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


Blog powered by Typepad

« Smartphone Bloodbath Q3 full results Top 10 brands, OS platforms and installed base (corrected - and updated) | Main | Handset Market and Installed Base in 2014: The Total Handset Picture by Communities Dominate Blog »

December 05, 2014



@Baron95, I think what is more likely is that Apple will introduce an iPad Pro with a more robust iOS, rather than try to add touch capabilities to OS X. The two development teams until recently were separate, and if Apple attempted to add touch to OS X it would be about as successful as Windows 8.0.

I agree that Microsoft is ahead of both Apple and Google at creating a converged OS, but am not yet convinced of how desirable that is. Most people I know with touchscreen laptops are more annoyed with the touchscreen than anything else (notebooks aren't really designed to be used with touch input). A "convertible" that switches from iOS/Android to OS X/Chromebook depending on whether it is in tablet or notebook mode might be more compelling.

abdul muis

Microsoft is ahead from apple/google is just from the quantity of the source code they ever produce, but NOT in quality. Microsoft product is bloated, buggy, and have lots of hole like a Swiss cheese.

baron99 stirred up the astroturfers ...with the all too common refrain that sounds like ....please, please, please, just wait and wait and wait will get it right. They always do... Really they will get it right ...really, really, they will! Believe me I am smart I know they will, just don't look at the statistics or sales. You'll see! really, really, really :-)

Unbelievable and just truly pathetic stuff that drones on and on ...anyone know how many years and years and years we have been hearing this nonsense. Tomi should give a prize to the one that get the time frame right.

Guess what? It is still true going into 2015



Windows 8 didn't tank because of touch capabilities. It tanked because it deliberately overemphasized them over their desktop features without giving their core customers any incentive to upgrade. The worst issue was the Frankensteinian nature of the OS where the two modes were completely separate. What they should have done is adding proper touch support to the existin Win32 API and then build Metro on top of that instead of implementing a secondary and completely incompatible framework that only managed to piss people off. By doing so they lost years of development in the futile hope to push themselves into other markets.

@abdul muis:
What I don't get is that some people try to look Microsoft worse than they actually are. I'll happily agree that they made a huge mistake with Windows 8 but not everything they do is shit. And with a new CEO I'm confident that Ballmer's attitude of screwing customers to protect the monopoly will end.

Troll is as troll does, right?
Don't ever think that Microsoft are that dense. There are intelligent people working at that company who know how to do stuff. If they fix their mistakes (mostly Ballmer's, actually, who no longer calls the shots) they may become successful in other areas again. But for mobile I agree it's to late, but not because Windows Phone cannot be fixed but because the market has already been taken by other competitors that can't be squeezed out anymore.
The big and fatal mistake was that Windows Phone was everthing Windows was not - and that's also the main reason why the Metro interface is mostly ignored by desktop users. We rather prefer to install classic desktop apps instead of using this half baked stuff.

abdul muis


"What I don't get is that some people try to look Microsoft worse than they actually are. I'll happily agree that they made a huge mistake with Windows 8 but not everything they do is shit. And with a new CEO I'm confident that Ballmer's attitude of screwing customers to protect the monopoly will end."

I don't mean to make Microsoft look worse than they actually are. I was 'confuse' on why Microsoft under Steve Balmer were so screw up. They have lots of man power & skill & experience in the OS, but they did not deliver something that majority want. Not to mention that their Desktop OS (Win 9x era, XP era, Vista era) were buggy and have back door.


@abdul muis:

Let's first talk Windows 8:

You have to understand Ballmer. His prime goal was not to put out good products but to preserve the monopoly they had. He also made the mistake of underestimating the customers, thinking they'd swallow wholesale what he serves.

Only if you accept these two things, Windows 8 starts to make sense. The entire system was desgined to do one thing only: Make people get used to Metro. They sacrificed a lot just to achieve this simple goal, they also ignored every sort of criticism that would have meant deviating from that path.

The only problem was: The customers did not react like Ballmer expected. They did what their testers did: Unload a shitload of criticism and complaints that sank the entire project. Worse, they damaged it that much that even the touch-only platforms suffered.

About older OSs:

It's easy to say from hindsight that their OSs were buggy. We should never forget what task Microsoft had to achieve in the time ranging from 1995 to 2007:

- migrate from 16 bit to 32 bit
- adjust the aging Windows code base to more modern standards of security.
- keep things compatible enough so that complete reprogramming of software can be handled through normal development cycles (i.e. do not force programmers to rewrite things from one version to the next, something highly popular at Apple.)

In order to achieve the first goal, going from 16 bit to 32 bit they needed 6 years and 3 intermediate versions of Windows to get it done. And by their very nature these versions were heavily compromised. But this was necessary, or they would have lost their customers. For those 6 years they NEEDED a 16 bit OS masquerading as a 32 bit OS, so that all the old (and often critical) software continued to work.

That's why, despite having a working 32 bit OS in 1995 they decided not to use that as the consumer operating system but the compromised version. It was clearly not to save work, had that been the motivation they'd just have released Windows NT 3.51. Of course that would have been a compatibility nightmare for a software world that still was 90% 16 bit.

Up to the next step, then: Windows XP.
Again, in hindsight it was insecure and had serious issues. But at the time this was developed there was no consciousness of internet security and things like that, they were just starting to get noticed. And even system programmers have to learn this stuff before being able to deal with it properly.
And a direct consequence of this learning it became apparent that security measures had to be implemented deeper into the OS - which was done with Vista, which featured a more secure driver model and some other security related features.
So, obviously the driver model was somewhat incompatible with XP, and this was the root cause for Vista's bad reputation. The average consumer cannot and will never understand these issues, he only sees that stuff stopped working.
Another major issue with Vista was that one of the more important security features - UAC - was very badly implemented, prompting many users to just disable it (and some even to disable it on later iterations of Windows where it actually does what it's supposed to be.)

When I got my first Vista machine in 2007 all the problems were already ironed out and that computer served me well for 5 years without ever catching a virus, showing a blue screen or having me to reinstall Windows even once - when it broke it was due to a defective HDD and I just decided that instead of getting it replaced, I'd just sell the remaining parts and buy something new with better hardware specs (and most importantly, fans that don't make such a noise.)

So, if you ask me, much of Windows's bad reputation comes from things Apple has notoriously been doing from version to version, only Apple could afford it with the economy as a whole not depending on their software. For most Microsoft users the worst thing to happen was that their 15 year old custom software ceases to work with the next version, and that's by far the worst premise to work on an operating system. Ideally you want the old cruft gone, but how do you do that if your customers would burn you if you did...?


@Baron95, what I think is interesting is that ads for the Surface Pro 3 and Lenovo Yoga compare themselves to the MacBook Air, not the iPad. By contrast, Android tablets compare themselves to the iPad. If convergence is 2-3 more processor generations from Intel away from becoming reality, then the challenge for Nokia or anyone selling an Android tablet is how to address this. A fancy skin on Android won't cut it. Apple, OTOH has an ace up its sleeve in that it designs its own processors. They don't need to wait for Qualcomm or NVidia to get their act together. They are on their 2nd generation AArch64 bit processor before the rest of the industry has gotten their first generation fully introduced. The triple-core A8x is pretty impressive, putting out numbers not dissimilar from Intel chips from the Core 2 era. All new apps will be 64-bit starting in February, and all updates will be 64-bit after June. That's not something Android can easily replicate because of the fragmentation. So if Apple is secretly readying an ARM-compatible version of OSX that can run on a future iPad, or a "supercharged" iOS that can legitimately power a desktop (albeit not s server) that could be another weapon in their arsenal, as it likely would already have a vast array of 64-bit applications compatible with it.


"A fancy skin on Android won't cut it."

Android has quite a lot in common wit Linux. Which too runs a full software stack on ARM. So I do not see your point.


And why would Android not be able to run on X86 or any other Intel procesdor.

abdul muis


"Most people failed to understand the herculean task of allowing an old DOS program to run on a modern Windows PC."

Herculean task???? There is a program called DOSBOX that run on Linux to run a dos program. That DOSBOX even run on symbian^3, symbian^5 and also android device.

"the failures of Windows NT Alpha and Windows Enterprise Itanium seem to indicate that backwards compatibility is very much valuable to customers."

The failure of itanium is because intel priced the processor too high, making it a niece CPU, not a mainstream.

"Clearly Google and Apple are ahead in SW for low powered devices, from phones to watches to glasses. Clearly Microsoft is ahead in PCs, Servers due to installed base and compatibility."

No, microsoft is NOT ahead in server. Linux is dominating the server installed based.

abdul muis


You were many times write that you have android tablet and you hate it. My question is why did you buy that tablet instead of microsoft or apple tablet? and which one?


@abdul muis:

"Herculean task???? There is a program called DOSBOX that run on Linux to run a dos program."

Sorry, but you can't view 1995 decisions from today's state of hardware.
Today DOS software is mostly irrelevant, that's why Windows has no native support for DOS anymore.

Back in 1995, on the other hand, fully functional DOS support was of paramount importance to manage the migration to a 32 bit OS. We are talking about decisions that led to the rise of Windows 95 here, DOSBOX doesn't even enter the picture, on machines from 20 years ago the entire concept of CPU emulation would have been s show-stopper from the start.
Think about it: DOS was so important back in the day that Microsoft had to wait for 6 years until they could risk releasing an NT-based OS as their mainstream product, and even then they faced a lot of criticism for abandoning compatibility with old software.

"The failure of itanium is because intel priced the processor too high, making it a niece CPU, not a mainstream."

The main failure was that this was an extremely complex CPU that reqiuired very specific optimizations to work well. Lack of compatibility both in design concept and object code also did not help. In short: Itanium didn't offer anything of value to the customer. It was correct that initially it was priced for the high end server market, but previous x86 iterations started the same way. It was designed to become mainstream eventually but the fact that AMD just two years later managed to construct an x86 compatible 64 bit CPU was the final nail in Itanium's coffin. Once that was out it didn't stand any chance in the market anymore. Why build on a product that requires a lot of work if you have an alternative that gives the same advantage with considerably less work and problems?


ALERT! - The Microsoft Astroturfers are trying to feed us nonsense again! In this case about why Vista failed. Here is why?

It is a very well written research paper. ...and the executive summary sets the tone.

I am still hearing the wait, wait ...wait nonsense in posts. Aren't you astroturfers embarrassed to say that after all these years and years and years and years and years and years? ..... But lately, I haven't heard the stupid Microsoft refrain that they are "all in" ....Yeah, "all in" to failing! You delusional astroturfers really need a life ...seriously!



Yes, sure, call everyone disagreeing with you an astroturfer sure makes you look smart. Grow up!

No, the reason why Vista was so badly received had nothing to do with content protection but everything with three things primarily:

1. the new driver model (whose main motivation was system robustness, not content protection.)
2. excessively high system demands
3. overzealous UAC implementation

Once 1. got ironed out (it took a few months, which shouldn't surprise anyone - it should also come as no surprise that the hardware manufacturers were clearly not thrilled by having to invest more work here!) most of the problems went away but the damage to Vista's reputation couldn't be salvaged anymore. But what about Windows 7 then? It got all the same 'issues' but became a huge success. So what gives?

The problem with that 'research paper' is not that it is false but that nearly everything it says was completely irrelevant for the average user and that it certainly misleads in some points because it concludes everything from the sole (and bogus) premise that all those changes were done for content protection alone. It has 'written by an activist with an axe to grind' stamped all over it.

Also let's not forget that these content protection 'features' were mandated by law, not just being implemented on a whim so you can hardly blame Microsoft for adding this stuff.


For those who want to listen to the astroturfers re-writing history please go along in your uninformed way.

For the rest of you, these issues about why the paper was written etc are handled in the back, so please read the Q+A section at the end.

Vista was (still is) a joke. A complex and extremely slow, buggy and unwieldy OS. It was basically Microsoft calling their customers crooks and trying to over control the usage of their OS to protect Hollywood content. They wanted to be the gateway into the home ....and how is that working out for you Microsoft astroturfers? ...are we still "waiting"? ...are they still "all in"? :-) Add this enormous complexity on top of an already crappy OS and get the disaster named "Vista" ....only a fool wouldn't think their reputation and past actions that burned millions of customers and developers effects buying decisions like buying the dead WP or writing apps for it. What you are seeing is that people and developers look to microsoft when there is NO choice. When there is a choice they run from microsoft as fast as they can. Therefore: NO ONE WANTS A WINDOWS PHONE!



You are pathetic if you denounce everybody who doesn't agree with your tripe as an astroturfer.

Unlike gullible sheep who fall for all bullshit they are fed with (both pro and contra any specific issue), intelligent people inform themselves and don't just post links to the propaganda that suits their agenda best, like you do.

Re. Vista:
No, it wasn't perfect but if you hang all the 'problems' on a peripheral issue that had no meaning and no impact for the average user, you just set yourself up for ridicule. BTW., all the things you criticise are present in Windows 7, Windows 8 and any upcoming Windows iteration.

And nothing of all this has anything to do with Windows Phone. Windows Phone failed for completely different reasons that have no correllation whatsoever with the shortcomings of one desktop OS iteration that already was old news when Windows Phone surfaced for the first time.


...only a FOOL ...OR an ASTROTURFER would try to SELL us the fairy tale that what microsoft did in the past would not effect WP. Suurreee has a stellar reputation, and never screws anyone who does business with them (like Nokia) and if we "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" and "wait" ..... (LoL), while they are "all in" everything will be just fine and dandy facts (the hall mark of an astroturfer) just pure nonsense based on biased talking point opinions with a touch of name calling. Ever notice how the astroturfer opinions that are always about how microsoft will win in the end. :-)

You want the facts and if you have ANY doubts about vista please read an excellent "factual" paper:

Unlike the non-sense biased astroturfer opinions found on this thread it is carefully done research and has withstood the test of time (please see the Q+A too). It is an excellent read.



Now that's just a classic post that admits defeat. Instead of posting some substance to back your claims you resort to insults and incorherent nonsense.


Read the paper ...there is all the "Vista substance" anyone would ever want. I don't want to repeat it. Go read it! It is a comprehensive and through analysis of Vista. But, then again, I have been assuming astroturfers can read, understand and interpret facts... or that facts matter to them.


@Earendil Star
You've posted the same link like what - six times? People here have replied to you saying that the article is wrong as it is based on a false assumption (and they've told their view on what would be better basis on why Vista failed)...
...agreeing on you that Vista was a failure...
...while asking a very valid question why those same reasons do not apply to Windows 7?

Do I see your response? No. I see more and more of the same link and order to read it. Did they not already? Did they not tell their view on it?

As it seems you only add provocation and irritation and no engagement to discussion or counterargumentation. Calling people astroturfers does not help, nor does troll-like behaviour. Surprise us and for a change answer with something that does NOT start with "Wow astros are really pissed now".

The comments to this entry are closed.

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 Helsinki 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 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