My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

  • Follow Tomi on Twitter as @tomiahonen
    Follow Tomi's Twitterfloods on all matters mobile, tech and media. Tomi has over 8,000 followers and was rated by Forbes as the most influential writer on mobile related topics

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

  • Contact Tomi T Ahonen for Speaking and Consulting Events
    Please write email to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com and indicate "Speaking Event" or "Consulting Work" or "Expert Witness" or whatever type of work you would like to offer. Tomi works regularly on all continents

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

  • Tomi on Video including his TED Talk
    See Tomi on video from several recent keynote presentations and interviews, including his TED Talk in Hong Kong about Augmented Reality as the 8th Mass Media

Subscribe


Blog powered by Typepad

« The 25 Biggest Companies in Mobile - by their revenues in mobile only - an "Ahonen 25" Index? | Main | Alan Moore and Gerd Leonhard online seminar on 1 March »

February 18, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e0097e337c88330120a8b1dad0970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Two Phenomenally good articles: App is Crap, and 7 Deadly Sins of Mobile Marketing:

Comments

kevin

Thought-provoking maybe, but Suster is wrong in most of his points. So Tomi I respect your views, but this one is way over the top. So if you're a developer, please do read his piece, but consider the following as well:

1. Apple does NOT take a "major share of the revenue." That was true before the App Store, but Apple lowered the distribution fee to 30%, and 30% out of 100% is not major.

2. Data is NOT locked into the device. As an example, I use WriteRoom, and its documents can be retrieved from a wifi-connected computer without going through Apple.

3. Flash (at least the kind that works on the Internet) is not yet implemented on the majority of smartphone platforms (not Android, Blackberry, iPhone OS, webOS, etc).

4. Apple "may or may not" - well, everything is may or may not. Google and Nokia as well "may or may not." What does that mean?

5. The average approval delay now for apps is 4.65 days. These seems a small price to pay compared with a stores that have "downloading errors and carrier billing difficulties." See http://moconews.net/article/419-the-buzz-among-app-developers-at-this-years-mwc-may-surprise-you

6. Over 165000 different apps (Mark says couple hundred thousand, whatever) have been approved through that Black Box. Including app updates, it's more likely over 1 million. And the number that have been disapproved for controversial reasons is likely less than 1000. So yes it is Black Box but one that approves way more than it might controversially disapprove.

Having read his article, I'm not exactly sure what his solution is, but one can develop web apps (but lose some capability) and Apple suggested this back in 2007 (and it was met with developer derision), but Apple actually still publishes a web framework called PastryKit. See http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/pastrykit

kevin

Just to clarify: Mark Suster may be right about Internet and Cloud as the way ahead for mobile apps/services. I'm not disagreeing with his conclusion, just the specifics of his assessment.

In the PC world, there is one major platform - Windows, and two minor platforms - Mac and Linux. In many ways, Adobe Flash could actually be considered still another platform.

For mobile, there are many smartphone platforms vying to be considered major, so it's very fragmented. The Wholesale Applications Community (WAC) approach to app interoperability across platforms/devices has never worked in the past, so odds are it won't work in the future. I also don't think having one major platform controlled by one company is the way to go either - look at the virus-riddled mess that is Windows. So it's not clear to me what one is to do at this early stage of mobile since waiting for mobile platforms to die is not an option, and the Web/Internet/Cloud approach (tools/standards) is still not mature (does not yet provide comparable capabilities to that of specific mobile platforms).

Tomi Ahonen

Hi Mathias and kevin

Thank you for the kind words Mathias. kevin I will address your points.

First, I am not a mobile apps (or services) developer. My programming skills come from the mainframe era and I did my share of PC apps early in my career but no, I could not pretend to know the finer details of this. I must defer to those who do know. So as I said, I found it interesting and thought-provoking, it seemed very good to me as a non-progammer and was referred to by someone I trust implicitly (Chetan).

Now to your specific points. At least you agree with his general conclusion, that is good to hear. I'd be more concerned if you felt he was using bad or perhaps mis-represented info, to lead readers to a bad conclusion haha.. I don't mean to dismiss the points you make, but yes, if the conclusion at least is valid, the article itself can serve a good purpose that we can agree with.

But lets go to your specific points. Apple taking 'major' share is certainly not true, as you point out, in a mathematical sense of 'majority' of revenue, where 30% is not majority. It is a valid argument, however, to say Apple takes a 'major' share when compared with other ways a content provider, brand or service developer can get out of mobile. You may now know kevin (your reply seems to be US-centric, please don't take offense, but that would not then represent either the leading edge of mobile nor anywhere near the large part of the mobile industry in customers or revenues) but yes, you may not know, that in Japan the revenue share is 90% given to the content owner/brand/service provider and only 10% taken by the platform, for example on NTT DoCoMo's i-Mode. Similar deals, not as good, but 85:15 and 80:20 are available in South Korea and Taiwan; and deals like 75:25 are common in Northern Europe like the Nordic countries. Apple's 70:30 deal seemed good for example in the US market where the carriers had been very greedy and offered worse deals. But Apple's deal is by no means 'progressive' and advanced. I think its fair to say they are taking a 'major' but certainly mathematically not 'majority' share of the revenue.

On your second point - data is 'not' locked to the phone - yes it is. Compared to setting data into a service on the cloud, no matter how much we have WiFi etc, the data is locked on the phone, on ANY app, not just on an iPhone app. That was his whole example from his previous experience. Now the smart way to build a customer experience is to have access to that info from anywhere and with any device and platform.

Take Italy's 'network PVR' (think 'network TiVo' or network DVR) service - there is a network-based server that stores your TV selections from cable TV. First of all, there is no artificial limit of the hard drive capacity. When storage costs are split across millions of users, obviously the per-user costs per storage are a tiny fraction of attempting to give the same capacity to all. Secondly, you can use your ons-screen program guide to pick and select TV shows that you will want to store/watch from the future, but also - far better - you can also pick past programs up to a month gone by, to catch any episode or movie etc that you may have missed. Far better.

You have an account that you can use any platform to access your TV feeds. So if you want to watch your TV at the plasma screen big TV at home, you can do that. But you can also use your broadband connection to watch, or access your TV feed from the office, or from your 3G mobile phone - or indeed - if your friend has a massive projection TV system 'home cinema' set up, you can even watch 'your' TV at the actual TV set and cable box connection of your friend, by accessing your account from his house - and show that movie that you had saved and they had not seen... Its FAR better to have the service set up in the cloud than on the handset.

In this example, the data is locked to my home TiVo box. Yes, I can technically hook up some kind of clumsy work-around to try to access my home TiVo box from for example a broadband connection, or to save some files onto memory sticks etc, but that is all clumsy work-arounds if the data is stored on the device. The elegant solution is to have the data not locked on the device, but rather in the cloud. I think you agree on this concept. All the numbers of my phonebook are locked on my phone. If I am smart enough to do a backup (only one in seven people do according to stats this week) then yes, I have some potential access to it but most people do not. Half of the population have lost a phone (another statistic came out this week). All that data is lost. That is the problem of building apps onto the phone. The data IS indeed locked to the phone. The elegant solution - where the actual end-user experience merits it (like TV example in the above) - is 'not' save it on the phone/device.

3 - You say flash is not implemented on the majority of smartphone platforms. I was not aware of that? Is it true? I know I have flash on my Symbian phones, and of the installed base on the planet, over half are Symbian phones. If really that is true, then it really suggests American platforms are truly backwards in a surprising way, isn't it. But I also do have a flash player on my Blackberry Bold, so perhaps your info is outdated? But as over half of all smartphones in the world have flash, this is a point very valid in his article. I cannot imagine an open source OS like Google Android can go long without adding it. Is it possible you've experienced 'crippled' smartphones (and their systems) on US networks, that the feature does exist on the platform in its native format, and only US based archaic and punitive carriers cripple that feature, I do not know. My experience has been that as long as I ever remember wanting to use Flash - many years now on Symbian phones - it has been there, natively, out of the box (as it should)

On point 4 - Apple may or may not - certainly of the four major brands mentioned, Apple, Microsoft, Google and Nokia, the two that are most open, most un-intrusive, most cooperative with partners in any situations (including having open source for their OS) are Nokia and Google. The two that are most restrictive, controlling and least cooperative are Apple and Microsoft. I have no personal experience of this but have been reading about their antics for years on the forums, in the press etc. Nokia's path has consistently been to more includsion, more partnering, more openness and open APIs etc. Led the whole mobile vendor community in that direction and been rather consistently fully standards-compliant etc. Apple is exactly the total opposite. It had huge fights with the recording industry (and still does). It always tries to build closed systems, won't license its OS to anyone, isn't open source and has what many call draconian control methods and arbitrary decision processes to is app store specifically. I do not know this for a fact, I read about it countless times. You know kevin, you have read the same stories, Apple is notorious for this. Microsoft is nearer to Apple, Google nearer to Nokia.

5 - average approval time is not the valid point. Its the arbitrary very long approvals that are in the news all the time. Approvals that are suddenly removed. Approvals that hang and are not resolved, etc. The process is not a system, it is a gamble. You may be lucky and hit the average, but many wait weeks and can see their economic opportunity go by if its a topical service idea with a short calendar life-span.

6 - on the point of under 1,000 being refused - I have no comment, I do not know and have not seen that number (or any number). Do you have a public reference to it only being under 1,000 that were refused? And by your method, if the variations are also refused, would that then be 5,000 ? Still, obviously this is something that Apple does and the developer community seems to often repeat a refrain that Apple's approval process is arbitrary. I have no personal experience.

As to what can be done - xTML browsers are in more than six out of ten phones (most mid to high end feature phones have xTML browsers) which is 4 times larger total installed base than smartphones of all kind, over ten times larger than the combined installed base of iPhone, Blackberry, Android and Windows Mobile smartphones. So the first obvious way to do 'relatively easily' mobile wen services across more than half of all phones - a far larger installed base than total PC installed population by the way - is xTML. Then there is WAP which reaches essentially every phone in the Industrialized World and over 9 out of 10 phones in the Emerging World. Most cases of services that I have seen for the iPhone as an app, from Brittney Spear's fan club to the NY Times to the Hilton Hotels app to make room service orders on your iPhone - all of these can easily be done on WAP. They are not complex dramatic advanced concepts. But on WAP (+xTML obviously) they'd reach every pocket and the service can intelligently be built where part is in the cloud if needed, part on the phone, if needed and such matters as the available storage on the phone memory is not that much of an issue (again, the network PVR example from the above, we don't need to worry about our TiVo box hard drive being overloaded)

Thank you for writing, come back kevin, give your views, and lets talk more

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Gibson Tang

Reading about the Flash on mobile phones, I just can't resist adding in my 2 cents. Tomi, I think what you have on Symbian and your BB is Flash Lite which somehow was not as popular as anticipated as it is basically similar to what WAP is to HTML. Now, newer smartphones are coming out with full Flash support and 2010 will see the release of some of these phones. This is inevitable when chipsets are getting faster and cheaper. Mark has a point that sometime in the future, mobile web will be more important than mobile app. But in the short to middle term, mobile apps will be here to stay and even if mobile web takes off. There will still be demand for mobile native apps such as games which can't deliver a compelling experience when delivered over the mobile web.

Simone Thevenot

The iPhone apps I use store data in the cloud -- boxnet, google docs, dropbox, mobileme, etc. All of this data is retrievable on any computer. However yes, some apps do restrict data to the iPhone, others afford portability only via wifi or email. Still others allow uploading to the cloud but then restrict the data to the cloud. Ultimately the market will decide which of these features prevail, no? As it will with Flash as well. So far Flash-less iPhone has about a 90% user satisfaction rating. If this changes or if iPhone sales plummet, I suspect Apple will reconsider its position.

Also, it seems odd that you compare the iTunes app store's 30% to Asian business models but not to those of its direct competitors, i.e., Windows, Android, Palm, Blackberry and Ovi. I already know those comparisons well, and I've determined that as of now, my best return on investment is iPhone, by far. If Apple improves app discovery, they might widen the gap even further.

Honestly, in many instances, I find both your comments and those in the article you recommend almost antithetical to my personal experience. You both seem to be trying to take a few irrefutable facts and use them to support a predetermined conclusion. From my perspective, this just appears to be yet another volley in the tedious good vs. evil religious war among brand advocates.

KPOM

How badly was Symbian's app development hindered by the whole Symbian Signed debacle, as well as the notorious compatibility breaks between v2 and v3, and even v3 and v5? In the case of Symbian Signed, the ostensible motive was to keep malware out, which was Apple's stated reason for the approval process. Apple is very protective of its platforms, particularly on keeping malware off its OS. We can argue about design vs. market share, but as it stands, Apple has no known viruses on OS X and far less malware than Windows 7, and also no known malware on iPhone OS. Android runs a looser ship with the Market and has some known malware. Symbian has little or no malware but the certification process is difficult. I also got annoyed with my N95 and N85 constantly asking for my permission to do everything. It was worse than Vista in this regard. It got a little better with v5 and the N97 but still not as smooth as Android or iPhone. I think those all play into why applications aren't more important on Symbian than they are.

Actually, the way I look at it, apps are important for Nokia, but the difference is that only the apps that Nokia provides are really of any significance. Ovi Maps is nice, for example. Ovi Store is finally getting more downloads now with the proliferation of free wallpaper etc., but I don't see it as much of an attraction to the platform as the App Store is for Apple.

kevin

Gibson and Simone already responded as I would've.

As for locked data, if Suster is referring 3rd party Apps, he is wrong. I gave one example of wifi access, because I didn't think he was actually talking about cloud access. Now if he is only referring to iTunes music/video, then yes, you need to go through Apple's iTunes, altho iPhone Explorer allows one to use the iPhone in a drag-and-drop manner.

As for open vs closed, Apple is not "the exact opposite." Apple is the one pushing HTML web-based standards and actively supporting it through WebKit implementation (which is open source and which Nokia also uses for free). Apple pushed for MPEG-4 and H.264 as non-proprietary standards; Apple invested a ton in Quicktime (against MS) as a basis for MPEG-4.

Google is far from being as open as they (or the open community) want you to think (see www.counternotions.com)- I don't see Google licensing its search or advertising algorithms to anyone, so why should Apple license its OS to anyone?

As for the recording industry, did Apple deceive them by violating its signed contracts? Was it not all above board? If the labels were stupid and gave away the crown jewels, was Apple supposed to return them? The labels reacted to their stupidity by trying to defeat Apple; did Apple then try to sabotage sales of their product? No. Apple told the labels 99 cents was what consumers would pay (vs pirate); Apple finally relented (traded it for direct-to-phone downloads) and look at what has happened - digital music sales have declined. Should Apple apologize for its intelligence?

Now video downloads haven't gone anywhere, though video piracy is growing by leaps and bounds (with faster broadband). The lack of pricing progress is killing AppleTV, but has Apple responded by interfering with the studios from trying other mechanisms like Hulu? No. Are corporations supposed to act out of altruism, or is this just business?

(An aside: I might be US-centric or even Apple centric but I know it, but I have to add that you often come across as Nokia centric and I don't know if you know it. Nokia is just as ruthless in negotiating with its partners.)

Tomi, people are feeding you garbage about Apple. Just like you rant about journalists who are wrong about mobile, they're just as wrong about Apple in their fanciful speculations about Apple's motivations. They never take Apple at its word (when Apple speaks, which is rare, but Apple does speak in SEC filings and conference calls), but choose to make up all sorts of conspiracies and schemes because it makes for sensational journalism - i.e., sells newspapers, gets more hits.

Simply put, Apple offers an alternative paradigm - one that guards ease of use and simplicity of the entire system for the user. Apple does nothing to stop the other 90% of products from using the "let the user mix-and-match to some other limit" paradigm. (Though people don't realize it, there is a limit; it is never infinite open mixing-and-matching.) Apple's paradigm requires Apple to act on behalf of its core users, and to squeeze out as much junk as it can before it gets to its users. Apple does this on the Mac to one degree, and goes even further on the iPhone/iPad.

So to specifics: Apple told its developers not to use location-awareness primarily for ads. If an app involves travel or navigation or shopping or social networking, then of course location-awareness in ads make sense. But is it necessary in a standalone tic-tac-toe game? Now it may have been wrong in not letting its users opt-out, but most criticism hasn't been about opt-out but rather that Apple wants to take over all ads. All because Apple bought Quattro and said that mobile ads are a mess. What is logical is that Apple is going to come up with another "better" way to present ads in apps. Will it offer it as one (though preferred) of many alternatives to developers? Or will it be the only alternative? Apple hasn't said. But ads are not an area of Apple strength and don't involve device storage confusion (which has been the source of many of Apple's iPhone rejections). If Apple was to cut off all other ad networks, it would be suicide. Could Apple do something so stupid? Of course. But is it likely? No.

There hasn't been a single arbitrary approval news story since like October of last year. Are they all under NDA or is it that there really aren't any? There are maybe 10-20 rejections that still leave people perplexed (Google Voice being one of them). Most of the rejections still involve catching bugs and getting them fixed.

4.65 days does matter; when developers were complaining more loudly, it was around 2-3 weeks. The complaints are way down.

(Note: Apple is still learning how to operate the App Store, so yes, criticize specific instances and push Apple to change. Since many have done that, trademark law has been clarified, consistency and speed of approval has been gained.)

By the way, the App Store to Apple is like a retail store. If users complain, Apple might remove a product from its shelves, just like most stores do. In the retail world, there is an intermediary who approves whether your product can get on their shelves. That intermediary serves a purpose for its customers - it filters according to its brand image, which is based on its target audience - although they all sell jewelry, Walmart does it one way, Target another, Amazon another, Nordstroms another, Tiffany's still another. Apple is saying that it will be the intermediary for its customers.

The real issue is that there isn't another way to load apps without jailbreaking your iPhone. To which Apple really says: If a developer's target audience (customers) want to go direct to them, then Apple iPhone Apps isn't for them. And if you, as an Apple customer, don't want Apple to protect you, then you don't want Apple products - there are thousands of other products out there for you to choose. Apple is betting it has more than enough customers without any of the geek/fully customize crowd.

As I mentioned earlier, it's the Apple paradigm. When you get that, most everything Apple does makes a whole lot of sense. If it looks draconian, it is still what Apple thinks will make its customers satisfied. (And by all means complain, but stay on topic, avoid speculation, try to understand what Apple is doing for its customers, and provide alternatives.)

At the end of the day, Apple's customers are 90% satisfied with the iPhone (even with AT&T); something that isn't happening with other phones. If someone wants to create another channel where they can get a large enough customer base to be profitable, and get 90% satisfaction, then all the more power to them.

kevin

Just reread your point 2 response. There is a rumor that Apple wants that "cloud" subscription approach, especially for the iPad, but the US networks/studios are against letting Apple do it; maybe Apple can do it elsewhere, but Apple usually starts with the US. (I also think that Softbank has an iPhone app to do that in Japan, and one of the French carriers in France.)

Apple started with iTunes and local storage; that's where it's strength was and what it leverages as it moves to new platforms like iPhone and iPad. But I don't see anything that says they're wedded to just one approach. Apple's acquisition of lala, its investment in the largest US data center in North Carolina, and its refusal to make an iPod touch with large hard drive lead me to believe they want to move to the cloud if and when they get network/studio approval for it. But they're okay with waiting until the networks/studios get desperate (due to piracy and other failed approaches) and provide the content at the price that Apple thinks customers are willing to pay.

John Dowdell

"You say flash is not implemented on the majority of smartphone platforms. I was not aware of that? Is it true?"

fwiw, 19 of the top 20 handset manufacturers are working with Adobe to optimize full desktop Flash for their devices, and they'll start shipping towards the middle of this year.

(I'd agree with you that Europe has been in advance of North America... well over a billion devices have shipped with older profiles of Flash, but few of those earlier smartphones were available in the US. Silicon Valley bloggers have a different perspective than the rest of the world.)

Flash Lite tidbit: When Adobe announced the Open Screen Project in late 2008, Flash Lite was explicitly deprecated. Yet, to the surprise of all of us, licensees skyrocketed since that time. (OSP removes licensing costs, but requires cooperation and optimization from manufacturing partners.)

(Tomi, a sidenote, I've enjoyed the blog over the months, and envy that you're spending the new year in Hong Kong, but lately I've been wondering what happens when "brands dominate communities"... particularly with phenomena like "Ellie Light", is it still prudent to take untraceable statements at face value...?)

tx, jd/adobe

Mark Suster

For Kevin, the first commenter. I left these comments in response to you on my blog (as you left your same comments there). Here is my response to your arguments that I'm wrong. I would also point out that of the hundreds of comments on my blog on that topic 95% agree with me, 5% disagree. That doesn't mean I'm right, but you're comments make it sound "self evident" that I'm wrong. I think it's a subjective argument with points to be made on both sides. I'm glad at least the debate is started:

Also, Tomi, thank you for the kind words and coverage! Also, I recommend implementing Disqus as your commenting system. It's free and will make it easier to create a discussion.

_______________________________

Hey, Kevin. You're points are well argued so I don't want to get nit-picky. Just say a couple of things:

1. Major does not mean majority. To me 30% is major. It's a lot.
2. My kids play with lots of apps. They get you into the free version. The data you build there doesn't port to the paid version when you buy it. Nor does it port to other devices or the cloud.
3. Others have openly said they will support Flash. Apple has openly said it won't.
4. True, but there have been rumors specifically of Apple telling developers, "do not develop general purpose location-based ads. That will be our domain." It is true others might take the same stance. Good point.
5. I don't believe this is supported by the first-hand anecdotal input that I have. Regardless, I don't want any intermediary "approving" my having an app. Should be web.
6. Black box = black box. Power to approve = power. I prefer an open web where the market decides.
7. To a degree. But right now it is so dominant in the market that it is the kind maker.

Re: PatryKit - I'm not familiar with it. I appreciate your pointing it out.

kevin

Mark, I replied on your site long ago to your response.

I'm not sure it matters that 95% of commenters agree, as even I don't disagree with your overall assessment about Internet/Cloud as being a long-term or better answer (see Tomi's response above recognizing that I don't disagree). In reality, very few people at your site cared to respond to your specific points about Apple. In the bigger picture, you (and I) could still make the same arguments about a better way without getting things wrong about Apple.

As I've said before, Apple is a master at misdirection. It plays up every "innovation" for what it's worth; all the better to get competitors chasing down this "old" zig path, while Apple is already plotting the next zag path. So whether one partners with or competes against Apple, one should always expect Apple to change course as it "innovates."

Sander van der Wal

Some points about Mr Murray's post

1) 30% is not a mayor amount, because

a) 30% used to be the norm back in the late 90's and early noughties for stores like Handango. These guys raised their cut to 60% or 70% some years ago, which was widely publicised.

b) Operators take upto 60% when you do operator billing in Ovi Store. An then Nokia takes 30%. And that's after VAT.

c) when selling real stuff in brick stores, the store owner takes a similar percentage of the sales price.

d) Apple does things for you like taking care of credit card billing and managing a very efficient deployment system. That is after they managed to get the idea of Apps into the mind of the Early Majority, which *nobody* has managed before them.

True, Digital River and the like are cheaper, but for the kind of apps that sell on App Store (the electronic equivalent of ice cream and hot dogs), its the best in the market today.

2) Flash wont work on iPhone and iPad or any phone because of this: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash. In short: Flash apps (not Flash itself) depends too much on a mouse being present.

3) App approval on Nokia's Ovi store isn't exactly fast either, and it is also inconsistent.

4) Nokia is advertising with 4 million Forum Nokia members (http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&ved=0CA8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fevents.nokia.com%2Fthewaywelivenext%2Fassets%2Fmaterials%2Fpdfs%2Fforum_nokia_introduction.pdf&rct=j&q=forum+Nokia+4+million+members&ei=DfyCS6TQLc_4-Qag-OCuBw&usg=AFQjCNGlFnujhjUC7oaVtvS2yPOr0G9Ihw, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_Nokia). Try dividing the number of apps on Ovi by this and see for yourself how hard it is to program for Symbian ;-)

5) Openness of the platform is bollocks and Ease-of-programming rules. Open Source has it advantages and ways of making money, but selling simple App Store-like apps to consumers is not one of them.

6) As John Maynard Keynes observed: "in the long run we are all dead." Apps make some money now, but orders of magnitude less as did writing OS'es, office suites or vertical apps for business in the 80's and 90's for PC's. There isn;'t going to be a mobile Bill Gates or Larry Elisson.

And know what, most people won't make much money writing web apps for the forseeable future either. That's because a) there's lots of competition and 2) nobody in their right mind is going to put critical data in the cloud and 3) if the data is not critical, its in't worth much either.

Tomi T Ahonen

hi all..

hey, welcome to our blog, Mark, it was a great blog article - haha and obviously even here at our blog its creating a nice debate - always a good sign of a thought-provoking blog.

I think you guys are into your own back-and-forth debate here, I don't think I have much to add to whats beeing said. I will re-read the thread again and consider if anyone really expected my further comment but this seems to be your debate. Thanks for having it here and please do continue. I am learning a lot from it.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

karen millen outlet

Best choice and best discounts.

บีบีครีม

Hi there fantastic website! Does running a blog like this require a massive amount work? I have absolutely no understanding of programming however I had been hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyways, should you have any recommendations or tips for new blog owners please share. I know this is off topic however I simply had to ask. Thanks a lot!

free wallpapers for desktop

If you are going for best contents like myself, just pay a quick visit this site daily as it provides feature contents, thanks

free music recording software download

Its such as you learn my mind! You appear to understand so much about this, such as you wrote the ebook in it or something. I think that you just can do with a few percent to drive the message home a bit, however other than that, this is excellent blog. A great read. I'll certainly be back.

Lewis

The mobile phones games are the games played on the mobile phone in the video format. Now obtain your copy of this apple gadget and enjoy the new and exciting application. It is fully waterproof up to 6 meters (about 19 feet) and comes in several basic colors.

universal studios hollywood discount coupons

Nice post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon every day. It's always exciting to read articles from other authors and use something from their web sites.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

  • Available for Consulting & Speaking
    Tomi Ahonen is a bestselling author whose twelve books on mobile have already been referenced in over 100 books by his peers. Rated the most influential expert in mobile by Forbes in December 2011, Tomi speaks regularly at conferences doing about 20 public speakerships annually. With over 250 public speaking engagements, Tomi been seen by a cumulative audience of over 100,000 people on all six inhabited continents. The former Nokia executive has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile. Tomi is currently based out of Hong Kong but supports Fortune 500 sized companies across the globe. His reference client list includes Axiata, Bank of America, BBC, BNP Paribas, China Mobile, Emap, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HSBC, IBM, Intel, LG, MTS, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Ogilvy, Orange, RIM, Sanomamedia, Telenor, TeliaSonera, Three, Tigo, Vodafone, etc. To see his full bio and his books, visit www.tomiahonen.com Tomi Ahonen lectures at Oxford University's short courses on next generation mobile and digital convergence. Follow him on Twitter as @tomiahonen. Tomi also has a Facebook and Linked In page under his own name. He is available for consulting, speaking engagements and as expert witness, please write to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

  • Pearls Vol 1: Mobile Advertising
    Tomi's first eBook is 171 pages with 50 case studies of real cases of mobile advertising and marketing in 19 countries on four continents. See this link for the only place where you can order the eBook for download

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

  • Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009
    A comprehensive statistical review of the total mobile industry, in 171 pages, has 70 tables and charts, and fits on your smartphone to carry in your pocket every day.

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati