Nokia Lumia 1020 priced at $602, comes in yellow, black, and white

At this point I’m not sure whether to call it the Nokia Lumia 909 or 1020. Whatever we end up calling EOS isn’t that big of a deal, what really matters to you is what colors you’ll be getting on day one. Here they are – black, yellow, and white.

A tipster sent us a screenshot of upcoming inventory for their Microsoft Store. What’s interesting is that the device is called the Lumia 1020 (and not the 909). It will retail for $602 and come in your choice of yellow, black or white. Bonus internet points for whoever can guess what color Dan will get.

On the bottom left of the screenshot you’ll see a date of 7/22/2013. Our insider tells us that date is when they usually receive the shipment. After that it's a few days before it becomes available. There's a good chance you'll be getting your devices within two weeks of next Thursdays announcement. We’ll learning more next week. This store in particular will be getting 70 total units.

Keep your eyeballs on Windows Phone Central. We’ll be live at the Nokia Zoom event next Thursday.

What color are you getting? 

217 Comments
  • Why not 620$? Just for the lulz. :P
  • THEY DID IT FOR THE LULZ.. aaarrrrgghhh!
  • I am.not getting another glossy phone. I currently have the yellow Lumia 920 and I hate the glossy feel so I use the official black matte case from Nokia which is great
  • To each his own. I love the glossy white on my L900 and us early Lumia adopters are about due for an upgrade :-)
  • This person said hates the glossy feeling which is right l,feels cheap.
  • You 900 owners were crying the blues when the 920 camout. Not crying anymore I see.
  • Indeed, love my stormtrooper 900 but think I'll head to the custard yellow this time round. Been waiting long enough for this :-)
  • Just don't expect it to look good with many theme colors. I regret getting blue over white now.
  • I prefer Nokia's glossy finish over the matte finish.
  • I have the matte cyan and have always felt like it'd fly out of my hands. The case helps but I've always felt the glossy would give me some grip.
  • It's the opposite really... I have the glossy red and have dropped mine more times than every other phone I've had combined. Never dropped my black 900.
  • Technically he is right. Glossy has more surface area and has better grip (if dry). matte has less surface area contact and thus less grip. I wish they'd make a matte white one, but people are too obsessed about it getting dirty.
  • I have a matt white Lumia and no it does not get dirty contrary to popular belief.
  • Some #000 steel wool will take care of the gloss.
  • Hahaha +1 (hope you understand what he is taking about )
  • Technically, you are wrong.  Surface area INCREASES with the addition of texture.  Think of matte as an extremely subtle sandpaper.  The flat surface area is Area = Length x Width.  Now add rough matterial to the surface.  You increased the amount of gripable surface.  However, a solid surface cannot utilize this grip and it will experience a decrease in surface area, but a human hand is not a solid surface and conforms to the texture thereby making more contact with more surface area.
  • +1
  • There is more grip with the glossy. Try holding a matte lumia up with just your four fingers on the back of the phone close to vertcial. It will slide off. Do it with a glossy lumia and it will stick. Try holding it horizontally on your four fingers and shaking your hand back and forth. The matte one will slide, the glossy will not.
    Yes the texture gives more surface area technically, but it decreases the surface in contact with the fingers. On glossy, all of the surface area touches the hand, whereas on matte, only the areas that are raised will, decreasing the actual area the hand touches. The glossy finish also sticks more to hand oils, and does not suck them up like the matte does. Think about the squeaking noise your hand makes when you drag your hand along a glossy car finish, or a glossy counter, or glass. The glossy surface there makes your hand stick well. On the other hand, think about rubbing your hand along sandpaper, or a tree, or something else with a texture; it doesn't stick.
    So in conclusion, while you would think matte would grip and gloss would slide, it's the opposite because oils in our hand make it stick. If you put a piece of clothe between your hand and the phone, both matte and glossy will slide. But on a bare hand, glossy is the one that stays in your hand better.
  • I did not say, in this particular instance, that the I creased surface area added more grip. I debunked his claim that gloss had MORE surface area when in fact it has less. I did not explain, nor do I need to, the multiple considerations that affect grip, such as the material surface or the way it is held.
  • But it has more surface area *touching* the hand, so the technical amount of surface area has no impact on the argument. The argument that matte has more surface area was irrelevant because it does not have as much touching the hand, which is what impacts grip, and which is what the the original argument was about.
    Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there was no need to refute his argument, because the technical amount of surface area isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about the amount of surface area that touches the hand.
  • Apparently I was incorrect when I said I didn't see the need to explain the minutia of detail. Common sense isn't so common. HE used surface area as his argument, but HE was technically incorrect. The premise of his argument was false. A fallacy in a premise does not inherently mean that the conclusion is false. However, I still corrected his false premise about surface area. Now, the human hand is soft and malleable. This means that it conforms to surface texture shapes better than a solid surface. You get grip on textures because your skin can conform to the shape and take advantage of the increased surface area provided by a texture. Regardless of the other factors (oil on human skin for instance), his premise was invalid.
  • this is why wpcentral rocks. Deterioration of posts over a contentious issue did not go beyond a deterioration factor (DF) 1% . Whereas engadget would have redlined at DF of 80% by now.
  • Get the official Nokia Red case and TADA! Matte finish with more grip, now you can choose either at any time. That's what I have on my Red 920, case has a great fit too.
  • I was so happy when they came out with the Nokia cases. Fits like a glove. Only wish they'd do the white one for the wife's phone, but that's not as hard a color to match (or be content if slightly off) if using third party ones.
  • *fits like a condom
  • That put the image in my head of a comedy sketch spoofing the OJ trial. I won't go into details.
  • I've the cyan and green backs for my 620. The glossy green is actually not as slippery as the matte cyan back.
  • but 620 cover is rubberized flexible material
  • Actually its the other way around the glossy slips very easily out of my hand but thanks to the yellow matte case it doesn't any more
  • I had a glossy white att 920 before I got my black matt Rogers 920 on Tmo. I prefer the gloss. I'm just happy for choices
  • Had matte, glossy feels less like a slip issue, actually, it does slip less, but that's basis physics on surface area, etc...
  • Yea i agree... I have fairly dry hands and I havethe Black 90... i can get to about 20% tilt open palm before it slips (or across 3 taut fingers)... On the gorilla glass side which the 920 is famous for slipping on anything shinny over 1% (give it time) I can get to about 40-45%.... My skin acts like gecko feet on the shinny side but the "pitted" matt finish makes it slide somethin amazing...
  • I guess I have sticky greasy hands. I haven't dripped mine while holding it. Now resting on my car, Surface or other surface... Slip and slide. I can also attest to the sturdiness of the unibody and love it absorbs (with mash marks) like a champ!
  • I love the glossy look. Matte looks so boring and plain.
  • The Gloss is actually more grippy then the matte.
  • I specifically avoided the glossy white phone because I thought that with the weight of the phone it would be more likely to slip from my hands, and because the black phone looks much cooler in pictures.
    But the reality of it is that the gloss looks fantastic, and there is no grippage issues. I still like my black 920... but if they had a glossy black then it would be very tempting.
  • I have a glossy white 920. I got the official Nokia case, but love the feel of the bare phone. Most of the time the case just sits there on my side table. Lol
  • Personally, I love the glossy feel of the 928, which is MUCH shinier & glossier than my wife's 920. I originally thought I'd hate it but I came to discover that the glossy exterior on the 928 was awesome for keeping the phone in your hand. In comparison, he 920's glossiness doesn't have this benefit. Now every case I've used on the 928 has both looked awful and felt lousy so that's part of why this is so important. The 920 has a lot of gel case options so the finish on those units matter less I think.
  • That's surprising to me considering how long it took them to get yellow 920s out into the wild. Who's taking bets for how long until we get a cyan one?
  • Too bad there won't be a cyan color.
  • Don't forget the 920 was going to have grey at announcement, cyan replaced gray due to popular demand.
  • gray is available in APAC for a long time since.
  • Gray is available in some countries.
  • I want Red.
  • There is no chance it is called 909. I would bet between 1000, 1020, and 940.
  • Reply to myself. Yes, it is 1020. Didn't finish reading.
  • No chance because YOU said it? If you think you're right, you'll be disappointed. 909 (or 929) makes way more sense than anything with 4 digits. This is NOT a new flagship, just another variation of the 920.
  • You are right that's why im keeping my 920 until the next flagship gdr3 release will bring the real 1020
  • +1
  • +1
  • Yeah, because I said that. Seriously. 1020 makes sense, why? 1. EOS is big deal, it has to be reflected, so that's the "10". 2. it is still one generation with 920. so that's the "20".  At this moment, I am 99% sure it is 1020. If i am wrong, then they are no doing it right. Any the by the way, you know what's next flagship? I bet it's 1040.
  • 1. EOS is NOT a big deal, actually. It's just a new phone targeted at a very specific niche of the market which is the one the 808 was target at. The majority of people aren't looking at phones because of the number of pixels in their cameras. EOS is a big deal to that niche of market that cares about photography and to whom 8.7MP just ins't enough.
    2. Also, EOS specs are exactly the same as the 920's, apart from the camera. Therefore there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to grant him the 4 digits.
    If you look at Nokia's history with the Lumia brand, they only change those digits when there are considerable specs changed. The specs of the EOS are the same as the 920. Therefore there's no logical reason why they would upgrade this to the 1000 cathegory just because of a 41MP camera. If they wanted to do that, they would have done it with the 925 which, while being the same as the 920, represents a considerable change in aesthetics (and has the 6th lense). They didn't. I actually have the feeling the next flagship will be a "940". I don't see Nokia returning to the 4 digit names for phones soon, specially since they have reversed that path on the Symbian long ago (therefore the N series etc). I can easily see the 940, 960 and 980 arriving before they jump to the 1000.
  • 10xx doesn't mean a new generation it just means higher quality than 9xx. XX30 or X30 would mean a new generation. First # is quality, second # is generation.
  • Except the EOS doesn't have higher quality in anything apart from the camera
  • You could almost say the same thing between the 820 and 920 though. The difference there is the screen and the floating camera lens (ok and maybe storage, but that's not a solid measure when you consider the 925...)
  • There is nothing "niche" about this device.
    The only reason the 808 was is because it was too expensinve, and it didn't get any support from the us carriers.. so if you wanted one, you had to get it off contract.
  • There's World beyond the US.
  • The 999.9
  • My thoughts exactly. I would love to have a better camera in my phone, but I am not going to go through the hassle and cost of getting a new phone off-contract and selling my current phone simply for the sake of a camera... especially when there will likely be much better phones coming this fall with GDR3 and/or next winter with the WP8.1 launch. When those GDR3/WP8.1 devices do start becoming available, then I would want it to have something along the following specs in order to convince me to upgrade:
    -A 41MP Pureview camera. This is a must, and I think many were a little disappointed (though not surprised) that this was not part of the original 920 when the first rumors of a pureview camera were released.
    -1080p display somewhere in the 4.7-5" range. The 4.7" HCT One screen feels a little small for 1080p but it does work, and 5" is the absolute largest I am willing to carry with me on a regular basis. So maybe something in the 4.8-4.9" range would be the sweet spot?
    -A significantly faster duel core CPU. A quad would be neat from a marketing perspective, but Android devices seem to have proven that quad cores in phones are thermally limited to duel core performance anyways. So I will take a quad core if that is what is offered, but I would honestly prefer a faster duel core at this point as it would offer similar performance without the strain of a quad core on the battery.
    -A better onboard GPU to help push the larger display
    -64GB of internal storage, or 32GB internal with a removable storage option. I have managed to make 32GB work on my L920, but for a next gen device I do not want to leave half of my music collection and the bulk of my picture collection behind. If the camera is as good as advertised then I am going to take a lot of pictures and I would like to be able to keep a lot of them on my phone to show friends and family instead of having to whip out the laptop. 64GB is a little overkill for a phone, but at least it has room to grow when 32GB is already ~10Gb smaller than I would like it to be.
    -Faster phone storage. I don't know why people do not complain more about this, but phone storage is painfully slow. I am not demanding full 500MB/s SSD performance, but phone storage (on any phone) could double in speed and still be considered slow. Current phones only read and write at ~10-20MB/s. It makes them slow to boot, slow to open apps, slow to transfer files, slow to let the CPU drop to idle, etc. My SD cards can manage 25MB/s and that is cheap removable storage, so surely demanding 50-100MB/s throughput on dedicated internal storage is not unreasonable. Faster storage can also mean we can have lighter compression, or even loss-less compression on 1080p video. The file sizes would be a bit bigger, but it would also eat less CPU/battery, which would be a fine compromise to make on a device which has a focus on such a quality camera unit.
    -2GB DDR3 memory. WP runs fantastically smooth on 1GB of DDR2, but it is a limiting factor for things outside of the OS. DDR3 will use less power and allow more CPU idle time for better battery life (provided you are not giving the system more work to do with it's new found free time). Having 2GB of memory will also potentially (if the WP platform supports it) allow basic video editing on the phone, which would be a killer feature. Not crazy NLE desktop editing, but just the ability to crop bad footage from a clip, or to drop a sound track behind it, or to have simple titles and text overlays would be a nice feature. 2GB of system memory would also allow larger games to toombstone better when you get distracted by texts and email, rather than getting pushed out of memory which can cause you to loose progress on your game.
    -802.11ac with options to have file management via wifi. If they can offer this then I would literally never plug my phone into anything except for headphones. This would be a very cool feature for future phones which last longer and are not replaced every year or two because USB can wear out with use, while wireless does not. However, if wifi is going to continue to just be for internet (and tap+send) functionality then they should not bother. 11.ac is still a bit expensive and offers little to no power savings. 11.n is faster than most of the internet connections out there, so if we are only talking internet then 11.ac is just a waste.
    -USB3. This obviously goes hand in hand with faster storage, but when transferring files it would be nice to push things through faster than USB2 speeds of 20MB/s if we are going to have 64GB phones in the future. However, if they can get 11.ac networking for file management working then I they could drop the USB port entirely. I would not mind, and I am sure the engineers who design the phone would not mind either. Let me be clear; If they don't make a phone like that this fall/winter then that is fine. I am merely saying that if Nokia wants to convince me to upgrade my phone before my contract is up then I would like to see this kind of device show up for the Christmas season. It seems that Nokia has been releasing products with much more granular upgrades over time rather than doing big generational leaps. Even moving from the 900 to the 920 was mostly an upgrade in the CPU with a little better camera, and that has probably been the largest leap they have taken in recent history (the jump from the 800 to 820 was not that big). This model of granular updates based upon carrier releases seems to be working for them though, so maybe they do not need to come out with devices that make big generational leaps like Samsung and Apple in order to do well. Granular upgrades make for slow steady income rather than the big feast and famine that Apple sales have at new phone launches, and steady income is exactly what Nokia needs these days.
  • A reminder - http://www.nokia.com/us-en/tradeup/
  • How do you consider it a variant of the 920? That's like calling all newer phones a variant of previous models
  • Please, read the specs we know on the Eos. You will see that the ONLY difference between it and the 920 is the camera. Everything else is exactly the same.  Including the design. Therefore, it makes it a variant. Actually, if the 928 and 925 - whose designs are different - don't qualify as more than variants, EOS wouldn't either.
  • You are a smart dude you make the most sense and that's the same reason I won't get it same specs as 920,925 & 928 I think they would of made more money selling 925 across all carriers and save 41mp for 1080p resolution and 5 or 4.7/8inch screen.
  • 925 is a beautiful phone if it was available across all carriers it would definitely double the sale or more of the 920.
  • DJCBS, you are talking about the specs that we all "know"? Last I checked, there has been no formal confirmation, but rather just guesses (albeit educated ones) of resolution, RAM, etc. Sounds like you are down on the phone to justify hanging onto your 920 for a while longer. I don't blame you for that whatsoever, but it's best for the OS that new technology is coming to windows phone. Don't just slam it because you are knee deep in a contract and want to maintain your phone's flagship status a little while longer.
  • Attention, I never said that I knew for sure the specs. I'm basing on what we know through leaks etc. All this can change, of course. But it's not expected to.
    Oh don't worry. I've nothing against the EOS (but I hate the vulcano). I'm just point out based on what we "know". I'm not trying to hang to the 920. I would never switch it with an EOS anyway. I have no use for a 41MP camera. I would, at this point, only switch for a device equal in specs to the 920 but with the size of the L800. Unless that appears, I'm not switching just based on camera specs. So I don't see myself switching for another year at least (unless Nokia releases something truly amazing and Microsoft manages to bring WP to an acceptable leve of development that justifies it. And I am thinking about quad and eight-cores etc)
  • Yeah, me too.
    i thin That the screen size on the lumina 800 is perfect and that OEMs are heading in the wrong direction by increasing screen sizes with every successive iteration of their devices.
     
  • I couldn't agree more. For me the 800 was the ideal size.
  • By the way, I'm in Europe. We don't really use contracts here. We buy the phones of the shelves at normal price. I can switch at any time 'cause I'm not bound to any carrier. My L800 lasted me little more than a year before I got the 920. ;)
  • There is a larger gap between the EOS and the 920 than there is one between the 520 and the 620, or the 620 and 720, or th 720 and the 820, or arguably between the 820 and the 920.
    The only difference between the 920 and the 928 is the Xeon flash, which is very minor considering everything else is the same.  It is not unconcivable that Nokia will have a cathegory, namely the 10XX series, for the photography enthusiasts.  Pureview is a big deal but it is still in the same generation as the 920, hence the 1020 name makes a lot of sense.
  • I hope it's called Lumia 909, four digits feels too long for me.
  • 929, it is. Just a vatiant of 920 with more megapixles.. If this IS the phablet from Nokia, it'll be 1020.
  • A phablet with that massive camera module? After the shitstorm from the tech press about the girth of the 920?! Yikes...
  • Okay well to everyone in this comment thread, evleaks said it would be called the Nokia 909, and I'm 100% positive that he knows a hell of a lot more about the phone than you. Even if he's eventually wrong, right now I'm taking his information over any "argument" you commenters are trying to use.
  • Announcement July 11th. Availability august itself means that's a great improvement. I always felt if the device is not ready for sale in 2-3 weeks don't announce it.
  • Why $602 and not $599?
  • That's also what I was wondering. It's an oddly specific number.
  • Maybe thats the store's bottomprice
  • Of course it is -- its the store's cost, not the price of the phone. Odds are the retail will be $699 or $749, minus the $350 ATT subsidy, so the final "to you" price will be $249-$299, with maybe fifty to a hundred bucks worth of negotiation range.
  • Ouch. By the time I'm due for an upgrade they'll be two high featured phones past this one, at least
  • I agree with you.
  • $602.00 Damn I'll stick with my 928 Lumia.