Nokia's Surge official on AT&T, ships July 19 for $79.99

We've known about Nokia's so-called Surge for months now, but at long last, AT&T has done its duty by making things official and giving us a price and release date to consider. The Symbian S60-based smartphone is aimed squarely at social media freaks, boasting a full QWERTY keyboard, a browser with Flash support (imagine that, right?), a pre-installed JuiceCaster app for easily updating your Facebook / Twitter status and a price tag that's sure to turn heads. For just $79.99 after rebate, you'll also get a 2 megapixel camera, AT&T Navigator, AT&T Video Share and the pleasure of handing over at least $30 per month for a required data plan (if you want the $50 rebate, anyway). If you're sold already, you can get yours on July 19th.

Gallery: Nokia's Surge official on AT&T, ships July 19 for $79.99

• 
• 
• 

[Az1Z @ Jul 13th 2009 10:23AM]

is it just me or did nokia fubar on this one?

[M. @ Jul 13th 2009 10:27AM]

it's not you

[Mike @ Jul 13th 2009 10:43AM]

Yup. Given the huge fugly factor, and the fact it runs symbian.. i wouldn't even use this as a paperweight if it was given to me for free....

[Mark Anderson @ Jul 13th 2009 11:11AM]

Hmm...

Yes and no. On one hand it's not the prettiest device (but then neither was the sidekick) so you could argue it's a fail on the other this is Nokia teaming up with a US carrier to offer a subsidised handset which is long overdue.

As for S60 beign a 'fail', it isn't. Seriously.

[telepheedian @ Jul 13th 2009 11:14AM]

It's the three buttons on the side of the screen. Nix those (and remove att's massive logo), and it's really not all that bad.

[namtastic @ Jul 13th 2009 11:33AM]

Didn't Nokia build this partly to an AT&T spec?

[Sarig @ Jul 13th 2009 11:52AM]

Considering this phone is only offered by AT&T, I think they're to blame for the not-so-aesthetic design of this one.

[Mikeweezer @ Jul 13th 2009 7:42PM]

If it has a 3.5mm jack on it, then I'd maybe consider...

[Nikesh @ Jul 13th 2009 9:35PM]

Uh...since when are the providers designing phones? The providers simply sign exclusivity contracts on phones they think are hot, not phones they design. AT&T had no more of a hand in the design of this phone than it did the iPhone or Sprint did the Pre. Nokia has no one but itself to blame for this one. Be that as it may, I don't find the phone hideous. I do think that that little curve is unnecessary and may even prove to be a drawback, but I think the real inferiority of this phone lies in its Symbian OS. From what I have read, Symbian has yet to be polished enough to warrant its placement in a device of this class. Like the N97, this too will suffer from poor software.

[JimboJones @ Jul 13th 2009 10:24AM]

"at least $30 per month for a required data plan"

if AT&T would offer it without data plan, a lot of kids could get it, with $30 data plan nobody will buy it

[Tekneeq @ Jul 13th 2009 1:15PM]

Thats what they said about the iphone, and i see it in plenty of kids hands. And since most of the phones are web based anyways, i would gladly pay the extra $30.00 per month rather than see $200.00 in over charges. If you want cheap, there is always cricket! hahaha

[Willis @ Jul 13th 2009 2:47PM]

I'd rather have the $99 iPhone 3g than this phone...

This one looks perfectly fine, but its only $20 cheaper. If i'm going to shell out for a data plan, I want a good OS experience to go with it (OSX \ WebOS \ Heck... even WinMo).

I've yet to use a symbian phone that offered a good web browsing experience. That said, for calling \ texting only, I actually really like Symbian. To dial a number in my iPhone I have to tap as many as four buttons before I can get to the keypad. Talk about frustrating.

[ouch! @ Jul 13th 2009 8:16PM]

wow someone had to actually come up with iPhone comparison.
please hateboys, give yourselves a break.

*Pre fan*

[DukeFett @ Jul 13th 2009 10:26AM]

I have the cheap data plan currently, why do these new phones require the more expensive data plans for no reason? I can get an unlocked phone and not have to pay more.

[Phoenix @ Jul 13th 2009 10:29AM]

because the cell networks are greedy faceless corporations.

[greatsunjester @ Jul 13th 2009 10:30AM]

I think the companies are requiring it because people without data plans still manage to open the web connection and rack up massive data bills, which they contest or course - giving the company bad press. If the company requires a data plan, then any extra charges you get if you go over are probably clearly (in fine print) listed in the data contract.

[sam @ Jul 13th 2009 10:41AM]

@duke:

Because they want to get more money out of you?

@greatsun:

If they want to avoid people accidentally racking up bills, they don't need to solve that by requiring ever higher bills - although you can see why that solution would appeal to them...

Instead they need to bring their pricing technology into, say, the 19th century. You know how when you're in a shop and you're about to buy something, they tell you how much it costs? Instead of sending you a bill at the end of the month where you suddenly find out that your chocolate bar cost £450?

Like that, but for phones.

Why doesn't the status line of every phone contain a 'current bill' indicator that updates, live, to show your current phone bill (or if you are on pay-as-you-go, remaining credit)? And if there are any large jumps (more than 0.20 say, but they could let the user set their preferred threshold) in this charge, then why isn't there a confirm screen that appears before you go ahead with that action? [Would include charged SMSs, premium-rate calls, etc etc.]

In addition they should probably set everyone a maximum threshold for monthly bill, default at some reasonably low value, where you just have to confirm a text message if you want to go over it.

Yes this all requires some significant technology changes but given a year or two to change over it should be absolutely possible. I can't see phone companies doing this themselves unless the EU mandates it or something, though - it's mainly in their interest to keep secret what you're being charged.

[telepheedian @ Jul 13th 2009 11:12AM]

@sam: Pay as you go already does that. Also, on GSM phones, #BAL# gives you your account balance. (Greedy At&t then sends it in a text though, making you pay :P).

[HAZE @ Jul 13th 2009 11:20AM]

Here's what you do:

Get a phone that requires a data plan. Pay it for the first month. Pop out the SIM card and put it into your "non smarthphone" phone and use it for a few days. Call ATT and tell them that you're using the "dumbphone" so you don't need the $30 plan. They'll bump you down to the $15 unlimited data plan. Pop the SIM card back into the smartphone and you're all good.

[sam @ Jul 13th 2009 12:17PM]

@tele: On my PAYG phone, it tells me after a call/text that my balance has changed, which is better than not doing it (hence I haven't turned it off) but remains annoying and intrusive; it doesn't count down gradually in status bar while a call or data connection is in process. (It doesn't tell me at all how much a data connection cost; I can dial a number any time to get a balance update, but I have to think to do that.)

However maybe this is because my phone is a bit old, or because my network is crap?

To be honest, PAYG is not the biggest problem area here since you can't overspend beyond what credit you have.

[one2gamble @ Jul 13th 2009 10:29AM]

Its to bad att absolutely destroys the OS to the point that its barely usable.......

[Dakota @ Jul 13th 2009 10:35AM]

It's Symbian. It's already unusable.

[JimboJones @ Jul 13th 2009 10:51AM]

you obviously use your brain as much as symbian OS ... never

[WickedEast @ Jul 13th 2009 1:49PM]

Ironically, Symbian is more capable than the OS in your JesusPhone. It's only less pretty. But Americans only notice the fancy animations and eye-candies of a toyPhone.

[JimboJones @ Jul 13th 2009 2:44PM]

"But Americans only notice the fancy animations and eye-candies of a toyPhone."

RESPECT

[Montusama @ Jul 13th 2009 10:35AM]

Nokia I am disappointed in you.

[Adderz @ Jul 13th 2009 10:40AM]

Even the articles are advertisements now aye?

[Josh @ Jul 13th 2009 10:42AM]

It seems like they could have made the screen a bit bigger, not sure that would helped much but would it have hurt?

[kenc29 @ Jul 13th 2009 10:46AM]

One, the story mentions Flash, but which Flash is it, Flash Lite or full Flash? There's a difference, and Flash Lite which a number of phones have, is pretty much used for video.

The AT&T data plan is UNLIMITED. It's not capped like Verizon.

AT&T has an app on the iPhone that lets you look at your usage and your bill, and make changes to your plan.

[Brandon @ Jul 13th 2009 11:07AM]

This may be news, but this isn't an iPhone.

[FamilyGuy @ Jul 13th 2009 10:52AM]

eww. That's hideous. Are we sure that's not a NOKLA?

[Chad Pflughaupt @ Jul 13th 2009 11:01AM]

If you could get Android on it it might not be quite such a bad deal.

Maybe.

But only just a little less terrible.

Of course, someone would still be stuck with an ugly ass phone that people will laugh at them for, and their mockery will make users anti-social, thus rendering this "social media freak" demographic completely useless.

Alas.

[David @ Jul 13th 2009 11:07AM]

its quite a nice screen and you can see why they have chosen this form factor, and tried to keep it a cheap-ish phone. Its certainly a very popular form factor in the states.. and I guess it might be catching on here?

Its not for me at all, but then it isn't aimed at me. It was however very small so I guess it will fit in certain age groups hands no problem

[tefagan0606 @ Aug 7th 2009 5:07PM]

I have the Surge and I must say that I am very happy with it. I'm having trouble with the ringtones, but that is about it. I like almost everything about it. I played with the iPhone and I must say that it is all hype. If the phone is so advanced why can't it text a picture?

[JWC @ Jul 13th 2009 11:29AM]

Needz moar androidz

[seanlindo06 @ Jul 13th 2009 11:39AM]

AT&T Touch Pro 2 forrrrrr meh?

[joaquindel @ Jul 13th 2009 3:09PM]

"forrrrrr meh"
*sigh*
You sound like a teenage girl on MySpace.
Maybe you should get a Xenon.

[seanlindo06 @ Jul 13th 2009 9:27PM]

What the hell would I look like walking into a meeting with a Xenon? Probably just as ridiculous as someone walking into a meeting with an iPhone.

[bjsguess @ Jul 13th 2009 11:45AM]

For $79 it seems like a great price. Not my cup of tea but to each their own.

[Chan @ Jul 13th 2009 11:54AM]

Wait, I thought AT&T didn't require data plans unless you wanted the rebate/discount. Is this the case or is it now mandatory for all smartphones like Verizon?

[PJ @ Jul 14th 2009 7:51PM]

The article says that you need the plan just to get the rebate. Just FYI, Verizon and now T-Mobile require data for any "smartphone" purchases. The worst thing is that there is no flat determination of what a smartphone is. Would you call a Sidekick a smartphone

[Artz86 @ Jul 13th 2009 12:09PM]

I think it's a decent offering; a smart phone for the average joe. Anyway, the screen is small because they were probably trying to keep it at a certain price point. The form factor, eh, it's different, different is good, but I'm not a fan of slide out keyboards. The required $30 data plan is put in place because when it comes to smart phones, they're data oriented- email, transfers of pdf files, so on and so forth-and only smart phones are required to get a data plan. Hey, the way I see it, I'd rather have that extra $30 added onto my bill, because with Att, you get charged .25 per mb over w/e is on your plan, if I remember correctly, and when I use data, I easily use 5+mb per session, so add that up, in a day I'm already past $30 worth of data usage.

[Ahmad @ Jul 13th 2009 12:23PM]

Last time I checked it was $2/MB.

[Ahmad @ Jul 13th 2009 12:24PM]

Last time I checked it was $2 /MB

[Chris @ Jul 13th 2009 12:57PM]

oop, there you go.. get the $30 data add-on, save your arm and your leg...

[Ypoknons @ Jul 13th 2009 1:52PM]

The problem is, on the comment boards if it doesn't completely smash their dream device of choice, people will comment that it sucks, even if there are certain uses and a audience that the device would reach.

[MinceyFresh @ Jul 13th 2009 12:09PM]

Hey, they put the spacebar in its proper place!

[lswift84 @ Jul 13th 2009 12:16PM]

So this thing is basically a Nokia version of the sidekick right?

[joaquindel @ Jul 13th 2009 3:07PM]

More like a Nokia version of a Samsung Rant or Pantech Matrix.

[sockatume @ Jul 13th 2009 12:31PM]

Why do US carriers get Nokia to produce abominations like this? I mean, you could get yourself an E75, or a 5730 XM, and not look like a total tit. Yet AT&T thinks its users would much rather get something that looks like the monstrous love child of a 1990s pocket organiser and Series 60 Feature Pack 666.