oz stock cheaper than other brick & mortar unlocked too.
officeworks are selling telstra locked for $179
http://www.thegoodguys.com.au/buyonline/Nokia_Lumia_520_Blac…
https://www.dicksmith.com.au/prepaid-mobile-phones/telstra-n…
http://www.mobicity.com.au/nokia-lumia-520.html#.UltpN1CnqtY
http://www.harveynorman.com.au/nokia-lumia-520-windows-8-pho…
i bought 1 yesterday.
That one is a Grey Market phone, not supported by Nokia Aus which means only 1 year Kogan warranty vs 2 Years Nokia Au warranty with other handsets.
Already compare with 720 in the thread you posted.
For me I will pay more for the better screen and camera.
Not to mention the 520 has no Front Facing Camera unlike the other models
(Also 520 is 850mhz only vs all others are quad band) IMHO unless your after a cheap Windows Phone, spend the extra get the extra (even the 720 is worth the extra $50-$100
It's actually $92 more because of delivery costs.
| Spec | Lumia 520 | Lumia 820 |
|---|---|---|
| 4G network | None | Yes |
| Camera | 5mpx, no LED flash | 8mpx with Dual LED flash, +Front cam |
| Screen | 4 inch IPS | 4.3 inch AMOLED with Clearblack |
| Processor speed | 1ghz dual core | 1.5ghz dual core |
| RAM | 512MB | 1GB |
| Import stock | No | Yes |
I would say spend $111 more and get the HTC 8X. Much better specs and full Australian warranty.
You miss the Nokia exclusives but I don't think that it's a deal breaker.
Actually the only reason tht am loving WP8 is bcos of the Nokia exclusives!
Great phone if you wanna try Windows Phone platform. I got mine from HN sale a few months ago for $135 after the EFTPOS card rebate.
its only 512 mb its too slow to run
Do you own one or are you just assuming. The spec requirements for Windows 8 mobile is actually far lighter than Android — and for this price range you can't really expect a device with resolutions greater than 800 x 480. Not unless you count China-phones into the mix.
thanks for running all your words together and not using a full stop or a comma.
Everyone understands his CONSTRUCTIVE comment. (Thanks for not using a capital T - who cares?)
Oh no, no price match :P
120% price guarantee - http://www.thegoodguys.com.au/buyonline/Nokia_Lumia_520_Yell…? :)
wrong colour might not matter - http://www.thegoodguys.com.au/buyonline/ContentDisplayView?e…
The item must be for the same brand and model and the product must be new and factory sealed.
The good Guys only have Yellow so no 120% price guarantee.
Actually I have never try that with them, are they easy to do price match?
The good Guys only have Yellow so no 120% price guarantee.
no mention of colour or being identical, just same brand and model :)
Actually I have never try that with them, are they easy to do price match?
not for this, but was for me :)
I think lots of people bought this model when it was $99 last month at JB (Although it was locked to Telstra)
Pretty decent phone - shame it doesn't have a front camera
Try your local Telstra shop for Nokia 920. I bought the last one from my local for $170 outright unlocked.
Wait, what? A 920 unlocked and outright for $170! Was that haggling or just a deal they have going?
I highly doubt they sold the 920 that cheap.
I pass by their shop today they have it for $6xx, so no way for $170.
Got 1 from Officework on 26 Sep 13
1: Price : 94 AUD
2: Unlocked
I have receipt as well. Not sure whether they can price match with their own price. Do let me know if someone needs a copy to give it a try.
Sadly officeworks has gotten strict, and they now have a list of Grey Stock online stores which they won't pricematch anymore, kogan is on that list.
Also, they are strict that the receipt must be hard copy and original, so a photo or a photocopy will no longer work with them. They will give you the "photoshop" reason as a basis of denying the pricematch.
Even though they are tougher now with the above 2 reasons, they are still one of the best retailers for price matching, even if they are losing money, as long as you have proof e.g. price online + shows stock level or verifyable stock level + aus stock, then they will price match.
Unlike other stores like HN and Dicksmith. Who will give you the reason of "its below our cost price, go away"
Can you send me a copy of the receipt please?
Went to a few Officeworks last week looking for one for my father's bday present. They were completely out of stock then.
Not sure about now.
HN had them for $148 but that was only for black colour. They were out of black. The normal price they selling was $179. So I picked up a Cyan one instead at HN for $179.
About the phone. It's pretty simple enough for my father to use who is technology illiterate. Youtube blows and browsing is okay. That's about it really. It's pretty basic, simple and boring.
Youtube blows because Google blocked Microsoft from releasing a proper app.
Looks like Google forgot their own motto 'don't be evil' which they proudly espoused 13 years ago.
Maybe MS shouldn't have reverse-engineered the youtube APIs and released an app that allows downloads and doesn't display ads in the first place. It's definitely not a good way to gain favour with another company. YouTube is only free because of the ads after all.
it used to be free before the ads
That's the honeymoon period to get people onto the platform.
That's how it always is - facebook didn't have ads, instagram didn't have ads, youtube didn't have ads, gmail didn't have ads, but eventually something has to pay for the high costs of running the service. They're not a charity after all.
Seriously half my work watch facebook videos at lunch, youtube forcing ads onto mobile was dumb
I thought YouTube was all EGO-ads anyway?
After the initial release, Microsoft was cooperating with Google in releasing an app that met their requirements and had released an update that removed offline playback and displayed ads.
Google's response? They revoked the app again because Microsoft had reverse engineered the ad API (due to Google refusing to release it) and demanded that the app be rewritten in HTML5. It's worth noting that neither the Android nor iOS applications are written in HTML5 and the consensus is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the same feature set and performance by doing so.
It's also worth noting that Google doesn't seem that bothered by the many third party Youtube apps available for Windows Phone that allow offline playback and don't screen ads, and that they've added offline playback to their own apps for Android/iOS.
What this boils down to is a pissing contest between Microsoft and Google, nothing more nothing less.
After the initial release, Microsoft was cooperating with Google in releasing an app that met their requirements and had released an update that removed offline playback and displayed ads.
After the initial release, MS updated the app to disable offline playback, but it still did not display ads. That probably felt like a slap in the face to google, who have every right to limit access as they please, as youtube is not a public service.
Of course since MS and Google are competitors, google certainly isn't making it easy for MS.
But maybe MS, being a huge software company who are well aware of things like terms of service, shouldn't have blatantly violated YouTube's TOS and reverse-engineered the APIs in the first place. If Google did something like that to a Microsoft service, denying them revenue, I bet you MS will not be happy either.
It's like stirring the hornet's nest. Google is under no obligation to allow any specific company to access their service, after all. It would be the right thing to do, but they don't really have to do it.
After the initial release, MS updated the app to disable offline playback, but it still did not display ads.
I believe you may be mistaken in this regard. My own experience with the 3.2.0.0 version of the app, as well as the announcement at WPCentral, indicate that the advertising framework was most assuredly in place.
I believe you may be mistaken in this regard. My own experience with the 3.2.0.0 version of the app, as well as the announcement at WPCentral, indicate that the advertising framework was most assuredly in place.
That's actually the third version that was released on August 13th. The second version was released on May 22nd. That one did not display ads.
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-updates-its-youtube-windows-p…
Perhaps, but you do concede that Microsoft did release a version with advertising support prior to Google revoking their developer key?
As for the second version you're referring to, it was pulled two days later and an announcement was made that Microsoft and YouTube would be creating a compliant version.
"Microsoft and YouTube are working together to update the new YouTube for Windows Phone app to enable compliance with YouTube's API terms of service, including enabling ads, in the coming weeks."
http://www.wpcentral.com/wp8-youtube-app-removed-microsoft-g…
Sure, they did eventually release one with ads. But that doesn't change the fact that MS knowingly violated the ToS twice. The second time was just a slap in the face.
Surely you can see how it's unprofessional for the largest software company in the world to reverse-engineer a competitor's software and release an app that denies ad revenue to an ad-supported service? And when they get served with a cease-and-desist, the updated app still denies ad revenue.
What is google supposed to do? Ignore the fact that their competitor released an app that clearly violates their ToS and removes an income stream? Of course they won't be happy. That's why I'm not surprised Google is purposely making it difficult for MS to create a proper app.
I agree that both companies have been unprofessional in this matter, although it would appear that you're willing to cut Google a lot more slack than Microsoft.
I feel any further debate on the issue is probably going to be fruitless so I'll bow out of this discussion.
I agree that both companies have been unprofessional in this matter, although it would appear that you're willing to cut Google a lot more slack than Microsoft.
Yup, because MS is the one who kicked the hornet's nest. The whole thing started when MS violated Google's ToS - Google didn't violate MS's ToS.
Use MetroTube or MyTube instead, they work great.
Ok deal but htc 8x $229 deal from 3 weeks ago is milesbetter phone.(aus stock as well)
This is the price they matched HN awhile ago but they didn't change it back but now after we mentioned here they may change it back to normal price :p
BTW, the Telstra one comes with credit awhile ago but not sure now.