Remembering the Affordable Flagship (Premium)

I’ll be evaluating the recently-announced Google Pixel 3a XL this week. But let’s see. A mid-range smartphone with a high-end camera that’s marketed as an affordable alternative to expensive smartphone flagships. Where have I heard that one before? Ah yes. The Nokia Lumia 830. Which you’ll recall was marketed the “affordable flagship.”

Well, it wasn’t that affordable, not when compared to the actual flagships of the day. And it was no flagship, not with its middling, mid-range specifications. And, honestly, even the camera wasn’t that great, a major downer for this Lumia fan.

But when I see how Google is marketing its new mid-range Pixels, the 3a and 3a XL, I immediately think back to the Lumia 830 and its sibling, the Lumia 735. Each was born of the same market share desperation. Each sought to find a cheap way out of a problem that, frankly, was better solved by not cutting corners. And the Lumias, at least, underestimated the market need for truly affordable flagships that could rival the best the competition had to offer; the jury is still out on the Pixel 3a/3a XL.

I’ve written about the new Pixels separately. Here, let’s look back at the Lumia 830 and examine a few parallels with Google’s latest non-flagship handsets as we go.

As someone who has always been attracted to what I think of as “good enough” technology, I was immediately interested in the Lumia 830 when I first saw it in August 2014. Nokia’s high-end Lumias of the previous year—the Lumia 1020, 1520, and 930/Icon—were all excellent, but they had done nothing to slow down iPhone or Android, despite numerous technological advantages, especially in photography. And the only truly-successful Lumia of that era, the lowly Lumia 520, was popular mostly because of its low-ball pricing.

So, Nokia, hemorrhaging cash, and busy secretly selling the remains of its carcass to Microsoft, tried to a new strategy aimed at gaining market share volume: It would pretty much only release inexpensive phones. Devices like the Lumia 525, 530, 630, 635, ranged from terrible to decent but all were cheap to acquire and were aimed at expanding on the 520’s success. To tackle the high-end of the market, however, Nokia couldn’t afford high-end parts. So, it released a set of mid-market smartphones, the Lumia 830 and 735, which it claimed could compete with high-end iPhones and Android handsets.

And while they were decent handsets, they in no way lived up to the reputation of Nokia’s true flagships, let alone the best that Apple and Android had to offer.

There were familial resemblances to past flagships; the 830’s circular rear camera surround looked like the amazing Lumia 1020 camera, and Nokia called it PureView, but it was a fake.

“[The 830’s camera is] less powerful than the camera in the Lumia 1020, of course—what isn’t?—but it’s also not quite up to spec with the cameras found in the Lumia 1520/Icon/930 handsets,” I noted in my First Impressions article. “Instead, it’s a 10-megapixel PureView unit with what Microsoft calls the ‘world’s thinnest optical image stabilization system,’ a claim that has to be directed at Apple’s iPhone 6 Plus.”

In the real world, the Lumia 830 camera was disappointing.

“I’m sorry, Microsoft, but the Lumia 830 is no Lumia 1020,” I wrote in my review. “It’s no 1520, Icon or 930 either. It’s just not in the same ballpark … Shots are generally washed out for some reason, and … the camera is indeed pretty slow.”

For the Pixel 3a and 3a XL, of course, Google is including the same camera hardware as it does in the far more expensive Pixel 3 and 3 XL. The missing Pixel Visual Core chipset could be problematic for both quality and performance reasons. But I suspect that the 3a/3a XL will have a very good camera experience overall.

The Lumia 830’s body looked like solid polycarbonate, but it used a cheaper outer shell that could be easily removed and replaced with a different color back or a Flip Shell cover.

“You can access the battery, micro-SD card and SIM card,” I wrote. “And this means you can replace the back with different colored cases—green, orange, white and black—including a new line of Flip Shells that look particularly interesting … the Lumia 830 can also be seen as the phone the Lumia Icon/930 should have been. It features the same high-end design as those devices, but in a much thinner and lighter package.”

On this vein, Google dropped the slippery-as-soap glass back from the Pixel 3/3XL when it created the Pixel 3a/3a XL. This created a more durable phone that should be less prone to cracks and other damage. But it also doesn’t include wireless charging, which I think is an acceptable compromise.

But what really killed the Lumia 830 was the cost-cutting across the device. It featured a low-end 1.2 GHz Snapdragon 400, 1 GB of RAM, and only 16 GB of storage (the 735 came with just 8 GB). The display was just 720p in an age when 1080p was the norm.

Here, the Pixel 3a and 3a XL appear to be really channeling the Lumia 830. They feature a mid-range Snapdragon 670 processor, 4 GB of RAM (in an era of 6-12 GB of RAM in most flagships), and only 64 GB of RAM. (At least the Lumia 830’s storage was expandable.) The displays are Full HD+ (1080p, but taller) in an age of Quad HD+ and 4K displays.

“The Lumia 830 is ultimately just a mid-level smartphone,” I wrote in my review. “And the problem with mid-level phones is that you need to arbitrarily cut features to make an equally arbitrary price point. And while the Lumia 830 does include some flagship-type features, the features that were cut to keep costs low weigh heavy on this handset … Ultimately, the problem isn’t that the Lumia 830 isn’t a high-quality handset with some truly remarkable features. It’s that the Lumia 830 is also in some ways a middling smartphone with crucial missing features.”

These are my very worries for the Pixel 3a/3a XL. I’m just not sure that the compromises Google made will result in an acceptable experience for the smartphone-savvy users of today. They certainly didn’t five years ago.

Below you can find my full review of the Lumia 830 from November 2014.

—

Nokia Lumia 830 Review

Define affordable 

The Nokia Lumia 830 is billed as an “affordable flagship,” which means it’s really just a mid-level handset with a few flagship-like features: a decent PureView camera and styling that is reminiscent of some previous Lumia flagships. I like the idea of making high-end features available to the masses, but the Lumia 830 compromises a bit too much on performance. And on AT&T, at least, it’s too expensive for what you get.

When I saw the Lumia 830 back in August, I fell under the spell of a device that appealed to me on many levels. I’ve noted before my curious interest in “good enough” computing, and maybe this is the thing that drew me to Windows and the PC in the first place, the notion that you don’t have to pay Mercedes prices to have a great experience. It featured the look and feel of the Lumia 930/Icon, which I like, but without the bulk and weight. It has a removable shell, which is wonderful. And the promise of a flagship-like PureView camera that would outperform all smartphones but the mightiest Lumias.

But for all the understandable marketing behind this device, the Lumia 830 is ultimately just a mid-level smartphone. And the problem with mid-level phones is that you need to arbitrarily cut features to make an equally arbitrary price point. And while the Lumia 830 does include some flagship-type features, the features that were cut to keep costs low weigh heavy on this handset.

Compare this device to the Lumia 735. Going into this review and the companion review of the Lumia 735, confirmation bias, or at least my unreasonable expectations, told me that the 830 would be wonderful, a phone I could use as a daily driver, with a camera that would be good enough for everything but the family vacation. Likewise, the Lumia 735 is marketed as a selfie phone, an idea I find preposterous, and though it was almost magically thin and light, there was no way I’d ever consider using such a device regularly.

Wrong again, monkey boy.

Where the Lumia 735 has consistently exceeded my expectations in ways that are delightful, the Lumia 830 has instead not met some of my admittedly unreasonable expectations. The model numbers suggest a natural step up in quality, features and performance from the 735 to the 830, but that’s not the case, and in some important ways the Lumia 735 outperforms—or is otherwise better than—the 830. This is confusing, and while it’s fair to blame Microsoft for not more obviously differentiating the two in the way I expected—e.g. that the Lumia 830 would be generally “better” than the 735—what we’re left with is the current situation. And it goes something like this.

The Lumia 735 and 830 are essentially comparable, technically and functionally, and from a performance perspective. What really differentiates these handsets is a couple of unique features for each, the form factor/body style, and of course the carrier availability that will trump any need to compare them in the first place. What’s up in the air is the pricing—still, and that blows my mind—but based on European pricing, the Lumia 830 is more expensive than the Lumia 735 and, I have to be honest here, I’m not sure at all that that is justified. (I expect a no-contract 735 to cost about $300 in the US.)

The killer here, for the Lumia 830, then, is that the things that make the Lumia 735 special will be more generally appealing to people than the things that make the Lumia 830 special. So aside from its lower price, the 735 is indeed the “better” phone. Personally, the weird bit is that this is true for me as well. Despite my love of high-end Lumia cameras, I’m sorry, Microsoft, but the Lumia 830 is no Lumia 1020. It’s no 1520, Icon or 930 either. It’s just not in the same ballpark.

But the Lumia 830 still has a few compelling features that are absolutely worth calling out.

First, if you’re into the design of the Lumia Icon or 930 but found those devices to be too big and heavy, the 830 has solved that problem. It looks just like those devices but is much thinner and lighter and it still sports a 5-inch display. (That display is 1280 x 720, not 1080p, yes, and while it is a ClearBlack IPS unit, I find it a bit less vibrant than that in the 735.)

Second, if you liked that the Lumia 930 in particular came in fun new 2014 Lumia colors—orange and green—but bemoaned the fact that you couldn’t remove the color shell and change that color, well, the 830 has solved that problem too: The back cover is indeed removable, and you can replace it with a cool Wireless Charging Flip Shell that adds a screen cover as well as a new color. (Well, someday: I don’t think this accessory has actually shipped yet.)

Third, that PureView camera. At 10 megapixels, it falls short of the 20 MP version found in the Lumia 1520, Icon and 930, and far short of the Lumia 1020’s 41 MP camera, but it’s still pretty darn good. I had been hoping for a 1520/Icon/930-like experience, however, and it’s not happening. Shots are generally washed out for some reason, and you don’t get the option to create two versions of each photo, one for editing and one for sharing. And that last bit would be an advantage if there was any perceived performance improvement, but the camera is indeed pretty slow.

There is a dedicated camera button, which I prefer. But it says something bad about the state of Lumias these days that I need to call that out. All Windows Phone handsets should have dedicated camera buttons, I think. And it features three noise-canceling microphones, which is also an improvement over low- and mid-range phones.

It does have integrated wireless charging, which is a key advantage of some Lumias. And of course the Glance screen, and double-tap to unlock, which I like quite a bit. It also ships with the Lumia Denim firmware update, which I think most Windows Phone users will recognize is quite an advantage. How long will the rest of us need to wait for that update?

But with core specs that mimic those of the Lumia 735—it has the same 1.2 GHz Snapdragon 400, plus 1 GB of RAM and a more acceptable 16 GB of storage (where the 735 has just 8 GB)—the Lumia 830 just squeaks by from a performance perspective, and it’s slow in the same ways the 735 is slow: App and game launches, the camera (including navigating into the camera roll) and so on.

What really undoes the 830, however, is the pricing. I was told that the Lumia 830 would sell for 330 euros unsubsidized, which to me suggests a $300 to $350 price in the US. But AT&T Wireless’s no-contract price on this device is a whopping $450. That’s at least $100 too much, and while I’m leaning towards buying phones outright these days, going with a Next plan might actually make sense in this case.

The Lumia 830 is a capable, even wonderful, mid-market smartphone handset with some truly useful flagship-type features that in some ways differentiate it from other similar products. But in many ways, the lower-cost Lumia 735 is the better value, offering a more comfortable, attractive and customizable form factor, a decent-enough camera, and a superior screen. A few changes—a slightly better processor, especially—could have eliminated this weirdness, but for those who enjoy this style, the Lumia 830.

Ultimately, the problem isn’t that the Lumia 830 isn’t a high-quality handset with some truly remarkable features. It’s that the Lumia 830 is also in some ways a middling smartphone with crucial missing features. The Lumia 830 is recommended, but just understand what you’re getting into. And wait for the price to inevitably come down.