To each his own I suppose, I've recently owned both a 50 f/1.4 and an 85 f/1.8 and sold them both because my zooms were more convinient, gave the bokeh I wanted, and had better IQ overall to my eyes.
In the case of the 14 mm f/2.8 prime, nikon's costs $1,700 new while the superior 14-24 f/2.8 zoom sells for $1,826 new (both Adorama's prices 1-11-10) if the zoom is better at 14 mm than the prime, has AF-S, and zooms to 24 mm (where the awesome 24-70 picks up) then why wouldn't you spend the extra $126 to purchase it over the prime.
It's true that in the past (and in many cases the present also) primes outperform zooms. But Nikon (and I suspect Canon) have a few zooms that can match or beat primes in the same focal length right now. The days when primes always trumped zooms may be behind us. The glaring exception is in supertele lenses where primes are still faster and have much better IQ etc to zooms.
SLC