it takes some work...just start off with $45.00 a month until you can scrimp and save for the yearly plan...but it's worth it...then you have 12 months to come up with your next payment...it's not anything but being smart about what you are doing, being patient and working towards a goal that will only benefit you in the long run.

You pay the subsidies to the carrier regardless. However, you can't really generalize credit card debt, because the fees and interest rates vary widely. I assure you that if his credit card is anything like Capitol One, the credit card debt is going to be more expensive. 

Yeah, I can't generalize credit card debts, but i factored the rates to be 20%, of course this will vary depending on your credit card interest rates. In the course 24 months youre paying about $150 in interest. Still cheaper in my opinion. Also you can pay it off sooner to reduce the interest rate. I still think buying youre phone outright and doing prepaid is the cheapest solution. Carriers dont subsidies phones for free they do it to make money.

Guess what what-here in the US you pay subsidies whether or not not you buy phone at full price. You are not gaining anything.

That may not seem like a big deal to you, but having service on my phone is a pretty big deal to me.
It seems asinine to me to choose an inferior product just to save a few bucks a month.

Then sign a contract... Stop bitching about the costs because the product is obviously worth the money you pay because you can live with saving money and less of a product.

Who's bitching? Not me.
Maybe you should stop copy pasting responses.
I'm just explaining to YOU why YOUR suggestions aren't feasible for everyone.

I'm saying don't bitch because you don't like paying for stuff you use. You have options but don't like the tradeoffs. I copy and paste my responses because the arguments are always ridiculously stupid. "I don't want to pay so much, but I will only accept the best."
EDIT: I don't mean you specifically are but everyone always bitches about AT&T and Verizon on every fucking article.

And why shouldn't everyone bitch? Putting pressure on companies to make positive changes is not exactly a bad thing. Just because he uses the product doesn't mean he should stay quiet and pretend to be satisfied. How exactly does your strategy benefit the consumer?

Bitches without a valid point doesn't work and just discredits consumers as "uninformed". Naturally prices will remain in check because of competition due to basic economics.

NO G*d damn it... I want a Ferrarri, I want it to have twice the size of a normal gas tank, and I'll be driving it on dirt roads 90% of the time and since I can't have all 3 of these things in one product, I should whine about it.

The analogy would make sense if he was asking for something extreme. However, you have to be out of your mind if you think carrier plans and pricing don't deserve criticism. 

It deserves criticism but what consumers do it just whine about cost or not getting enough for free... People don't like paying for something they have already used.

No sacrifice...StraightTalk and Net10 run on the same AT&T network and T-Mobile network...same coverage area! They rent the networks from AT&T and T-Mobile...but don't have to pay for building and maintaining the networks and their towers...hence, the cheaper price!

The only problem with that is you are still stuck with a monthly price that has you paying for a new phone every two years, so if you buy your own at full price, it in effect costs double.

Golden handcuffs are still handcuffs.

Name one with with above average coverage and a healthy selection of phones.  I think that limites you to Verizon and AT&T which both keep on charging the higher rate even if you buy your own device. It's "simply" financially advantageous to buy on contract with those carriers because your monthly price is still the same. 

So then sign a contract and don't bitch... Either: Save money and have a lesser product or pay more for a better product and receive a better product... Stop trying to have your cake and eat it to.

Who the hell are YOU? People are having a conversation and you think you've got the world figured out and it's all so "simply". 

I'M a person who is tired of wireless customers complaining all the time... I don't claim to have the world figured out (especially considering I can't figure out AT&T's customer's ramblings) but I do understand a simply principle... Don't like paying for something? Don't use the services provided.

The problem is that it's not "simply".  It's much more complex than that.  If I want a cutting edge device with a 41mp camera on it and I live in the United States, I'm stuck with a choice of one.  That choice is AT&T.  It is a valid complaint that if AT&T is a horrible partner as evidenced by their delayed updates and stripping of features (DataSense) and taking features away from phones (wireless charging) then there is a dilemma to discuss. 

People will choose the device.  In this scenario, it will be AT&T and the rational mind will take the contract to get the lower up front cost, even if they have the cash to pay retail.  AT&T (and Verizon) will continue to charge the bloated price even if you are not enjoying the benefits of the aforementioned subsidy.  I consider this price gouging in a market scenario that limits choice if you want a higher end device.

As to your latest point, people complain about EVERYTHING online.  Even when we get something that they've been complaining about, they have to complain that it took too long.  If you're issue is REALLY people complaining, you might want to cancel your Internet connection. 

In THIS case, carriers (ALL OF THEM) are really the weak link, ruining the wireless experience. 

Why does everyone keep talking about AT&T delaying updates? Is there any proof of this. Even if there was, I be willing to bet it's because of all the bricked Nokias they'll get back.
I was reading an article on CNET about that. How a friend of the writers had gone through 4 Lumia 920s and he dealt with it in a good way. Me, it only took one Lumia for me to say ADIOS!
Obviously AT&T and VERIZON have better service and coverage. Hence, you get what you pay for.

You say "adios", but are still here? Hmmm...something sounds fishy. Anyway, I had the original Samsung Focus and LOTS of people will testify that after an update there was a "vanishing keyboard" bug that Microsoft quickly put a fix out. Guess which carrier never released the fix? AT&T. I think they were the ONLY carrier not to release it. The only reason I got from countless time on the phone was that "AT&T doesn't like to put out small updates". I was like "even one that fixes a bug that cripples the phone?". I threatened small claims court, so they sent me a new device. They KNEW they were wrong! They KNEW they were holding up an important update, but they don't care.

With GDR2/Amber, they were really late. Nokia had said that Lumia 920 would be the first to get it...they had it ready and other carriers put it out. I highly doubt that the "premiere carrier" didn't have access to the bits. My guess is that they took time to strip out DataSense, which is just ANOTHER example of them holding back and update/feature.

As for the service/coverage, we are still getting less than what we pay for because they continue to charge bloated pricing plans for people who buy phones w/out subsidy.

You can keep defending them if you want, but there are a lot of people who know better and know that something needs to change in our system or the oligopy will continue to stifle innovation and progress.

It's a bit ironic that you're that making this simple principle go somewhere else argument, when you're doing the exact opposite. You don't like people complaining about wireless services, yet you choose to post extensively in the comments for a story that complains about a carrier. A lot of people don't really have a choice. It's one bad deal or another. You do have a choice though, and you decided to immerse yourself in a conversion that you claim you  hate. If anyone lacks common sense, it's you.

I pointed out for very good reason that you were being hypocritical and weren't taking your own advice. You're the one name calling for no good reason.

If the "Jump" (Tmobile) & "Next" (ATT) are all crap as they add an additional $20-$25 per/month for 20-22 months which calculates to roughly $480 in that time span unless you continually upgrade which puts you in an ifinite loop like an unpaid credit card.

Actually, T-Mobile JUMP is $10, and doubles as insurance (something which is seperate and costs extra on other carriers)

Except, you can sell your previous phone to buy the new one. It defers the new phone cost significantly!

The non-branded versions don't fully support our networks (wrong frequencies) and buying them outright doesn't save you money on your monthly plan, they cost the same. There are a few options which do cost less but they're inferior networks. 

Who says it doesn't save any money.. I call att and get $25 off per month each quarter. This means I am under no contract, pay $10 a month for unlimited data and have the freedom to go wherever I want if att does not provide any more discounts. Love the unlocked Nokia Phones.

I've never been offered anything like that nor have I heard of anyone who has. The only monthly discount I've seen is the 6 months free texting plan or $10 off texting plan permanently. I have the $10 permanently one but that has nothing to do with whether I'm in contract or not. It STILL costs me the same per month whether I take or leave the upgrade.

They are not inferior networks StraightTalk AT&T compatible SIM runs on AT&T's network...same speed and coverage...I'm from and in America- I was born here...and I understand exactly how the American cell system works and their dominance by Carriers...but to claim that there aren't options is ignorance at best...just say that you are too lazy to do the research, as well as, wanting to live beyond your means.

Not true again...my phone is from South Carolina...I travel all over the US and I never had a problem...I'm in Oklahoma right now...nothing around here...I gotten service everywhere...and now got great LTE....suck it AT&T

Except that doesn't change your monthly spend. AT&T and Verizon don't offer different prices if you buy an unsubsidized phone anymore.

Why would someone do that if their service provider won't give them a discount on service if they do that? 75% of the time in the US consumers have zero incentive to buy the device outright.

Buying outright doesn't lower your monthly cost. The subsidy is there weather you use it or not.

Here's the issue. You pay the same pricing on contract whether you have a new device or not. You are always "subsidizing" a device on att and Verizon.

Very true. So, may as well get something for it, like a Nokia 920 for 0 dollas or whatever. I wish you could bring your own device and pay less, but it doesn't work that way. That 50 dollar plan T-Mobile offers would be great on AT&T postpaid service.

On another note I've been trying aio wireless for a few weeks, so far it's been good. I won't know fo'sure til next month how good it really is as I'll be in the middle of nowhere trying it out.

That's the key. Paying outright is great for people that don't want the chains of contracts. Service fees are the same regardless. So if you don't mind contract, you should be using subsidy otherwise your missing out on new devices (assuming you're always in a contract). If you don't like contract, buy outright. The only savings that cam be compared otherwise is the cost to buy off contract versus breaking contract. And the fees are designed to cover the cost of the subsidy. Carriers are the ones protected, not consumers. If you don't leverage subsidy you're gimping yourself.

If I remember correctly the unlocked version was $750.00 and the AT&T version is $699.00 off-contract...now that we see that the AT&T version is handicapped...it's not worth it!

Yea sure I got a spare $750 that I don't know what to do with. Even if I did it wouldn't be for a phone. It would be for something I'll use for 5-10 years.

We have contracts in the U.K. and mostly seem reasonably priced. You can pick up a decent handset for free and have a generously allowance package over a two year contract for not much money.
I picked up a Samsung Galaxy S 3 free on a two year contract for only £26/month. For that I get 200 inclusive minutes, 500 MB of internet, 500 SMS's and also unlimited Virgin to Virgin calls and texts. It also includes full comprehensive mobile phone insurance.

I got my 822 on Verizon for free, unlimited texts/calls and 2 GB of data for about $70 a month. Biggest difference between here & the UK is data service, if I'm not picking up a good 4G signal (rare) I'm pissed.

Yeah, here in capitalist America, when it comes to wireless carriers, you have the choice to get raped from behind or to have your nipples set on fire.

If you get past Economics 101, you'll learn about oligopy power.  That is not subject to the classic economics example you are attempting to cite.  Classic economics requires pure competition for the supplying company and perfect information to the consumer. Neither is true when a few large entities control a market.  Prices and choices are limited.  I could go into a whole lecture here, but it's not really worth the time.  The point is that it is NOT pure classic economics at play in this scenario.  There is clearly a leverage imbalance in favor of the oligopy powers in the market.

Hah. You save more money in the long run than we do (I envy those in the UK because I hate the subsidiarity model. Hell, T-Mobile is the only company here that lowers your bill if you buy your phone out right).

... and if you do not buy the phone outright, they [T-Mobile] stop charging you for it as soon as it is paid off.

Here in INDIA there are no contract system and people pay outright for phones.

just wanted know if contract system really saves money or is that a way for carriers to loot money from consumers ?

ATT needs to be taught a lesson but I don't want that to be on expense of Nokia esp with their one of best phones to date.

Yep. Remember, only carrier to have removed Data Sense as well. I'm through with ATT, I dint care what exclusives they get

I think part of the reason is so that you can't easily track how much data you've used and then you'll end up having to pay more for overages. But that's just me being paranoid of greedy companies. Or it could just be business sense where you have to find the most profits because that's what you're in the business for anyway. In the end, it is up to people anyway to know what they are supposed to be getting/signing up for. That's why there's competition. Choose what works for you.

If it were an exclusive elsewhere everyone would complain. I'm just happy ATT has it. For me, the expansion slot is perfect. I'd rather have the extra 64gb at my own expense, if I need more than 16, I'll need more than 32....

I thought that Nokia has made two mistakes with L1520, one is the AT&T exclusivity and the other is external wireless charging.  Now I have to add one more if the 16GB thing is true.  I personally would definitely boycott this device.  Somebody has to teach Nokia a lesson.  :)

I wonder how much more abuse ATT WP customers will take before they tell both ATT and Nokia to go fuck themselves. And yes fuck Nokia as well for allowing this to happen. I love Nokia but if this BS continues, with crippled devices and months of waiting for basic updates I will stop supporting Nokia as well.

Ive Tweeted ATT and NokiaUSA. Nokia responded with thanks for the input.  ATT still refuses to address removal of features. Nothing will change.

Seriously, how many more reasons do we need to leave ATT, if you have another carrier in the area?  No Data Sense, they remove features from phones that other carriers dont.

"We aren't sure as to why AT&T has chosen to reduce the on-board storage, just as it is a mystery that they would drop the internal Qi charging."
Really George Ponder, really? I don't understand why the writers at WPC continue to protect and sugar-coat all the BAD decisions AT&T continues to make with Lumias. AT&T continues to sabotage new Lumia releases, because they don't care about offering the best Lumia product range.
There is no mystery here for me, I'll tell you exactly why AT&T has chosen to do this. It's because AT&T just doesn't care that much for Windows Phone or Lumias. Dropping the storage to the 16GB option or dropping the wireless charging means that AT&T only wants to offer the *bare minimum* specs on the 1520.
The fact that AT&T keeps getting exclusives from Nokia is ridiculous. Surely by now, Nokia must have some leverage over the US carriers? AT&T's support of Lumias is so poor, it was brought up by a journalist during the 1020 keynote and unveiling.
Why isn't Nokia pushing harder with Verizon? These AT&T exclusives are really hurting Nokia. Phones are being released with the bare minimum specs, and AT&T is being VERY slow with software updates. AT&T customers with Lumias were the LAST in the WORLD to get GDR2!
We know that Sprint has a personal vendetta against Nokia, but since Softbank has bought Sprint, perhaps Nokia should try new negotiations with them? Until then Nokia should push REALLY hard with Verizon, and use that as leverage against AT&T.
The other big question is Microsoft; with all their influence in the US, are they NOT helping Nokia with carrier negotiations? Are they hindering Nokia with US carriers in any way? Is this all on purpose until Microsoft officially completes the buyout of Nokia's phone division?

Forgot to add, Microsoft could sell unlocked Lumias at their Microsoft Stores if they wanted to, so WHY aren't they doing that? That would be mirroring Apple, and allowing consumers a full range of choice if their carrier choices are limited. For example, if your carrier doesn't carry the 64GB version of the iPhone, then simply go to your nearest Apple Store and get it there, or order it online from Apple.

Or... maybe it will sell more with the lower price.
With an SD slot, this shouldn't really matter much.
Now, no wireless charging is whack.

MicroSD is good but 16gb internal memory is joke. It will fill in no time with apps/games only....forget about photos/videos.

Thankfully you can have the phone save pictures and videos into an SD card. So the phone itself can be for the OS and apps.

...and music as well
My 822 has 16 GB of internal space and 64 GB on my SD.
I have an extreme amount of apps/games with about 3 GB left internally, plenty for me really.

Same here, but 32GB internal should be standard now on the higher end devices.  Or at least have both 16GB and 32GB options.

Some of us suffer from this other storage issue even on a gdr3 device so no 16gb is no good when like in my situation it will take up 10 GB for "other"

Just curious, does wiping a phone with the other storage issue after upgrading to GDR2/3 solve the issue? I have not seen the other storage issue occur on my 925.

Depends on use case scenario. On my l920 gdr3...11gb apps, 2gb media/files, 1.6gb system.... You see what I am saying here.

Leave the SD card for music/videos only. Your photos can go to SkyDrive. Plus, it's 200GB storage that you get with these devices!

SkyDrive doesn't save original resolution when you upload it by phone. That's why keeping it on your phone is good idea

It won't become sub $500 because of these omissions. If a person is willing to spend $650 for a cutting edge tech, he can go upto $700-750 too.

Lumia 1020 started at $300 on contract and reportedly has done pretty bad. Maybe these measures will allow them to sell it for $100 on contract, which is way more likely to sell. In my opinion, if your going to saddle yourself with a several thousand dollar contract, what does it matter if your phone is an extra $100. But few people factor in the price of their contract

First...of all, this is so people use data plan more to upload to skydrive? Or is it to drive the price down? Hmmm...the mystery.

Manufacturing price should be negligible. If anything the device will cost AT&T the same as the better version because they're the only ones butchering the phone like this, so they need to re-tool their production just for the shitty AT&T version.

Probably to drive the price down. on my 920 I would much rather have 16gb internal and up to 64gb expandable makes much more sense for a large music and video collection

No, because once you are down to about 4 to 5 GB of internal space, most high end games can't install.

Most people connect to wifi....I have a 10GB plan and don't use wifi at work and have only exceeded 1GB once

I think this is also a ploy to sell more accessories. First get rid of built in wireless charging so they can sell more wireless charging cover, then reduce internal memory to sell more micro SD cards. Just a thought.

But then, do people buy micro SD cards from the carrier or the OEM? I don't think so. I buy my cards from the general market and a 32 GB card costs just about 25 dollars.

It's still an opportunity for ATT to sell accessories. They sell the phone mention that it only has 16gb of internal storage, then points out they have cards they can buy to expand it. Some people may just buy it there to save time.

I'd rather pay more for built in Qi charging, and the extra storage! :-/ Hopefully there will be an option later...

Built in would be MUCH better, I do not want to have to snap on a case that may not allow me to use the better cases and have to put in a SD card to get my storage up to par. 
This isnt enough to make me jump ship like some others are saying, but its enough to make me wait and get a version from another carrier and try to use it on ATT.  Had saved $850 for a new phone anyway.

It's as if ATT is passively/aggressively sabotaging Windows Phone. Deleting features, late updates.... Like their standing deal with Apple over the iPhone is keeping them from getting full featured WP offerings. Either that or, they're just idiot a**holes.

You are right.
Because they only had the Trophy for 1.5 years before they got another WP device and while there were many other WP devices available in the market within that time. (I wanted the Lumia 900)
Because the Trophy is still on 7.5 and never received the 7.8 update. (Dont want to hear about seven-eighter)
Must be why their employees know nothing about WP and constantly try and sell you something else.
Because AT&T received the Lumia 920 exclusively and 7 months later VZW came out with their "business" looking version. (this is partially what i meant by screw with it.)
Because Verizon took a crap on the way the 820 looked and needed their own variant and born was the 822.
Some of these things can be attributed to CDMA vs GSM, contracts, etc. but when it all is said and done, Verizon has never been willing to jump in with WP. They haven't been willing to train their employees, or pay the money to get the best phones first from any manufacturer.
They did get us the GDR2 update quicker than AT&T I will give them that, but then again AT&T took a crap before releasing that update so not really a plus for Verizon more of a negative for AT&T.
Not all of these things are exactly fair to place blame solely on VZW I will admit, but they have not been good with WP at all IMHO.
Yes I am angry with Verizon, deal with it lol

I stream everything so im more pissed about the wireless charging. My current Lumia 920 USB port is broken so the only way I can charge it is via wireless charging. I demand all my phones have it!

Hahaha Att locks up exclusives so Tmo customers are screwed. Now Att screws their customers. Att is really doing wonders for consumers wanting a W8 device.

At least with the 925 TMo customers win. Half the upfront cost of the phone, speedy updates, less cost for equivalent service, and in many areas faster data. I've been consistently rockin' 30-35 Mbps, while my AT&T friends standing next to me have been getting around 15 Mbps.

My 925 isn't enough for me. I have that wimpy 16GB filled up with just apps. I have no room for any games.

16GB at this point is unaccpetable from any maker with higher res photos and 1080p recordering

That settles it. I will not be buying this phone. I was excited for it but I'll just upgrade my Note 2 to a Note 3. While I could live without Qi (but be upset about it), 16GB internal is no longer enough. 
See what happens when you give exclusivity NOKIA? 
Fuck AT&T. And you know what? Fuck Nokia, too.

Stay with your Samsung, we don't want you. I hardly see how this is Nokia's fault, they're only trying to expand their marketshare in the US.

Then don't deny other carriers acces to your phones.  I have AT&T and only keep them because they customer service reps give out discounts like candy at Halloween when you make a complaint.  I would love to have stuff like NFL mobile from Verizon.  Both Verizon and AT&T have great networks in my area (ATT is acutally much faster).  But it seems like there is a one way relationship here, I want ATT for their service and they only want to fuck me by taking a great phone and makeing it only OK.
I guess the expectations of your customers low, and they are easy to achieve.

"We"? Do you speak using the plural is majestatis? As for Nokia it may want to expand its market share but it is also using the wrong strategy.

I really don't see what Nokia can really do. At the marketshare they have ATT basically runs everything. I'm sure Nokia would love to get this phone to all carriers but until they move significant number they have no pull.

I'm not happy about this either but maybe the price will be lower to compensate but I seriously doubt it.

They could not grant exclusivity to AT&T. They get a little extra money up front for doing so but it's hurting them in the long run. Hopefully Microsoft will stop with this bullshit because they're not cash-strapped.

Hopefully you're right but with the market share they have in the US right now they might be a little timid about ruffling AT&T's feathers.    If they have no carrier that's a death sentence in the US at least.