AT&T announces Lumia 830, available Friday, Nov 7 for $99.99 with a two-year contract

@anubis. It's not like renting. With Next, you own the phone from day one. With renting you never own the phone.  Next is just 0% financing plus an option to trade in after 12 or 18 months. 

Details on how Next is a Rip Off?

Because you're basically leasing the phone, without owning it.   It *is* a rip off.

That is incorrect.  WIth Next, you own the phone and carry all the risks and benefits of owning it.  You do get the option to trade it in at 12 or 18 months.

For some Yes. For some it is not. I get $25 discount per line on next. So if i buy 18 x 18.75 = $337.50, i save some money. I saved around $100 on 5 lines moving to 30 GB data plan. My four lines upgraded in Jan 2014 with subsidy. Instead of waiting until jan 2016 to upgrade, I can buy new phone on next plan now. I need it, one is broken.

The AT&T Next plan does not involve a service contract. The only contract that you agree and sign for is to pay off the phone. You can cancel service at any time and pay off the phone with the Next plan and there isn't an Early Termination Fee.

An ETF doesn't normally exceed $350 at worst case scenario. Your debt on a cell phone cost can be significantly higher when you lease the phone.

It's only a rip-off if you don't keep upgrading frequently. But I'm sure lots of people on this site like to upgrade frequently, and it actually becomes a pretty good deal, especially since AT&T data plans become cheaper. It also means you can keep upgrading, without taking as large a hit to your wallet at once. How good or bad a deal it is depends on your own use case, but for many: AT&T Next is a good deal, while for others, it's a terrible idea.

It's a contract by another name. In a traditional contract, if you leave you pay off the subsidy, but they call it a ETF.

NEXT is good if you have a large famliy share data plan, typically 10GB or higher. On those plans you get 25 dollar off each line per month if you have NEXT, meaning $15/month versus the otherwise $40/month on two year contract or $25/month on a smaller data plan.  Over 24 months, that's 25x24 = 600 dollars saved. Meanwhile on 2-year contract, you usually get a maximum of 400~500 dollar initial saving for the phone ($699 to 199, or for 830 it's $450 to $99 so 350 dollar saving only). Even with the initial tax involved, you would be saving money over 2 years. Also, time-value-of-money makes it better for us to pay off the same amount over a longer period of time than all up front without the NEXT plan.

This about sums it up, except that you don't need to use NEXT to get the mobile share value plan that you're describing. You can buy a phone straight up, in which case you can find the best deal, or you can can continue using a phone that you already have.

While it is true buying outright can't still offer the best deal: It's often easier for many to pay it out over time (much akin to how you lease a car or mortgage a house). Likewise, due to the nature of these plans: If you trade if your device at the end of your installment plan (18, 20 or 24months), you don't have to finish completely paying off your device. Yes, since you lose the device: You do lose a couple bucks vs. finishing paying it off and keeping it, but for many: They don't want their old phones and/or to deal with the hassle of selling off their old device, and will accept the carrier taking it off their hands in exchange for a new phone at smaller upfront cost. Again: Trading it in, for the most part, is more expensive in the long run, but the convenience is worth it for many. It's all about assessing and figuring out your own options and needs.

@ Solost. You do realized the Next is not a plain ripoff right?  If you know you want to trade in your phone for a new phone n 12 or 18 months, it allows you lock in your trade in price in advance.  It doesn't require a subsidized plan.  The plans cost the same as BYOP or purchasing the phone off contract.   The cost of the phone with the next plan is exactly the same as buying the phone (unsubsidized) outright except the payments are spread out.  

Is the really the case (i.e. that the price of the next plan phone (over time) is exactly the same as buying it outright, off contract? This would mean AT&T is subdizing the price of the phone on Next significantly. EDIT: Hmm, from the discussion below it seems to be the case. So I guess AT&T is willing to subsidize given that it can lock in customers to a longer term relationship with Next.

There is NO subsidy with NEXT.  The price is exactly the same as buying the unsubsidized (off contract) phone - its just spread out over 20 or 24 payments.   Eg. For a $450 phone.   Next 18 Price = $450 / 24 payments = $18.75 month.  (With Next 18, you own the phone outright after 24 payments).  Next 12 Price = $450 / 20 payments = $22.50 month (with Next 12 you own the phone outright after 20 payments).    

That IS a subsidy - time value of money! I.e. paying $450 on day 1 (for the off contract phone) is more than paying the same over a long period of time due a) inflation (i.e. you can get more for your money on day 1 than you will on day 1+n)  b) you could invest the money you are not using right now. Similarly, it would presumably be better for AT&T to get all of that money on day 1 and be able to invest or use it for its capital needs and not delay the cashflow through Next.

@Viipottaja.  Agreed there's a small subsidy because you get 0% financing.    I was talking about the larger subsidy for the cost of phone ($99 vs $450) when you commit to a 2 year service contract. That's what most pople mean by the subsidy in the context of cell phone prices. 

Actually that is my question.  $450 if you buy the phone. Next plan 22.50 *12 = $270. Don't understand why you'd pay more if you'll pay upfront?

If I understand correctly, at 12th month the phone is not yet yours. You can either keep paying the monthly installment until month 20, or pay a residual value of the phone to AT&T to own it alreay after month 12.

I was told after 12 months, you can return the phone to at&t store and take a new one with similar contracts or new type of contracts, or you can pay off the balance and keep the phone. If the phone is damaged you cannot return the phone. This is by word of mouth, not sure so..

Because if you pay more up front then you may walk out the door an never use AT&T service, and they lose the profit from you buying their service from X number of months. I'm not sure why anyone would buy from a carrier via up-front pricing. (Maybe a marketing gimmick to sell their corporate customers on? "Hey, it's normally $450, but if you buy 20 for your company wee'll give them to you at $400 each!" If you're committed to using AT&T, then do the Next 12 or 18 month program and enjoy the discount. If not, buy up-front from a third party for less. (Newegg already has 830s available in the U.S. for $400, and I'm sure the price will drop as the holidays approach.) FWIW, I'm a current AT&T cusomter with a 520 planning on getting an 830. I like the NEXT pricing. Here's why: I realized about halfway though my last contract that even though my wife and I were paying the same for service, AT&T was making a whole lot more profit on me by selling me a 900 then they were on my wife by selling her an iPhone (even after factoring in the relative downpayments). Or, turning it around, by buying on contract I was paying too much.  Now everything is upfront. I'll walk you though it: Right now while I'm not under contract, I pay about $60/month for service, plus ~$7.00/month of purposefully incomprehansible taxes/fees/surcharges. If I sign a 2-year contract, my service goes up by $15/month. (My wife and I get by with sharing 3GB/month of data-thanks wifi! If we had a higher data plan, then it would go up by $25/month per user under contract.) So for me, if I bought on contract, I would pay $100 up front plus an extra $15/month for service for the next 24 months. That adds up to $460 for the 830, or $700 (!!!) if I was using a larger data plan. Compare that $0 up front on Next with $18.75/month for 18 months (the servie stays at $60/month), for a total of $337.50. I'll take it. We pay ~$27/month for the wife's iphone, but hey, it's a more expensive phone. Plus, If I ever want to leave, I just pay off the balance on the phone (a reasonable request) and walk away with an unlocked 830.  Effectively, AT&T is offering you financing with a negative interest rate (or a discount, if you'd like) to use their service for a certian period of time. However, even though I like this arrangement, it's kind of complicated for people to understand, as can be seen in this comment thread. (I edit tax and insurance publications for a living.) I was in the AT&T store the other day, and while I was waiting some poor AT&T rep was trying to explain it to a customer who Just. Didn't. Get. It. I suspect that customer walked away unhappy and/or paying too much.  All of which is to say, we really do a crappy job of teaching financial literacy in the U.S. But that's getting off-topic . . .         

Yup.. come to think of it, the upfront off contract price of $450 is probably so "high" because they want to compensate for the subsidized interest rate and, of course, be able squeeze a bit more from the customers on the Next monthly payments. I.e. instead of going "ok, we pay MS for the 830 (say) $X wholesale, therefore we need to charge $450 retail, which works out to be $Y/Z per month on Next 12/18 plans." they are effectively going "ok, we pay MS for the 830 (say) $X wholesale, therefore we could charge $350 retail to be whole, but since we have these Next 12/18 plans, let's make the off contract price $450 so that we can recover our costs (and make a bit on top) and make the monthlies $Y/Z per month." :)

The 12 and 18 is not the number of payments, it is the number of months you have to have paid off before you can upgrade "early" by turning it in.  The 12 month plan is 20 payments and the 18 month plan is 24 payments.

Att makes no profit on actual cellphone sales. It makes profit on services and accessories. Att purchases phones at the full retail cost and simply gets its money back when you do the next.

When I was working as a finance rep for AT&T a few years ago, which meant daily checking in inventory and reconciling merchandise received againsttheir invoices, I can tell you that the no-contract pricing was marked up from AT&T's actual cost. The profit margin varied depending on the make/model of the phone in question, and it was not nearly as high percentage-wise as the accessories, but it was there was still a little profit to be made when the phones weren't discounted for a contract.

LOL No, carriers buy in bulk and sell at full retail price.  They buy them for the same price as any store does, but while stores are willing to lower profit margins a little bit to attract business, carriers always sell for full retail price so there is plenty of markup there.  This is why you can get the same device on Amazon, or Newegg, or other 3rd party stores for a bit less (sometimes $100 less) than at the carriers... and they still make a profit (granted a smaller one), so you can rest easy knowing that ATT and VZW are making plenty of money on their device sales.

OP: You are misinformed regarding the NEXT plan. I suggest that you read the ATT plan again or call a rep and have them explain it to you. No offense but you are dead wrong.

You are wrong.  Do you not get a contract with a NEXT plan.  When I pay off my phone, my bill will be around $60 with NEXT.  It would be around $100 on contract.

this phone is a ripoff! this is the 920 with a bigger screen and new camera. same price i paid for the 920. just two years late. but im from the 1520.3 master race so what do i care. buyers beware.

If you've been paying attention, you'd see that the non-contract price of devices have been going up. The 830 is still a higher spec'd device than the 920. Flagship devices are now selling for $600+ off-contract. The Lumia 920 was way underpriced when it came out. Nokia was desperate after the Lumia 900 debacle.

I believe that the Next plan is indeed a ripoff.
Consider...if you purchase a phone on the normal 2 year contract of course you have to commit to a the
1. Service and Data Plan
2. The Two Year commitment is also the carriers way to have the customers pay the BALANCE of the DISCOUNTED device that they got for $99 or $199 out of the door for a $400-$700 device. Of course they can't just eat the cost of the device. So the cost of the device is added into the costs of the contracted services. This all realize is evident in the fact that an early termination fee is assessed if one were to cancel thier contract. That os designed to go toward the cost of the device you recived at a discount under an agreement that ot soul be paid for over time.
3. Now with the NEXT plan though your not STUCK in a 2 yr contract, you are paying the cost of the device in installments AND for the service at pretty much the same rate you would be paying IF stuck in 2 yr contract "PAYING OFF" the device over time.
4. Additionally, the device is being TURNED IN, after a year, if you choose that option, so the several hundred paid to ATT was simply paid to them for the USE of the device, a LEASE in effect, and then you start the process all over with a new device.
5 ATT(and others with similar plans) have a win win here because, one(1) the coat of the plans into which the cost of the device is added into is still pretty much the same EVEN with the NEXT plan, so they get paid the monthly INSTALLMENT AND the "built in cost" that thief plans were designed to absorbs the cost of a device(service plans for NEXT customers SHOULD BE A LOT LESS). Second, after getting YOUR money for the USE of the device over a year, which if your turning in, must be in really good shape, they now not only have about HALF of the cost of that product back but the ALSO have the product which can be RESOLD.
It really is a ripoff to customers and a way to optimize Carrier profits. An ATT associate told me how they are required to have a certain percentage of customers sign up in the Next plan. Shame in these carriers.

Sorry, but you're completely ignoring the fact that you save $15/month over any 2-year contract. That's $360 in saviings over 24 months. Sure, if you purchase an iPhone you get $450 subsidy, but is the $90 in subsidy worth being locked into the contract for the full 24 months? For other devices that receive only $350 subsidy, you're better off with Next. 2-year contracts benefit only iPhone purchasers because they receive the greatest subsidy. If you purchase a non-Apple device on a 2-year contract, YOU are the one subsidizing iPhone users. Just say "No!".

@elderjlward.   Point 3 and 5 is incorrect. Subsidized phones have more expensive monthly plans for new devices.  The cost of the monthly plan is $15-$25 lower (depending on how much data you buy ) with a Next or upfront purchase vs 2 year subsidized phone.    For example I have a 10GB plan, so my plan is $25/month cheaper if I pay for my phone upfront or with Next.  If I buy a L830 unsubsidized (upfront or Next) I pay $450 for the phone.    If I buy a subsidizied 830 for $99, I save $350 on the cost of the phone, but I would pay $600 more in monthly charges (24 months * $25) over the next 2 years.   Therefore, the $99 subsidized phone costs me $250 more over the first 2 years.  If I had a data plan that was less than 10GB, the plan discount for unsubsidized phones is $15 month.  Therefore, if I buy the subsidized L830 for $99, I pay $360 (24 months * $14) more in monthly charges over the first 2 years.  Either way the total 2 year cost with the next plan is cheaper than buying a subsidized Lumia 830 on a 2 year contract.    #4 is a benefit, not a rip off.   The customer has the choice of whether to trade in phone for a guaranteed price after 12 or 18 months.  Its just an additional choice you get with Next that doesn't cost you anything extra.  If you dont want to trade in your phone, you dont have to use it. You can also sell your phone any time on ebay etc (but you have to keep making the payments).  

at&t next is expensive plan. i agree. i'm not a at&t Next customer: i'm paying for $150 for Three Smartphones with 10GB Data.....with Unlimited Talk & Text. we all have unlocked phones. i explain you,   at&t next is, u get smartphone $0 (Note 4 - $825), Next 12 = $41.30 * 12 = $495.60 (we can upgrade in 12 months) but u have to give Note 4 back to at&t if u upgrade. or if u don't want to upgrade then pay till 20 months ($41.30*20=$826) Full price then Note 4 will be yours. (u can get unlock lte version $806 from expansys-usa) +plus u have to pay $15 per line + $100 for 10GB data. >>> $495.60 + $180 line($15*12) + $1200 data($100*12) = $1875.60 (12 months) but device will not be yours. Next 18 = $34.42  * 18 = $619.56 (we can upgrade in 18 months) but u have to give Note 4 back to at&t if u upgrade. or if u don't want to upgrade then pay till 24 months ($34.42*20=$826) Full price then Note 4 will be yours. (u can get unlock lte version $806 from expansys-usa) >>> $619.56 + $270 lins($15*18) + $1800 data($100*18) = $2689.56 (18 months) but device will not be yours. i recommend= Get unblock Note 4 ($806) + get 100$ 10GB data + $15 line (unlimited talk & text) = $2186 (for 12 months) but device is your and u can sell it after one year around $600 so $2186 - $600 = $1586, then get note 5.  

I agree with akki... that was how I worked it out too. It seems like some people don't realize you get the $15 per line fee when you do 10gb even if you're not doing next? The important part is keeping the device... used phones sell for a surprising amount of money. Maybe of you are not comfortable with eBay NEXT is an Ok plan?

Next is not a complete rip-off in all situations. Here is an example with the Lumia 1520: My plan has a no-contract price of $90/mo with 2 lines, so lets call that $45/mo for my plan.  If I get a 1520 on contract then I pay $200 for the device, and my plan then jumps up to $60/mo for 2 years.  Over 2 years that total price ends up being $1640 for my one line, or an average of $68.33/mo. If I went with the ATT Next route then my plan would continue to cost $45/mo, and then my 1520 would cost me $24.37/mo for 24 months.  Over 2 years that would cost $1664.88 (or $69.37/mo) which is only marginally more.  If you trade your phone in for a newer device before the end of that 2 years then you trade it in and the rest of the device cost is 'forgiven' and you can upgrade much sooner than if you had a traditional contract.  If you do keep the device then you ended up paying the retail price for it, and you own it in the end to do with as you please. Conversely, if you get a super cheap devices then you can actuially save money compared to a traditional 2 year contract price, and still be able to get a new device every 12-18 months, which is a particularly good deal. The 3rd route is to have that base $45/mo plan price, and then get an unlocked Lumia 1520 from a 3rd party for the going rate of ~$475 rather than the retail price of $580, which ends up with a total 2 year price of $1555 (or $64.79/mo) for an arguably better device (even without LTE support), and when you want to upgrade you can sell your device and recover some of that initial investment.  Assuming that your device is in sellable condition and desireable after 2 years then you can recover $1-200 of those costs to put towards your next phone, but the fact of the matter is that most people break their device, or it is so out-dated that there is not much of any value in it after 2 years. No matter how you slice it, you are looking at a cost difference of less than $5/mo between your cheapest and most expensive options here... if your budget is so tight that $5/mo really makes a difference then you probably should not have a smartphone in the first place.  There are plenty of other more effective ways to save money than playing games with how your acquire your cell phone.

Not true. I use the Next plan and my line price is cheaper than if I used an upgrade and signed a contract. In my case I broke even on my monthly bill weather I went Next or with a contract.

Everyone realizes that $449 is a rip off, right? The 635 can be had for $99 for AT&T off the MS Store. The 735 is sub $200. I think the 930 can be had for $499. And the mother of all off contract phones, the Nexus 5, has been selling for $299 since day one, and its RAM and processor run circles around the 830. $449 is an absolute joke. I want this phone bad to replace my 925, but I'm not going to pay MS highway robbery for a phone that has such a midrange processor and RAM. @ $449 the inclusion of Qi does nothing to separate it from the pack. This is a nice midrange device that cannot cost MS more than $150 to manufacture with $130 being a safe bet. I've read where the teardown cost of the iPhone 6/+ cost Apple are less than $250.

That's about where they priced the 820 at launch, if memory serves.

$0 in Canada on Rogers with a 2 year.

Bell too

No, the Lumia 920 launched at the $449 price point for unlocked. The 820 launched at $349 or $399. Either way, the off-contract price for a phone that is BARELY better than the Moto G...I mean the phone runs the same chipset, has the same amount of RAM, has a slightly better camera, and also has Micro SD expansion. The 830 is a rip off, at least at the off-contract price.

The Moto G is an example of Google dumping devices into the market at near-cost in a desperate attempt to limit Samsung's hegemony. The pricing of the Moto G and any of the Nexus devices is unsustainable.

The Moto G easily has a 20% profit margin with a teardown cost of at most $130. I wouldn't exactly call that near-cost. So long as Google and MS are making billions off their core business, taking a 20% profit margin versus 200%+ is sustainable. At $449, this device is DoA. MS is simply trying to get users wanting a high-end phone to bite on this device which is NOT an affordable flagship. At most, it's a nicely dressed up mid-range phone that should not cost more than $300 off contract. Absolutely rediculous.

Exactly. The fact that so many people buy into this "They're selling at cost!" myth is disturbing. 

Agree. The 830 has to be one of the most curious releases in Lumia's history.  The fact that MS touts this as a flagship makes me think that there really is no true flagship in the pipeline.  At the risk of another 900 million $ writedown, this would be an unbelievable time to push a Surface Phone flagship.. a true high end device.. except that I hear nothing but the sound of crickets.

This is true. Right now, it looks like the last true Flagship, at least in the US, is the 1520. I have one, and I like it, but it's just a bit too big. It's a shame that MS/Nokia wasted the 930 on Verizon. I'm still scratching my head over that decision. I would rather have seen the 830 on Verizon and give everyone else the 930...but that would make too much sense.

Re: 920 at release.... Even when the Lumia 920 was launched, it wasn't using high end components. The only saving grace at the time was the promise if a great camera and a new streamlined OS that didn't require eight cores to run.

I really don't see too many people buying this.

Unfortunate that it is about 100 dollars over priced. I would choose this over a Moto G, but would probably get the one over this. Need that 80x processor.

If you buy it thru Next 18, the math is a lot better: 18 x 18.75 = $337.50; On Next 12 x $22.50 = $270

But isn't it really $337.50 + $99.99, or $437.49?

Nope, AT&T Next is $0 down

It's $0 down, but after the 12 or 18, you can trade it for a new phone/get new upgrade pricing. If you pay it off for the whole play (20 or 24 months) it works out to the same pricing for retail.

Actually, there are 24 payments on the Next 18 plan, and 20 payments on the Next 12, so it's $450 any way you pay for it. The 12 and 18 refer to how long you have to wait before you upgrade, not how many payments you make. Too much for this phone, I'm afraid. :(

The price on Next is actually the same.  Next 12 actually signs you up for 20 payments with the option to upgrade in 12 months.  Next 18 signs you up for 24 month payments with the option to upgrade in 18 months.  So, you could look at it as being cheaper, but if you don't upgrade, the price is exactly the same.  If you do upgrade, your're signing up for more payments on a new phone....

still a tough sell for the masses vs iphone5c (who most will just take free or $29 on 2-year deal not doing the math.

don't comapre moto g hardware to lumia 830

Why not. It is its closest competitor. I honestly love everything about this phone. I could even deal with the weaker CPU, if I didn't lose hey Cortana. But that feature is money. My wife wants a new phone, with her contract ending on the 14th. But she hates the one, and this one doesn't have hey Cortana. Tried convincing her of a 1520, but just to big. Our att only had one red one left, probably gone now anyways. Who knows she may be interested in it once she has hands on with it

The closest competitor to the Moto g is the Lumia 730. The 830 is in a different league. I own it and I think its worth every penny.

@arjunan your 830 has pretty much identical internals to an 830 minus the cameras and OS and lacking in water resistance (not proof). 

No, it really isn't in a different league. 

I have the 1520, I'm a guy, I have relatively large hands and feel that the 1520 IS TOO BIG. I now even have a "spare" 530 for $15 extra per month so I have a smaller, normal size device for the gym, jogging taking to the movies where the 1520 is just too big to keep close by or to put in your pocket when sitting down.
I am really hating the phones on ATT now.

Why not? It's the same damn phone, and the Moto G is built like a tank.

I think they could have been a little creative with the pricing. This is the first time Microsoft has taken this approach marketing an "Affordable Flagship".
A different approach, to garner the attention of consumers I think could be coupled with strong marketing tied to ATTENTION GETTING PRICING.
Psychologically as consumers we're used to seeing $99 and $199 price points for new devices in the market on contract. $0 down on contract could be costly for sellers and give the "perception" to general non-techie/non-enthusiasts that the device is of lesser quality than it is and that there is a greater disparity in specs and performance than more popular brands like the iPhone and Galaxy line, which most consumers walk into stores keenly aware of.
But how about an $89 price on contract with the tag, The Affordable flagship. That's eye-catching, different and positions the price JUST belowthe$99 price we've seen for some flagships- AFFORDABLE. It also maintains the perceived value because it costs SOMETHING out the door, and is again relatively close to what we perceive aslower cost acceptable pricing- and this AFFORDABLE FLAGSHIP at $89 beats THAT. PZushing that and the respectable spec just might really move this device.

$449? Egad!

This is about $100-150 less than flagship phones on AT&T. Off-contract is never cheap in the US from a carrier.

it's just to high. If this thing even had a 600 processor, I would have been sold. That 400 is in the new Moto G for much less. In this spec category I would rather have 735, even if I would have to order it internationally. Doesn't matter though. Just went with the 1520. Best fit for me.

Yea, I have to agree with you here. I'm about to bite the bullet on the screen size issue and just look for a well priced gently used 1520. I'm fatigued here. Or maybe switch back, I dunno.

$450 was the MSRP for the 920 off contract i think.

Exactly. I bought a flagship for 450$. Now their offering me an "affordable" flagship, pre-missing future updates like "Hey Cortana" (which I wont use probably, but is a benchmark for it's pre-limitations).  I'm not doubting the least certain things, micro-sd slot, build quality and type (aluminium frame etc), Sure, sure... But 450$? And then someone walks in, or looks at spec sheets between this and the Moto-G for 180$... tell me what they opt for... I'm trying to be supportive of the platform, it's not that I wanted an overpriced/fair priced "Flagship" of epic proportions. That would be nice too, but I could live with this offering, if it at least matched up to it's price.  Fine WP can perform better, mor or less (again, no "hey cortana), on lower hardware compared to say Android. But what benefit is this if there are no price gains when using said hardware? 

And you'll never find another flagship for $450 unless it's a Chinese brand or subsidized by Google.

Yea? But the issue is it still doesn't fit the moniker they've attached to it. Not by the mixture of specs and performance. 450$ is mot affordable to many. Amd flagship, this does not scream, with exception to its frame. The price is the separating factor here. It's nestled the phone in an awkward place by way of, again, that mixture of title, price and specs. EDIT: Further, when the Lumia 735 hits, one will also have to question it by the pricing. It has had no labels attached to it and it's body is different. But the specs are almost exactly the same. The price it hit's it will be taken to be the difference in build type, camera and screen". The core components remain. And even then I don't think it should be higher than 220 for the 735. But it will land, at somewhere around 350-380. And that will be an issue. WP has not in general sold like hotcakes, except for the extremely low end budget "get it cuz it's cheap" area. And these will, in my opinion, leave as big a sink as a 700 USD device with nothing more than the best internals, a new camera and a stylus would have. Again, I hope to eat more words.

Oh, no argument there. Was just hoping for 350-400.

I don't really see $100-$150 as being enough to classify affordable. I personally think it should be not more than $280 outright and at most $350. I got a brand new 620 for $80 outright and in comparison this just has a bigger screeen, more ram, better processor, and nicer camera. Each feature shouldn't be a nearly full $100 upgrade. That's too similar to Apple charging an extra 100 for each storage bump.   I can only see this thing selling well at the sub $400 point, and much less for contract pricing.

Hogwash, Daniel! The 635 off contract from the MS Store is extremely well priced as is the 530. The 830 IS NOT 4x+ the 635, a very solid low / mid-range phone. Anything past $300 is a rip off. Again, MS is simply trying to get WP users who've been waiting on a flagship device to jump on the 830 and rake the extra dough into the bank. They're acting like this phone is the "surface phone". This almost makes me want to abandon the plateform.

I'm not the only one thinking of a possible Surface Phone down the road as a real opportunity. That would be a hit as a flagship.. but nothing less. If there ever was a time for MS to put the foot on the gas pedal, it wouldn't be through releasing a phone like 830 as a flagship device. If anything, WP consumers are smart consumers and should see right through the 830 marketing. This release of the 830 is almost a defeatest strategy. If I don't hear any rumblings about a real high end device by the end of the year, I'm moving on over to Android, as much as I'd hate to.. the phones are just so much nicer on Android right now.

Off contract it's the same price as lumia 1520
Edit: I mean the actual price of the 1520 in US not the AT&T version specifically

1520 was $550 off contract

It was actually set at $584.99 for the Lumia 1520

It's not that affordable. I'll hold off for the next flagship in the new year.

1520? Or the One maybe?

In Germany L830 is 349 euro

In Belgium you can find the lumia 830 starting from €305,99, free shipping, at bol.com but only the black one.

So 449.99 for basically the hardware of a Moto G with a 10MP camera?

and a better OS..

And a larger display. And better video recording capabilty.

$4. . .4. . .9? The ONE thing this phone still had going for it, marketing-wise, would have been a $349 - $399 price. I wanted to want this phone so badly! Will be waiting until W10 phones. 

Wow... I was expecting $399, but not $449. Yes it's cheaper than "flagship" phones on AT&T, but those other phones have the latest and greatest of everything generally. This price point is a bummer.

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing - $399.

I dont get it. The 930 sells for ~$450-499 and is actually a flagship with a faster proc, full 1080 screen, and better camera. Why dont they just stock the 930 and call that the "affordable flagship"?

I was about to say if they didn't announce this phone alongside the m8, I'd be very disappointed. Hoping for good sales for those who want a good and quality windows phone on att and new.

Such low price on contract

Will best buy have this to purchase off contact, still get fitbit?

I was at Best Buy yesterday and they had 0 Windows Phones. Zero.

Yep. Screw best buy. No support for WP :/

I hope they carry it, I have a nice chunk of rewards certificates so my price won't be so bad :).

And with this idiotic pricing for a mid range phone, you never will. Thanks, Microsoft!

I got my 635 there. They only cary the WP go phones. $450 is to much. I hate contracts and payment plans. I'll wait until its under $400. Maybe Amazon will have a it for less.

I bought the Lumia 920 at the same full price two years old from AT&T. Sorry, but this needs another $100 off to at least be considered "affordable".

Maybe the price is because the added of the fitbit band!

If that's the case then it's no less a "deal" of any sort. I'd rather buy the fitbit in my own time and pay 349 (not really personally) for the device. If that were the case.

Lol

I was expecting the subsidized price to be $0. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I'd be shocked at someone choosing this over a $199 subsidized flagship.

I would be shocked if there wouldn't be $50 (or more) rebate deals almost immediately from 3rd party vendors and/or other deals after the Fitbits run out, and/or Black Friday and/or Xmas sale and/or post-Xmas sale.. :)
 

Ouch.  $100 on contract is too much. $49.99 would be more like it.

I get what you're saying, but is $50 over the course of TWO YEARS that much of a difference? I mean, that's $2 a month....

See my comment just above - this will be the case, I would bet, one way or the other.

Can we pre order it Daniel?

Marketing material doesnt mention qi wireless chargine. Can anyone confirm that that is anso included in the covers?

I'm wondering too.  The only time I've seen mention of Qi on the ATT version was from Daniel.

Built in PMA and Qi... does that mean it works for both chargers using the same backplate or do you get one PMA and One Qi backplate?

This is from the Nokia page announcing the phone with the FitBit promo... "And for those of you constantly on-the-go, the Lumia 830 on AT&T is equipped for wireless charging as well (PMA standard)." http://conversations.nokia.com/2014/11/03/free-fitbit-flex-lumia-830-att/ Looks like AT&T screws us yet again.

One thing for sure.... Come May 2015 and not a single cent to Verizon and hello AT&T. Why, because it seems AT&T does not seem to discriminate against the platform I chose. Well, you know how the Verizon story goes when it come to WP.

Windows Phone is doomed if this is the kinds of phones they're selling at $450. Hell, you might as well spend a bit more and get 1520, which is a vastly superior phone specs wise. Microsoft, you have no hope of competing against Android with this phone at this kind of price. This phone should be no more than $350 tops.

How is windows phone doomed. This is America. Only a small minority actually buy phones at the full price so to them $99 on contract is perfectly fine to them.

The majority of them walk into a store and say "show me the free phones [on a 2-year-contract]" and the staff direct them to low-range Android phones.

While true, there is also the Lumia 635 that is free on contract. Not to mention the lumia 1020 which is near this price as well.

True, but this is a far better looking, better designed phone. It's just that they're asking too much money for the specs, compared to the Android competitors in this particular midrange market. They also need at least one hign-end, premium phone every year.

that is changing rapidly.  Off contract, I'm now paying HALF of what i was paying previously (2 lines on the account).  I refuse to adopt a contract payment and plenty of people I know are doing exactly the same thing.

Sorry, but what sales person is going to recommend the Lumia 830 for $450, when there own 630 using the same processor costs only $80? Add to that, Android phones using the same silicon sell for nearly 1/2 the price.
This is a fail all around. Fail for the pro-summer, fail for the value customer, fail for the sales people, fail.

It's Microsoft. They are the best company at killing their own products through stupidity that has ever existed. There should be a verb for that. I nominate "zuned."

That's because most Americans are too stupid to realize that contracts are really a loan. A really bad rip-off loan. A lot of it has to do with the old stigma of prepaid phones being for poot people and drug dealers. That is going away. Unless your job is paying the bill, being on a contract in 2014 is just plain dumb. Save your money, buy upfront, and stop getting raped on a contract.

Nice but no midrange phone for me on a contract

I will be picking this up on Friday on the Next 18 plan! Hopefully, can convince the Mrs to get one as well!

Wow, for once we get a better deal in Canada. For me is was 0$ for 2 years or 400$ no contract. (Rogers)

What about N930?

Exactly. The 930 sells for about the same price and IS a flagship with a 1080 screen, better camera, better proc, etc. The pricing makes no sense here.

Whiners assemble!!!

Actually you pay taxes up front

Sadly, this price is a disappointment.

You can buy it unlocked from, Rogers Wireless for only $399 and free shipping. Damn AT&T overcharging! They suck!!!! And the Rogers Wireless Lumia 830 is fully compatible with T Mobile guys.

Must be the mark up for both wireless charging standards.
Edit: I'm thinking the $99 down is for the free Fitbit.

Don't blame the carrier, blame Microsoft for overpricing the damn thing to begin with.

Wait a week or two for price drop as usual on WP.

indeed the l830 went on sale in belgium starting at €399 (end september i think) now it is €305,99 21% tax incl.

This phone should be somewhere between $250 and $350. They are smoking crack if they think this is going to move at $450.

Hmm..730 sells for $300 with no LTE and it is a super hit in most countries where it launched, and the general consensus is that it s priced right. How can you expect them to sell 830 at that price? Then what is the whole point of having 2 models?

730 is around 270€ here, which usually translates to $270 in the US. 830 is 360€, and funny enough 930 is 399€ (499€ in most places though). Although, the 930 is tempting, I'm not getting another WP before MS can give me a good enough reason to (insanely low pricing; like 300€ for flagship, or a platform worth investing in, I'll check out W10 with my current WPs).

$50 on contract seems more appropriate. Seems like the same strategy that the Amazon Fire phone used. Price aggressively high to alienate customers and then sell for $.01. Ughh. . .

Fire Phone pricing was just crazy. Maybe they could have done $79 for this 830?

I don't believe there is a service contract with Next. On my family plan it would essentially be a no interest partial installment plan. After 12 or 18 months you have the option of paying off the remaining cost of the device ($178 or $112, respectively) to own it outright. You're then free to keep using it, or sell it on the open market. In what way is that a ripoff? Perhaps I'm missing something; they are a sneaky lot.

No, you are correct. Some people dont understand how Next works.

Shit...well time to jump ship...or wait for next year? Idk

Wish Tmobile was launching this phone. Stupid exclusive on a midrange phone

Just like the entire world, I would like this to be cheaper. I would like everything to be cheaper. If you get the Fitbit bundle it's not a bad deal. If you wait a few months for prices to drop a little, it won't be a bad deal.

Sorry but no, a Moto G is $179. At $450 the price is a joke.

I guess MS is unwilling to subsidize its phones as much as Moto (Google) is? Hopefully under the Lenovo ownership this will change. :P

I don't get the comparisions with Moto G at all! It looks FUGLYYYYY! You have a super stylish phone with wireless charging and pureview camera! STOP the comparisions with Moto G for heavens sake!
 

Seeing as they have similar specs and you can buy over two Moto G's for the same price, IT IS a valid comparison. Dont try to pretend it's not by the phone's subjective "style" that has nothing to do with the BOM or the profits Microsoft is (trying) to take on this handset.

Style is subjective? Wow! I can bet that anyone who looks at Moto G and Lumia 830 will say that Lumia 830 looks better by a mile. Making profits? So is making profits a bad thing? It is much easier to make an assembled crap looking handset like Moto G than Lumia 830 which slimmed down a lot because of their thinnest pureview module yet. All of that takes R&D.

You are forgetting a lot of things with this. Same screen size, same resolution, same processor, same ram, etc. Check the price again. You also need to realize that M$ is only putting say an extra what $5-$8 cost for the camera into it. This windows phone that is doublethe price is complete BS. Wirelss charging isnt much either.

Only you and almighty know how you came up with that $5 - $8 for pureview camera LOL. I would say that you are the one who is forgetting a lot: 1. Design 2. 3 Microphones 3. Dolby Digital sound 4. Wireless charging both Qi and PM or w.e 5. Pureview camera 6. Lower SAAR value 7. Bigger Screen 8. Glance I can go on.....

And it's still not worth more than $250.

Lumia 830 only $170 if you take advantage of AT&T Next 12 month plan and subtract the $99.00 Fitbit flex. That's a pretty hard deal to beat...

This looks like a great phone, but at that price it's going to be a tough sell (unless you do Next and plan to get a new phone within a year anyway). As others have mentioned, the Moto G is $180 unlocked on Amazon. Ouch. Of course, since this phone will not be available anywhere that people go to buy phones except in some AT&T stores, it doesn't really matter anyway. They could give it away and people still wouldn't know it's available.

What's with the attacks on your compatriots' average intelligence? G is for gangsta in OG
830 is a higher number than icon
Fries are from France Gotta love America...

Are they mad?

Yes. Yes, they are.

I thought about getting the 830, but I've definitely fallen on the side of getting the better phone, the M8. I hope it does ok, but I don't see it making moves. Not with 2 Ones, the galaxy line and new iPhones in its way and it didn't really do anything to stand out.

Unlocked price is a horrible joke.  $449?  It's DOA.  shave $100 off that price and then we'll talk.

Even at 349 it's over priced. 250-299 and it would actually sell.

Priced at $150 it would sell pretty much the same amount since the overwhelming majority of people in the US buy their phones on a contract, thereby making the unsubsidized price almost irrelevant.

Bingo.

Why don't you just ask Microsoft to give it away for free? :) The number of complaints on this site about anything windows phone is getting tiresome to say the least.

You do realize that this is a windows site, right? We're supposed to complain and praise windows on this site..

I'd rather have it $99 cheaper without the Flex.. I might buy it at that price.  Wait a month I guess and see...

$100 for this phone on contract? That's almost offensive. It's just not worth getting stuck with a 2-year contract for the Lumia 830. It's definitely not a worthy upgrade for the Lumia 920. I just can't see why anyone, who's in the know, would want one. It isn't even a smart buy if you really need a new phone fix while you wait for a true flagship. The 635 or 735 would make for a smarter purchase and you're getting essentially the same phone. The 735 is the same phone but with a lower MP camera. The Lumia 635 comes with a few additional compromises, the screen resolution, camera and RAM but it's $100 without a contract. The only catch I see is that like the 930, you're probably locked out of AT&T's LTE bands. If I didn't know any better I'd say that was done intentionally to minimize competition for the carriers. I guess that's what Microsoft considers being a strong partner.

Should I get this or the HTC one m8? I'm due for upgrade on Nov 10 and can afford either (been saving up for new phone). Maybe I should get the 1520... I don't know what to do :/

Depends on what you want. HTC for the speakers and processor (which makes a considerable difference in gaming) or Lumia for camera/possible chance of better firmware.

Mainly depends on how important the camera is to you, and how much you are invested in getting updates. The M8, nice as it is, can't compete in terms of camera quality and HTC has a poor track record in support as well, unfortunately.

450 is affordable? Hmmm. This phone is way over priced for the processor. Plain and simple.

If only the phone was just the processor. iFans never talk about processors :(

iFans get one of the best SoCs in the market, they don't have to talk about it. And they are not offered a downgrade in terms of the SoC (S400's 305 GPU is worse than the S4's 225 in the 920). While the comparison with Moto G isn't totally valid, the 830 is still 2.5 times more expensive, which is a lot given that it is not at all more future-proof. The price would have been decent if it had 2GB RAM and S600 inside, and great if it had the S800 inside, as everything else about the phone is good enough.

One of the best Dual core Socs :) As long as the experience with phone is good enough, why all the complaints about price? Microsoft is not dumb to skip 600 series,maybe there's some support problem which meant that they have to go with 400. Also, the experience is great not sure why the complaints.

Because WP is in itself a compromise, having to compromise on the SoC as well, and at that price, it's bound to raise questions. The Apple dual core CPU beats almost everythinig in the market, except some high end SoCs on very specific circumstances (well-threaded code). The GPU is almost the best you can get, and is ahead of the one upcoming in 430 in S810, not to mention the 305 in the S400. Not certain about about MS being dumb in this instance or not, but they've certainly been dumb enough of a number of occasions in the last few years. Much like Nokia they don't seem to understand their market position, and are pricing their devices for different kind of a demand and perception. It's become quite the norm that WP devices are overpriced at launch, then quickly lose value. MS doesn't seem to realize that WP offers very little advantage by itself, but has a whole lot of disadvantages. Sticking with Qualcomm SoCs was supposed to help MS get to market quicker and more optimized, yet OEMs have had to wait for them to add support. They need to find their foothold somewhere, but their feet seem to kicking each other so I don't know if they can. Concentrating on the low-mid -end is one of the few things they've done right, but so far the pricing has been 10-25% too high across the range (barring some special offers). uhm... /rant

Microsoft still seems to think this is 2004, where they could just bully their way into any market and take over. Becasue "Microsoft." As much as I like the OS, Microsft is going to kill Windows Phone through sheer stupidity and incompetence. 

So they want me to pay same/more than I did for the 920 for the same performance...

I'm not biting. Windows phones have poor resale value, so wait a while, they tend to end up on closeout sites. That's how I got my 920 $150 NIB.

I will continue to hold onto my 920 until there is a worthy replacement.

ATT will be throwing these at people by Christmas.  Nobody's going to touch this at $449 off contract (unless they're just stupidly in love with overpaying for things)

Then again, very few people - still! - buy phones off contract... The more important prices are the on contract price and increasing the Next prices (which are of course derived from the off contract price but given that they are in small monthly installment the "monthly price" difference to what it would be based on say $350 off contract price is not huge).

Bought my daughter an 822 (for less than $100! Killer deal) and using it on ATT but not being able to receive MMS is a pain point for her. I was hoping for some pricing sanity with the 730 or 830 so I could upgrade her for Xmas but it looks like I may have to go another route now. Back to the drawing board!

635. $79. Amazon. exceptional for the price.

I have to agree. Bought the 635 for my wife. Great little phone for the price. Even better when you think about if they will break it and it needs to be replaced. haha

May be I'll get a 630 for now wait 2 months for the price to drop and then get a 830. 830 minus fitbit and a price drop could be around 299 when the dust settles.

if you are trying to say that 82x cannot do MMS, you should call ATT customer service.  All phones can get MMS, the phone just hast to have the correct setting.   Id suggest getting a 63x series as you can take advantage of LTE speeds that the 82x cannot get.

I find it odd that while one can receive and send MMS on the 822 with Straight Talk and Net 10, people can't while using "branded" ATT service. It's all ATT. There has to be a way.

Yes!!!! Goodbye Verizon!!!!!

Daniel, Do you know if the 830 will come to Tmobile? 

Hmmm.... buy now and try to resell the fitbit I will never use (have had two fitbits in the past and the quality is terrible as is their warranty and customer service) or just wait a few more months and get it for 49 or less when they drop the price hopefully.  Seeing that ATT still wants $199 for the 1520 makes me worry a bit that they will not drop the price on this anytime soon though.

AT&T are simply not interested in promoting the Windows Phone platform. Stupid price point, they must have a secret deal with Google to make WP uncompetitive. Go elsewhere. This is why Windows Phone cannot be sold in the US, the carriers there must hate Microsoft.

I'm sorry... where are US consumers supposed to go to get better support for Windows Phone? Verizon? No. T-Mobile? No. Sprint? (snorts). AT&T is the only carrier in the US that gives Windows Phone any thought at all. They update every Windows Phone they have released. Try getting that on any other US carrier.

Also if ATT is pushing PMA so much this phone should be cheaper.  They are literally trying to promote a different wireless charging standard that this phone already comes with.  This should be a lot cheaper. Down with exclusivity!

It ain't ATT's fault. Blame Microsoft for the idiotic pricing.

And the downward spiral continues for Windows Phone. $450 off-contract is dead on arrival. It's like the Product Managers at Microsoft just close their eyes and pretend that no competing phones and platforms exist. Moto G (another 5", Snapdragon CPU device) at $180 is going to absolutely trounce the 830 in sales. A disasterous holiday season for Windows Phone will be the final nail in its coffin.

Yep. They did the same thing with the Surface line. Priced way too high. 

I cannot disagree with this.

You also have to figure in the activation fee of $40 to go along with the $100 on a 2 year contract.  With Next you have to pay the sales tax upfront if you state has a sales tax but it's $0 down and no activation fee.  I do have a feeling that the "free" fitbit band is somehow included in the $449.99 price of the Lumia 830. I was comparing prices on AT&T and this is still $100 cheaper than the iphone 5S 16GB which is at $549.99 or $99 on 2 year contract.

No more contracts!!!

+635

Would this be good replacement for my wife's 925? Her biggest gripe is how long it takes to take a picture. By the time it takes the picture my kid has already moved and it's just a blurry pic. Does the camera on the 830 take faster pics?

Get an iPhone, it's shot to shot time is ridiculously fast

She switched from a 4S to the 925. She's been talking about switching back lately just because of the camera

no.. unless you want to get stuck with almost the same phone for two years, different design.. S400 processor and garbage GPU.. If you are planning to stick with WP then dont upgrade right now (unless you want to get a monstrous phone which is 1520).. there is really nothing on WP side on At&t

I'll probably end up waiting for the next flagship...which sucks because she doesn't care about all that, she just wants a fast camera, lol

I'm running 830 that came with Debian, flashed it to Denim and now the camera fires up ridiculously faster. I came from a 920 and 925 also and although spec wise nothing significantly better I am pleased with the 830 performance and form factor.

Thanks for the input. I think I'm going to pass on the 830 in hopes of a flagship in the 1st qtr of 2015

Daniel, any word if Verizon will carry the 830 on Nov 7 as well or at a later date?

Won't be coming to VZW. Big Red scheduled to offer the 735 first qtr of next year.

These prices are a joke

Can someone tell me where it says Qi wireless charging compatible?

You can see it on the box of your 830

Fido offer it for $80 with 2 years contact, my girlfriend took it yesterdays!!

If you buy at a Microsoft store you only pay taxes on the contract price, instead of the retail price at an At&t store.

should have got the rm-985 while it was available on ebay. $449 is too much off contract.

i was thinking about grabing lumia 830 as my secondry device but naah not at this price.. i bought an unlocked HTC M8 for 400$s refurb (it was new when I got it) that has 801 prcessor and much better GPU.. clearly not worth it.. I was showing this to my wife since she needs to get a new phone but we are not paying almost $19 a month for next 18 months for a S400 processor.. smh.. sucks man.. Att and MS needs to figure out something.. maybe a new truly flagship phone that has some new killer features like touchID that no other phone on the market has.. in that case.. ill pay 800$ 900$ for the phone but not for this.. even 20$ a month is not worth it.. HAS TO BE A NEW TRULY FLAGSHIP phone with killer features!

Price is horrid, both on and off contract. You can get much better hardware for phones thart are $0 to $99 on contract. Microsoft is in no position to sell the "experience" or "software" like Apple and have a premium price point. This is a marginal upgrade from a 635 and actually think about it, dont kid yourself. Id imagine the cost for all the parts that go into this phone is very low, maybe $125 or under.

You can't just take the price of the parts and apply that to the final price. That's not how it works at all. You you're not counting R&D, getting the phone into the stores, the deal with Fitbit, or any of the other factors that go into this. The unsubsidized price was set by AT&T (and not Microsoft) to make is so you can't take your phone from carrier to carrier. You have absolutely no idea what you're saying.

Yes, he does. This is just pure freakin' greed. Microsoft is under the delusion that they're in the same league Apple and Google when it comes to mobile. They ain't. Not by a long shot. They are in no position to demand the profit margins they are attempting. Low to mid range phones on the prepaid carriers are their best, and only, hope of becoming relevant. But their hubris won't allow that. Windows Phone will be dead in two years if this isanity keeps up.

The carriers (ATT & Verizon notably) mandate in the USA for selling high priced "premium phones", not affordable "off contract phones" is really killing windows phone in particular.   Here is a prime example of where a $299 device should be available byt instead AT&T wants to sell the "2 year contract" $99 phone (which due to the contact ads $25/line surcharge if not Next). So when - like a moron - you take the 2-year deal you $99 up front then pay $600 over 24 months to then own a 2 year old phone with non-replaceable battery and no resale value.   It's sad how foolish consumers are

It DOES have a replaceable battery at least.

You missed the whole point there, chief. Contracts are a rip off.

Any phone I want I  buy it from here, unlocked, cheaper and any color. http://www.ctinyc.com/show_search_rs.jsp?brand=0&fromprice=&toprice=&source=index.jsp&keyword=lumia%20830 They are located in NYC.

The only issue I had with ATT Next was that they would not carrier unlock the phone. I ended up having to come off next and pay for the phone outright before they would send me an unlock code ..

The price is too high in my opinion. I would be a buyer at 299.99 to 349.99. I cannot justify paying more than that.

The full cost price, off contract, seems awfully.....inflated?

The sales will be so bad, that after the holiday season, you'll be able to pick this up for around $250 full cost.

What it should have been to start with.

They price high so they have more room to shave off when putting sales on it making the value appear greater.

The trouble is they have conditioned us to wait for "sale" prices so no one goes out and buys them at launch. Then the handset end up in the far back corner of retail stores after the first week and no one buys them, ever. They need to take a page from apple and cut out the discounts. If you want to play the "Affordable" card you need to make it cheap from the start and stick to it.

Dan, I understand you need to run a business here. As editor you need to get info out the door at the same time as maintaining a relationship with the folks at MS. At the risk of being a jerk, I must say I feel like you're carrying water for MS here. We need you to call a spade a spade - MS should be more competitive with their offerings. This is unfortunately relatively high priced for a mid level phone. Call it like it is, not the best choice for most - of course for some, but not most.

$449. is way too high for this phone $100. More and get the 1520. Affordable flagship should be $330.

Hopefully Verizon gets this. I just switched for reasons, and the VZ guy thought they'd be getting it at some point.

MS should just make a surface line of Phones (High End) and focus on making a standard staple High End device for Windows Mobile platform and just let the OEMs handle the other tiers.

To understand how insane AT&T's price is, just consider this: it's cheaper for an American to purchase this phone from Fido and pay the unlock fee and GST than it is to buy the locked, off contract version from AT&T. If American prices haven't dropped before my December trip to Alberta, I'll certainly be going the Fido route.

no go for me, i got lumia 920, which make this one a downgrade....only cam is good. waiting for att to bring updated version of 930 or 1520, enought said!

so....w/o contract you are better off with a nexus 5...sorry but this is too much money for that mid range phone.

Very sad. Signed up 920 two years ago. Contract is up in two weeks but no flagship WP available

Sadly, its too expensive for what you are getting. It would be more compelling at a substantially lower price, or had a better SoC. Even the 10MP camera isn't of a good enough quality to justify the pricing ATT released it at! LOL
I do not believe everyone needs a flagship device with all the bells and whistles, but I don't think a product should be sold at a fare value.
With other string options from Apple and Samsung what are people who want Windows Phone to do!?

I'm sure ATT and MS reasoning of the 830 price is as follows.
MS offers the phone to ATT with a MSRP of $350.
ATT says that they and their sales staff will not make any money selling the 830 for such a low price!
So ATT says to MS, how about we increase the price by $100 for the initial launch, but throw in a free $100 item!?
The free item, in this cas the Fitbit, is not a missed sale because customers aren't buying Fitbits with their phone purchase.
This way, thee sales associates at ATT promote the bundled package including the 830 so that 2 items sold are reflected per transaction.
This gives each sales person incentive to sell the Lumia 830 because with each sale they are making two sales - a $100 premium added to a sale which typically may buy a cheap accessory for $20 or so.
The trouble is, the 830 isn't worth the inflated $450 price and people buying a Nokia Windows Phone would prefer owning a MS Band - not the more limited Fitbit.
So while this does create a problem for Microsoft and does impact their ability to sell the "lifestyle" of an affordable flagship and a strong platform, it is being mucked up by ATT/carriers again.
What MS needs to quickly move forward with is sell direct with Open SIMs that work with any carrier. Sell gem for a fare price and sell a lot of them -- to their intended market.
Intended market is key. Buyers who spend $450 "value" on essentially a souped up 635, will not be satisfied customers and will lose trust with the brand/platform.

All the naysayers haven't discouraged me.  Getting the 830 this Friday with the free fitbit flex.  Someone please correct me if I am wrong:  But I have seen a few comments regarding the Moto X or Moto G or whatever the model is being similarly spec'd to the Lumia 830 and priced around a $100 lower than the Lumia 830.  I may be mistaken but doesn't google or whomever sells that phone do so at a lost?  What I mean is don't they sell it below cost as a matter of practice?  Isn't google or whomever is selling it taking a lost on the phone?  Isn't that the stragedy behind selling that phone?  If so, perhaps MS doesn't want to go that route.  Maybe this comment will start a debate about whether or not MS should do the same.  That's an argument for another day.  In any event, I like the 830 and it's going to be mine this Friday!! :-)

Actually, the Moto G is half the price, not just $100 less and No, these aren't sold at a loss. The old Nexus line was sold at cost, but the new Nexus 6 is being sold at premium prices. ATT is just over charging for this phone.

hmm, I don't like contracts, so $450 is not worth me to upgrade from my L920...glad to see there is other options for Windows Phones though!

$449.99  price for off contract Lumia 830!  $450 is high end mid smartphone territory!  $600 is high end!  Top end entry level is $650 - iPhone 6 - $849 for iPhone 6 128GB model and $100 more for plus or  $949!

I was hoping for $399 but might take the free Fitbit Flex and sell for ~$70 on eBay. That makes it closer to $380 which is reasonable to me. Either that or see how the price drops before Christmas...

This article is about 1 month old http://www.windowscentral.com/lumia-830-stock-expansys-usa  So it was $449.99 just a month ago but now http://www.expansys-usa.com/nokia-lumia-830-smartphone-unlocked-black-266531/ it's on sale for $379.99.  So maybe in a few weeks we'll see a similar price frop from AT&T.  If the Lumia 830 came with the Microsoft Band I'd be less dissapointed with the price of $449.99 but since they are just trying to get rid of inventory for the flex I'll give it a pass.

I am most probably getting one, as I am tired of carrying my 920 (I do lift weights regularly, thank you). I have to carry 2 phones, my work iPhone and my personal. Even if 830 is not much of an improvement, I would like to have a lighter phone. Also, 920 battery is not holding as good as it used to.

That $449 price will plummet when almost no one buys it at that rate.  Look for $50-100 slash in 6 weeks or less. 

Let us buy the 830 without the extra hardware for 349$ and I would really consider getting one. But as I have a perfectly good 820 and a Moto G lte as my backup I sure am not going to shell out 449$ for this. Lets see what they are going for around Christmas.
 

If only they were just waiting to surprise us and T-Mobile started selling this phone next week...

Meh.

Clearly, there needs to be a Windows Phone App for optimizing the cost/benefit ratio on current ATT pricing plans.

Oh man I love that orange on the 830 and 930.