Nokia announces Lumia 1320, 1520, and 2520.

[s44]

What Google doesn't realize is how utterly dependent they are on MSFT for survival. If MSFT wanted to they could release a patch that disabled Chrome browsers on all their OS's

Uh, no. Monopoly.

 

[bearxor]

Yeah, I think Microsoft would get bitch slapped on that one.

 

[shortylickens]

Nope, not buying. If I get a tablet I'll want tons of games and utility apps. WP8 just doesnt have enough to justify the hardware. Not yet.

 

[Dominato3r]

What Google doesn't realize is how utterly dependent they are on MSFT for survival. If MSFT wanted to they could release a patch that disabled Chrome browsers on all their OS's and Google's revenues would plummet instantly. They are fools to be poking the beast like this.

What % of their revenue is from Windows machines?

 

[Imaginer]

Half-assed attempt because of the mobile site? What? The YouTube "app" is a link TO the mobile site. That's the best "official" app you're going to see on Windows Phone, as Google has every desire to cause issues for Windows Phone. The Lumia 520 has been competing pretty well with low-end Android devices in emerging markets, and Microsoft is grabbing up marketshare in some places as a result. Google obviously doesn't want that to continue.

There was a YouTube app. Google intentionally caused problems with it.

Fortunately, for viewing and commenting, the full desktop browser version works fine in IE. Though some videos think flash isn't there.

 

[s44]

If y'all are curious, spec comparison:

The 6" 1320 is 3mm shorter, 2mm narrower, somewhat thicker, and 21g heavier than the Mega 6.3, though the battery has 200mah more capacity.

The 1520 is between the Mega and the Note in thickness and only 10g heavier than the Mega, but otherwise very similar to the 1320 in dimensions.

The 2520 is pretty standard-sized.

The 1320 is actually even a few grams more than the 5.9" HTC One Max, which is a similar height but slightly narrower. Obviously both phones dwarf the 5.7" Note 3, which is 41g lighter than the 1520 and 52g lighter than the 1320.

I'm seriously not sure what Windows Phone is supposed to give you in phablet size.

 

[Deeko]

To be fair to AT&T, wireless charging has pretty much been a flop in the US. If removing it knocks down the thickness and weight, then it's an even trade off for them, IMO.

The Verizon and AT&T versions of the HTC 8x were the same size, and only the Verizon version had wireless charging. It's just a cop out for the carriers - I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon has some sort of exclusive deal (that for some reason didn't apply to the 920), because it always seems to be non-Verizon variants that don't have it.

Odd, Spotify wasn't there last year when I had to go back to my backup WP device for a week. Even then, it's a half-assed attempt with no streaming radio options, only playlist.

I believe there was a period of time where you could get Spotify on WP7 but not WP8.

Anyways, in general, color me not excited about this announcement. I like the specs in the 1520, but not giant phones. They need something SMALLER than the last generation, not bigger, IMO. Guess I'll wait and see what HTC has to offer....

 

[lothar]

What Google doesn't realize is how utterly dependent they are on MSFT for survival. If MSFT wanted to they could release a patch that disabled Chrome browsers on all their OS's and Google's revenues would plummet instantly. They are fools to be poking the beast like this.

How much revenue does Google earn from Windows machines running Chrome browser?
Prove this or stop with you baseless speculations.

Google earned $14.9 billion in total revenue in Q3 2013.
http://investor.google.com/earnings/2013/Q3_google_earnings.html
How much of that revenue is specifically from Windows machines running the Chrome browser that you're claiming that Microsoft can easily disable and cause Google's revenues to plummet?

Surely you must be trolling?

 

[lothar]

What % of their revenue is from Windows machines?

The question to ask him is "what % of Google's revenue is specifically from Windows machines running Chrome browsers?" since he claimed that Google's revenue will plummet if Microsoft disabled Chrome browser on Windows.

I really want him to answer this question, but I'm guessing that he'll pull a disappearing act and never return to this thread.
Or he'll completely ignore/side-step the question while replying to others and claim that he didn't see it.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The question to ask him is "what % of Google's revenue is specifically from Windows machines running Chrome browsers?" since he claimed that Google's revenue will plummet if Microsoft disabled Chrome browser on Windows.

I really want him to answer this question, but I'm guessing that he'll pull a disappearing act and never return to this thread.
Or he'll completely ignore/side-step the question while replying to others and claim that he didn't see it.

The majority of googles revenue comes from ads. In fact its close to 99% last time I checked. A significant portion of that ad revenue comes from desktop browsers. Obviously it is not all of their revenue as mobile makes a big chunk too, but it would be a massive hit for the company to not have any revenue coming from desktop based searches. You're a fool to think otherwise.

 

[lothar]

The majority of googles revenue comes from ads. In fact its close to 99% last time I checked. A significant portion of that ad revenue comes from desktop browsers. Obviously it is not all of their revenue as mobile makes a big chunk too, but it would be a massive hit for the company to not have any revenue coming from desktop based searches. You're a fool to think otherwise.

Right.
So Google ads mostly only play in Chrome browsers and not IE, Firefox, or any other type of Windows browser? You're a fool would think so.

Desktop based searches?
How does Google earn revenue from me searching the "My Documents" or my "Program Files" folder for one of my files?
Tell me more...

Keep thinking to yourself that Microsoft disabling Chrome browser in Windows would put any dent in Google ad revenue.
Chrome browser only came to Windows a few years ago, and it still has lower market share than IE and Firefox. I guess by your conclusion then Google wasn't earning much revenue prior to their invention of Chrome browser. Nevermind YouTube, Gmail, Maps, and all other Google services that are not dependent on the Chrome browser in the first place.

Newsflash: Regardless of which browser you use(including Internet Explorer), Google still earns money. The sites you visit still run Google ads and AdSense, including this one.
The only way to get rid of Google ad revenue is to completely disconnect yourself from the internet. Disabling Chrome browser alone in Windows won't put any dent in Google revenue.

 

[pantsaregood]

To those who ask what WP8 has to gain from large screens: good question.

The Lumia 1320 makes a fair bit of sense to me. "Phablet" devices are quite popular in emerging markets because they are often the only computing device people own (so I've heard), and at $350, the Lumia 1320 is priced quite competitively - spec-wise, it beats out the Lumia 920/925/928, after all.

The Lumia 1520 is a bit odd, though. If it was 5 inches, I'd consider it near-perfect. As it is, the device isn't absurdly large (thanks to Nokia slimming the bezel down), but it certainly isn't a "compact" device. Honestly, I think Samsung has an advantage in the "phablet" form factor because of their pressure-sensitive digitizers - it is a nice feature, but I do believe the Lumia 1520 is fine competition for "normal" phablets like the HTC One Max.

 

[st_7]

Right.
So Google ads mostly only play in Chrome browsers and not IE, Firefox, or any other type of Windows browser? You're a fool would think so.

Desktop based searches?
How does Google earn revenue from me searching the "My Documents" or my "Program Files" folder for one of my files?
Tell me more...

Keep thinking to yourself that Microsoft disabling Chrome browser in Windows would put any dent in Google ad revenue.
Chrome browser only came to Windows a few years ago, and it still has lower market share than IE and Firefox. I guess by your conclusion then Google wasn't earning much revenue prior to their invention of Chrome browser. Nevermind YouTube, Gmail, Maps, and all other Google services that are not dependent on the Chrome browser in the first place.

Newsflash: Regardless of which browser you use(including Internet Explorer), Google still earns money. The sites you visit still run Google ads and AdSense, including this one.
The only way to get rid of Google ad revenue is to completely disconnect yourself from the internet. Disabling Chrome browser alone in Windows won't put any dent in Google revenue.

Lol... Are you a Google Employee? or Share holder?, if not then take it easy sir, there is no need to call others fool just because they've said their opinions. And you took his post entirely wrongly and tried to bash him. He has a valid point, if its entirely true at the ground zero or not is another matter. And when he said 'Desktop Based Searches', it means searches done by Desktop users on Google. But not the documents search you do in your system. You should have understood it by the context of the argument of yours(your posts). You know, Windows is the most used OS in the world(may the percentage of the lead may be decreasing as the open sources linux OSs are coming with good graphical user interfaces which were lacking few years back). And google chrome is the most used browser in the world by having marketshare around 40-50% of Internet users using it(see here & here). I know those stats are from every desktop OS, but as Windows is the most used OS means, good chunk of that Google Chrome users come from Windows itself. And this is where I say his point is valid. So, it does effect google if Microsoft does what the member 'Oneofthesedays' has said. But will it shutdown or make the google post losses, may not be but their income will be hit and that itself a loss.

 

[lothar]

Lol... Are you a Google Employee? or Share holder?

Anyone who owns an S&P 500 Index or Total Stock Market Index fund is a Google shareholder.
The same with Microsoft and Apple.

The bar for qualifying as a shareholder to those companies is pretty low this days.
You can be a shareholder for as little as $10-50 by holding any mutual or ETF fund.

Lol... Are you a Google Employee? or Share holder?, if not then take it easy sir, there is no need to call others fool just because they've said their opinions.

...You're a fool to think otherwise.

I think it perfectly clear who sent the insults(if you really consider it to be an insult) flying first and I only responded back in kind.
There's no way he can possibly consider that to be an insult given he slung the same exact poo at me earlier.
Every users post is dated and time stamped, so there's no FUD there.

He has a valid point, if its entirely true at the ground zero or not is another matter. And when he said 'Desktop Based Searches', it means searches done by Desktop users on Google. But not the documents search you do in your system. You should have understood it by the context of the argument of yours(your posts). You know, Windows is the most used OS in the world(may the percentage of the lead may be decreasing as the open sources linux OSs are coming with good graphical user interfaces which were lacking few years back). And google chrome is the most used browser in the world by having marketshare around 40-50% of Internet users using it(see here & here). I know those stats are from every desktop OS, but as Windows is the most used OS means, good chunk of that Google Chrome users come from Windows itself. And this is where I say his point is valid. So, it does effect google if Microsoft does what the member 'Oneofthesedays' has said. But will it shutdown or make the google post losses, may not be but their income will be hit and that itself a loss.

How will Microsoft prevent users from going to www.google.com in any other browser by disabling Chrome in Windows?
If they disable Chrome in Windows, I'll simply use Opera, Pale Moon/WaterFox(or any of the Firefox derivatives), or Internet Explorer and go to www.google.com to search or set it as my homepage.
Google is still the default search and can easily be made to be the default homepage for Firefox and many other browsers including Internet Explorer.
And if it's not the default search, it can be made to be one just like I have Google as the default search for Internet Explorer right now.

Also you know you can set www.google.com to be your homepage in any browser, right?
You do know what a "homepage" is...right?
How again will Microsoft disable me from searching Google by disabling Chrome or Desktop search in their Windows product?

Both of you seem to be under the wrong assumption that a majority(or a "significant chunk" as he himself described)of Google revenue is tied specifically to the Chrome browser on Windows and Desktop search.
It's not.

 

[Ravynmagi]

Wow, we sure got off topic... haha.

My two cents on this side subject... First Microsoft would never block Chrome, that would cause Microsoft a world of trouble. Second, Google created Chrome for a good reason, it's their platform to encourage people to use Google search. neither IE or Chrome forces people to use a search engine, but both do a good job pushing people towards their preferred search engine. If hypothetically speaking Microsoft could block Chrome, it would go a long way towards helping Microsoft funnel casual users towards Bing if they don't have a particular preference for search engine or even realize the difference.


And so this reply isn't 100% off topic...

Shame to see Nokia making a Windows RT tablet. Of course it's expected since they are Microsoft's little bitch. But still, doesn't seem like much point to Windows RT with Baytrail finally here. It looks like a nice tablet otherwise. Though I'm a bit worried about the glossy appearance and how slippery it will be in the hand.

 

[lothar]

Wow, we sure got off topic... haha.

My two cents on this side subject... First Microsoft would never block Chrome, that would cause Microsoft a world of trouble. Second, Google created Chrome for a good reason, it's their platform to encourage people to use Google search. neither IE or Chrome forces people to use a search engine, but both do a good job pushing people towards their preferred search engine. If hypothetically speaking Microsoft could block Chrome, it would go a long way towards helping Microsoft funnel casual users towards Bing if they don't have a particular preference for search engine or even realize the difference.

Chrome doesn't ship with Windows(in the US and most other places in the world).
The people that went out of their way to download Chrome rather than use default built-in IE from Windows did so for a reason...and I doubt that there will be a sudden exodus run back to IE. I don't think Google Desktop search was the major reason for people running to Chrome because Google has been the default search(and it still is today?) for Firefox and many other browsers before Chrome was released.

Chrome was only released in September 2008...I'm pretty sure Google was already earning billions of dollars in revenue prior to that.
http://investor.google.com/documents/2008_google_annual_report.html

 

[Narse]

Nope, not buying. If I get a tablet I'll want tons of games and utility apps. WP8 just doesnt have enough to justify the hardware. Not yet.

If all you want to do is play games, sure get one of the other tablets. I am getting tired of this argument, I get 10x more work done on my Surface RT than I ever could with my iPad, Full Office, One Note and all my corporate apps work great on Win8.1. I can't do any real work on my iPad, it's nothing more than Movie Watching and kiddie games. I haven't even charged it in two months.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Chrome doesn't ship with Windows(in the US and most other places in the world).
The people that went out of their way to download Chrome rather than use default built-in IE from Windows did so for a reason...and I doubt that there will be a sudden exodus run back to IE. I don't think Google Desktop search was the major reason for people running to Chrome because Google has been the default search(and it still is today?) for Firefox and many other browsers before Chrome was released.

Chrome was only released in September 2008...I'm pretty sure Google was already earning billions of dollars in revenue prior to that.
http://investor.google.com/documents/2008_google_annual_report.html

The point I was trying to make was that Google's ad revenue comes directly from paid search and other forms of advertising. The desktop Chrome browser is used by millions of people every day and no doubt generates billions of dollars in revenue for Google.

Microsoft funneling more people to Internet Explorer (by disabling Chrome) would in fact mean more people getting funneled into Bing Search, which is the default search engine on IE. This, in turn, would no doubt be something that Google would see on its bottom line.

Google is a one trick pony when it comes to their revenue streams. Granted, it's one hell of a pony ;-)

 

[SnuggleTheBear]

Chrome doesn't ship with Windows(in the US and most other places in the world).
The people that went out of their way to download Chrome rather than use default built-in IE from Windows did so for a reason...and I doubt that there will be a sudden exodus run back to IE. I don't think Google Desktop search was the major reason for people running to Chrome because Google has been the default search(and it still is today?) for Firefox and many other browsers before Chrome was released.

Chrome was only released in September 2008...I'm pretty sure Google was already earning billions of dollars in revenue prior to that.
http://investor.google.com/documents/2008_google_annual_report.html

Please correct me if I'm wrong...
While Chrome may not ship on Windows by default, OEMs may choose to install a different web browser and still get a small amount of revenue.

 

[shortylickens]

If all you want to do is play games, sure get one of the other tablets. I am getting tired of this argument, I get 10x more work done on my Surface RT than I ever could with my iPad, Full Office, One Note and all my corporate apps work great on Win8.1. I can't do any real work on my iPad, it's nothing more than Movie Watching and kiddie games. I haven't even charged it in two months.

Actually I play games on Windows with my laptop or desktop.

The simple fact is theres no reason for me to go with windows phone or a RT laptop, it just doesnt offer any advantage over my Note 2, and has some disadvantages.

Laptop for real work, phone for everything else.

 

[Belegost]

Trying to steer this discussion away from arguments about inane hypothetical situations that could only happen in a junior high fantasy...

As mentioned in this WPCentral article the current specs listed for the ATT 1520 are disturbing - it seems like the ATT variant is not only going to drop the wireless charging, but also only pack 16GB of internal flash.

This is really frustrating - I wanted to pick this up. But, I have a 920 and a Touchpad, and I absolutely refuse to go back to wired charging. I might have lived with the add on shell (or just modded the charging coil into the phone myself) but the additional cut in flash just kills it. If the international variant is band compatible with ATT I will buy it, otherwise I will just soldier on with my 920.

I can only assume this is ATT shaving costs on units so they are not subsidizing as much. As always with wireless carriers, the whole operation is run in a completely hostile way towards their customers in a desperate attempt to squeeze more profits. Honestly, I would pay a premium to work with a nationwide carrier that provides quality service and customer care. But I have been with VZW, TMO, and ATT now, and all three have sucked like an amazing 8lb Orek.

 

[ttott]

It seems all focus gone to Apple these days.

 

[lothar]

The point I was trying to make was that Google's ad revenue comes directly from paid search and other forms of advertising. The desktop Chrome browser is used by millions of people every day and no doubt generates billions of dollars in revenue for Google.

Microsoft funneling more people to Internet Explorer (by disabling Chrome) would in fact mean more people getting funneled into Bing Search, which is the default search engine on IE. This, in turn, would no doubt be something that Google would see on its bottom line.

Google is a one trick pony when it comes to their revenue streams. Granted, it's one hell of a pony ;-)

The point I've been trying to make here is that Windows does not come with the Chrome desktop browser automatically installed by default.
Those millions of people that have the Chrome browser installed went out of their way to download it and started using it. They didn't start using it because Microsoft shipped Chrome browser with Windows OS out of the goodness of their hearts.

If Microsoft disables Chrome browser, majority of those people will simply search and move to another non-Internet Explorer alternative, like they did with Chrome. If Internet Explorer and Bing were such an attractive alternative, those millions of people wouldn't have wasted any time and effort in searching and downloading an alternative browser like Chrome and Firefox when one already ships with Windows by default that works perfectly fine for the same things.

Now if Chrome was already automatically built into Windows OS as a browser option and Microsoft disables it, your point would be totally correct and there would be no argument.
But those people using Chrome went out of their way to get it.

Google is still the default search in Firefox, Opera, Safari, and many other numerous alternative browsers.
For Microsoft to put any dent in Google Desktop search revenue, they'd have to disable all those other alternative browsers at once, and not just only disable Chrome.

That said, I still don't think a majority or a "significant chunk" of Google's ad revenue comes specifically from "Desktop search" as you're claiming.
There's ads on YouTube, Maps, Gmail, visiting ANY website that runs Google's AdSense or DoubleClick platform, and many other Google services including when you go to www.Google.com to search.

Please correct me if I'm wrong...
While Chrome may not ship on Windows by default, OEMs may choose to install a different web browser and still get a small amount of revenue.

That's true, but which of the major OEMs do you know installs Chrome as the default web browser or even ships with it installed?

HP?
Dell? Not them based on my mom's laptop from 2 years ago.
Asus? Not them based on my ultrabook.
Lenovo? Not them based on my cousin's Thinkpad from a year ago.
Samsung?
Acer?
Sony?
Toshiba?
Gateway?
Apple?

I haven't bought or used computers recently from the other brands listed so maybe someone who's familiar with them can chime in and tell us which one comes installed with Chrome as the "default" web browser, and which one comes with Chrome installed as an "optional" but not default web browser, and which one doesn't come with Chrome browser installed at all.

I'm not sure, but I think I've listed all the major PC OEMs.
Other OEMs like Alienware, Cyberpower, Falcon Northwest and whatever are small fry and not even worth mentioning.

That said, I think we've derailed this thread long enough and this will be my last post in it regarding this subject.
Let go back to talking about these Nokia phones.

 

[lothar]

Trying to steer this discussion away from arguments about inane hypothetical situations that could only happen in a junior high fantasy...

As mentioned in this WPCentral article the current specs listed for the ATT 1520 are disturbing - it seems like the ATT variant is not only going to drop the wireless charging, but also only pack 16GB of internal flash.

This is really frustrating - I wanted to pick this up. But, I have a 920 and a Touchpad, and I absolutely refuse to go back to wired charging. I might have lived with the add on shell (or just modded the charging coil into the phone myself) but the additional cut in flash just kills it. If the international variant is band compatible with ATT I will buy it, otherwise I will just soldier on with my 920.

I can only assume this is ATT shaving costs on units so they are not subsidizing as much. As always with wireless carriers, the whole operation is run in a completely hostile way towards their customers in a desperate attempt to squeeze more profits. Honestly, I would pay a premium to work with a nationwide carrier that provides quality service and customer care. But I have been with VZW, TMO, and ATT now, and all three have sucked like an amazing 8lb Orek.

It's not an issue of AT&T removing wireless charging feature by shaving costs on units.
The problem here is that a different US carrier has already paid Nokia to make that an "exclusive" feature for them and will market the hell out of it.
This happens all the time thanks to our carrier subsidy system.
One carrier offers wireless charging as an "exclusive" feature with gimped storage, while another carrier offers 32GB(rather than 16GB standard) as an exclusive feature for the same exact device on different carriers.

Is this really hostile towards their OWN customers? I'm sure one carrier(lets say Verizon) is looking out for it's best customers when it offers wireless charging as an "exclusive" feature while the other carrier(lets say AT&T) offers increased built in storage as an "exclusive" feature for the exact same device.

If the international version of these phones ship with wireless charging, then we know that both Nokia(which accepted the bribe) and the wireless carrier(which offered the bribe so they can market it as an a "exclusive" feature for them)

 

[notposting]

Or AT&T wants to sell more accessories. Huge markup on those (plus less subsidized cost).

How does Verizon's exclusivity agreement work? "We get exclusive built in wireless charging on the phone we won't ever have or won't carry for 6 months!"