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

« Revisiting Best Big Data Case Study: We Have New Details about Narwhal vs Orca Case Study (of US Elections 2012 and world's largest Big Data project for which there is performance data) (Updated) | Main | The Trump Scenarios: Trojan Horse? Wrecking Ball? Cahoots with Cruz? Wily as a Fox Or Just Plain Old Bigoted Racist? Thoughts on Trump in the Primaries and into General Election »

December 16, 2015


Stephen Reed

I believe Trump is right when he says that if he wins in Iowa, then he wins every single subsequent primary. I would say that Trump may win Iowa if he can get his many rally attendees to go to the caucus.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Stephen

That is increasingly likely. And Trump might lose Iowa (I think more likely that Cruz takes it) but then could go on a nearly unbeaten streak in subsequent states and end up the clear nominee with far more than 50% of the delegates. Again, I still rate Cruz with the easiest path to most delegates but yes, if as you say, Trump is able to turn the enthusiasm at his rallies (and polling support) into actual delegates, he is clearly now the front-runner and he 'should' be able to then also get the most delegates. He'd go on to lose disastrously in the general election against Hillary, though, but thats another race...

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Stephen Reed

In the general election, Trump would brutally attack Clinton.

For example, I would not be surprised if she escapes felony indictment due to a pardon from Obama.. Trump could set the stage by daring Obama to pardon Hillary, thus ruining Obama's legacy and setting free a woman Obama personally dislikes.

In the general election, Trump is already testing the kill shot "Hillary is a person who doesn't have the strength or the stamina, in my opinion, to be president." Trump is noted for his vigor, devotion to work, and ability to get things done.

Another kill shot would be to attack Hillary's sobriety. She is a well known drinker - the the extent that her character on the popular US comedy show "Saturday Night Live" is a drunk. Trump is a non drinker, and as mentioned above is noted for his vigor.

Trump may do better with African Americans than did Romney, and certainly do better with the very large voting block of non-college educated white men. I played with the electoral vote simulator at Five Thirty Eight, and a modest increase in this block's turnout for Trump leads to an electoral vote landslide. For example, an increase of 8% turnout (62% --> 70%) results in Trump winning 312 electoral votes.

Play with:


@Stephen Reed
Meanwhile Trump will have insulted almost any group of voters beyond the Tea Party. So voters might team up to defeat him. That just happened in France with the Front National.

Steven epstein

Truman was short.
Surprised Dewey.


@Stephen Reed
Trump also has his weaknesses. People are starting to get him on it:

Trevor Noah wants to prove that Donald Trump wants to bang his daughter

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Stephen and Winter

Stephen - I agree in the general election Trump would 'brutally' attack Hillary yes. Totally in his character and he'd use every avenue available. Several things would be different in that line of attack next year in the general election. First off, the love of putting Trump on every TV show will have worn off much of its novelty and Hillary's campaign would demand equal time. The totally lopsided media coverage would end if its only two people competing and both would have plenty to say on anything. Hillary would not let anythign silly said by Trump go unanswered. She'd have a Trump Response specialist doing nothing but reading his Tweets and watching coverage of all of his speeches to spot anything new ridiculous he'd said. Meanwhile this 'gateway drug' phenomenon of Trump having to increase the dosage of his vitriol by every cycle will have run ten more cycles so for Trump to get the same reaction as banning all Muslims now, he will have to suggest you have to boil and fry babies of incoming aliens, by September of next year, just to get that attention he so craves.

But on Trump's attacks on Hillary. She's a known quantity and all the attacks have already come time and again. She's the most known candidate to run in decades. There isn't material to attack that is new. It doesn't mean Trump won't attack her, but only that the attacks will be less effective than they have now been on rival candidates who were far less known to voters than Trump himself was in the early season of this election cycle.

You point out some obvious lines of attack Trump will try. First on the criminal indictment. That will never come, if you seriously believe in that, you have been following too much right wing media. Its the same media that was convinced Benghazi would sink her. If you seriously believe there will be a criminal indictment for Hillary, I know you are too far in that delusion, so good luck with that. We'll be back here when you get over that dream and we can discuss the reality of the election. I will be here. I always deal with the reality, not the fantasy. Not with Nokia, not with Apple, not with Samsung, not Microsoft, not with Hillary or Trump.

On Hillary's drinking, you gotta be kidding. That from a man who is in his third marriage and whose companies have had four bankruptcies. Who has lost an election about drinking since the Second World War? Alcohol consumption was last a political issue with prohibition. Americans have recently forgiven Presidential candidates for smoking POT (when it was still illegal) on BOTH sides of the aisle, Bush 2 and Obama, and it didn't move the needle. If you believe alcohol consumption is Hillary's Achilles's Heel, its even more absurd than the hope of a criminal indictment.

But as almost all Americans consume alcohol, remembering beer and wine are alcohol, then if Trump were to use alcohol consumption as a reason he thinks Hillary is not qualified, then Trump would by implication accuse the vast majority of Americans of their habits, and alienate EVEN MORE voters. Something Hillary would instantly hit back on. Might it play with some small rural towns and very religious voters, maybe. Would they vote for Hillary? No. But it would instantly set Trump up for ridicule about wanting to ban alcohol consumption next. He'd only alienate voters with that tactic but good luck with it haha. If I was Hillary's campaign manager, I'd love that attack.

Doing better with black voters than Romney. Yes, thats possible and even likely. Not because Trump is liked by blacks but because Hillary is not a black. The black vote obviously surged for the first President who was black. But we dont' need to speculate on your wild assumption playing with 538 blog's model. We have NUMBERS on this. Quinnipiac poll just a few weeks ago tested Hispanic and Black vote between Trump and Hillary. In 2012 Romney only got 6% of the Black vote against Obama. Trump manages to improve on that by.. one point. He would get 7% of the black vote. But the Hispanics (in very rough terms a similar size of voter block) Romney got 27% against Obama. Trump now against Hillary only gets 14%. The damage from 'Mexicans are rapists and murderers' and subsequent racists language is so bad, that even yes, if Trump manages one POINT better with blacks than the rival to the first-ever black President, Trump loses 13 points on the similar size (actually slightly larger) voter block of Hispanics. Its a lost cause. The Hispanic gap is so enormous that Trump cannot win the election. Thats before we look at the GENDER gap which has also been tested and Trump has the WORST gender gap of any Republican nominee. He can't win against Hillary.

Thats before we look at how vulnerable Trump is in the general election against Hillary. Lets start with the bankruptcies. The current field has not used this line of attack. Hillary will pillary Trump on his business past, how cruel he's been, breaking his word, abandoning sinking ships, leaving creditors with nothing while Trump profits. This is the same line of attack that was powerful against Romney but now it comes with added power as it looks like a 'character trait' of all Republicans making the accusation far easier to make and far more damaging when it is launched. And note, Trump's current high unfavorability is before this attack has been struck on him.

All the sound-bites that Trump has made about the Black Lives Matter guy 'deserved to be roughed up' and 'McCain is no war hero' and Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle, added with all the various Republican rivals to Trump like Fiorina attacking him with 'all women heard what Trump meant' and 'Margaret Thatcher said that if you want a lot said, send a man, if you want things done, send a woman' etc etc etc. Each of Trump's rivals has something nasty to say about Trump while the Democratic field is not saying similarly nasty things about Hillary. Oh, and the violence stuff? Hillary's SuperPAC has already now started to run an anti-Trump TV ad about the violence against the Black Lives Matter protesters. Just like how Obama did in 2012 - remember its many of the same campaign team now for Hillary - they hit Romney early while he was still in his primary fight, to define his impression to the general public. This works remarkably well with Independents who don't pay much attention to the primaries and only start to pay attention after the Conventions. Hillary is a known quantity and cannot be redefined. Most of the ugly side of Trump are not known to the general public. They will be by the time the conventions start.

Obama did relatively poorly with the labor vote, some less-educated white voters deserted the party in 2008 and 2012 and voted for the Republicans instead. Hillary has been picking up a ton of labor endorsements already and was by far their preferred candidate when she ran against Obama in 2008. Now look at Trump. The Las Vegas Trump Casino has just had a vote where its workers decided to unionize. And what does Trump management do, they try to overturn that vote. All this is ammunition that only helps Hillary and hurts Trump. Those voters in the middle, Independent voters, are far more friendly to labor and they don't like union-busting.

Then whats with Trump's creepyness. He'd want to sleep with his daughter? You talk about Hillary drinking, seriously, SERIOUSLY? Trump regularly drools about his own daughter. That is another nasty attack ad waiting to happen. Hillary who remained married to Bill after all those years and Trump who switches to a younger trophy wife ever decade.

Then the POSITIVE things that Trump has said about Bill and Hillary. This is DEVASTATING. When Trump does lauch attack ads against Hillary, she will accuse him of politically motivated flip-flops. Hillary as 'the worst Secretary of State ever' but contemporaneously Trump said she was doing a great job. Trump called Bill the best President in recent years, not either of the Bushes (this from a supposed 'Republican' and he said it this Spring yes in 2015 not in 1998). Then that Politifact statistic - that where despised Dick Cheney lied only 60% of the time, Trump lies 76% of the time. And a quarter of Trump's claims are so egregious they are 'pants on fire' lies. Where both are going to be thought of as untrustworthy it will be like comparing a girl scout to Goebbels. Oh, which brings the Nazism and Fascism.

Never in recent political history (I am too young to remember Goldwater's campaign) have rivals of his OWN party acccused a fellow Republican of being a fascist. Oh, this will play really well with Independents, one Republican after another calling Trump a fascist. He is so so SOOOOOO vulnerable to a serious, concentrated barrage of attack adds. And they will come from the richest campaign ever seen. And all those attacks will be designed to paint ALL Republicans as nasty as Trump, just like that SuperPAC ad now about Trump and the violence against the BLM protesters and Trump saying they should be roughed up. That ad ends... with the point that this is the modern Republican party (which it obviously isn't but the Tea Party wing IS and that wing is now making all the noise and similar views to Trump's are accepted as mainstream with many candidates saying the same).

But I agree with you Stephen. The 2016 campaign will be nasty and the negative ads will be fierce. Partly because whoever it is on the Republican side, they will be so badly in a hole that they do have to attack Hillary. And she will have all the ammunition to hit back at whoever it is (Cruz, Trump, Rubio or whoever else) and this year's primary fight on the Republican side will be the most damaging ever seen because of the large field of well-funded candiates, combined with 24 hour news and social media and smartphone cameras. Everything said - such as Ted Cruz saying nasty things about Trump behind his back - will be exposed and repeated. So Hillary has the meek Bernie Sanders to deal with. He will be gone by March. Trump or Cruz or Rubio cannot win before June and will be bitterly bruised with a nasty divided party heading into the convention where it may very well be, that the fight still continues, further alienating key constituents of the party. As many Republicans have already said, if Trump is on the ticket they will vote for Hillary or they will 'sleep late' on election day. Trump will face an epic campaign loss and he will be compared to Mondale who lost 49 of 50 states against Reagan in 1984.

But it will be entertaining to watch. And Cruz would not do much better than Trump. Those two are the front-runners to win the nomination..

(more replies coming)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Wayne Borean

Trump is very likely to win the nomination in my opinion. Based on current polling, and his uncanny ability to come up smelling like roses, I can't see Cruz taking Trump down. Cruz has the ego needed, but not the skills.

Stephen Reed has a point or sorts. If you play with the numbers the way he did, yes, Trump can win. But that's laying with the numbers. When you have a dozen ways that Trump looses, and only one way that he wins, odds are that he looses.

Personally, based on the polling, and my own research (I have a lot of American friends), I'm pretty sure that Hillary will take the election, whether she is against Trump or Cruz. Both are too fringe to attract a lot of Independent voters.

As an aside, I started a fire storm a while back. A rather religious person I know is a fire breathing Republican. We had a discussion about Christ, and his actions, and I told him that no Christian could support the Republican Party because the party is against Christian principles. He's not talking t me any more :)


Trump is now endorsed by Putin

Putin says Trump is ‘absolute leader’ in U.S. presidential race

Wayne Borean

More interesting reflections on the Debate

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Winter and Stephen

Winter on Americans uniting against Trump like the French did against Le Pen. Fair point but actually there is no 'need' for the nation to unite, because the US is already/still a two-party system so that unification happens naturally. Which is why in the past any extreme whether fascist right-wing or communist left-wing has not succeeded. Because the US has remained a two-party system the only way to win was to be acceptable to the middle. This has pretty well guaranteed that the two parties never stray too far from the middle ie 'moderate' voters. Whenever they attempt that, they get beaten badly such as most recently Walter Mondale-led socialist-surge in 1984 and previously the Barry Goldwater-led fascist-surge of 1964. The party that attempts that invariably lose and lose massively at all levels of the given election, often thrown out of ruling for years, decades even at the lower government levels. Republicans have by now forgotten the disaster of 1964 because obviously all those who were of voting age at that time are in their 70s in age or above and the younger people don't bother to listen to those who are already past retirement age haha.. So its about the 'right time' for Republicans to attempt this fool's errand and good luck with that. They need to re-learn that lesson now, as part of the process of ridding the Tea Party sickness. The Republicans will not stop being the silly party of extreme views until they get beaten totally in a general election. Mondale lost 49 of 50 states, Goldwater managed to win 6 states losing 44.

So yeah, the USA will need to have a serious national 'coming together' about Trump but their political system, for all its faults and archaic ways, does have that part built-in. It already does that, what the French system does, with the final two facing off against each other. The USA has been that way for a long while. And most conservative political election experts (not pundits who rave on TV shows but their election analyst number-cruncher specialists) agree that Trump would be a catastrophy for the general election where Republicans would not just lose the Presidency but would lose the Senate and risk losing the House as well. So at a minimum, with the gerrymandering worth seven points, even conservative election analysis specialists seem to think Trump would lose to Hillary by something around 7 points or more. Obama's first election was called a 'landslide' of exceptionally strong victory. It was 7 points over McCain and the Democrats also picked up a filibuster-proof Senate and increased their lead in the House seats.

My calculation at this point in very rough terms is that Trump would lose by 20 points, 60-40 for Hillary, which in terms of states, means Trump would carry something similar to Goldwater's loss, only extremely conservative states like Kansas, Alabama and Utah. Half a dozen of those and Hillary would almost run the table flipping for example Texas which would be catastrophic to the Republicans all by itself dooming their future chances for decades because Texas has a large growing Hispanic population plus significant black and native Indian populations. Texas is the second largest state by electoral votes, after California and ahead of New York, both of which are safely 'blue' states ie they vote for Democrats.

If Texas becomes a battleground state - and if Hillary wins Texas in 2016 it instantly becomes one for coming years ie 2020 and 2024 - then Republicans will face each Presidential election with a knife on their necks. They have to fight feverishly just to defend Texas because if they lose Texas, then winning Florida, Ohio AND Virginia will be pointless, they lose anyway. If Cruz is on the ticket, him being a Texan, its rather safe to say Texas stays red in 2016. But if Trump is on the Ticket Texas will flip. If Rubio is on the top of the ticket, Texas would be 'in play' and could go either way, but more likely will be kept by narrow margin by the Republicans.

Note that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been working to turn Texas 'purple' ie into a battleground state for years. Both are very well loved and known in Texas visiting the Democrats there quite regularly. Obama lent some of his operation to try to help Texas Democrats especially in the mid-terms of 2014 (while they lost badly, as the whole election was a very low-turnout election where Democrats always struggle). Incidentially any of the moderate candidates on the top of the ticket, like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich etc would mean that Texas will not be in play this year, because a moderate Republican would have far better chances in 'normal' battleground states like Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire; as well as 'the three' key battleground states of Ohio, Virginia and Florida (if either party gets two of those three, that party almost always wins the whole election too, the math is so explicit on those three states. Obama won all three both times).

Stephen - haha true about Truman shorter than Dewey. I was referring to the modern times when voters SEE the two candidates side-by-side, ie the time of modern TV debates. Back in Truman's time it was newspapers and radio that were the media where you couldn't see the height of the contender... But good catch haha. I love that picture of Truman holding newspaper with headline 'Dewey wins' when that newspaper obviously called the election wrong.. Just a total classic in mistaken news coverage (and bad polling).

Winter - good point. And that - Trump's creepy expressions about his daughter - is yet another Trump weakness that his current rivals have not seized upon. It would seem like a very strong argument by any religious types like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, to make an overall blanket accusation about Trump's corrupted morals and dubious character, from his three marriages to his appalling comments about going to church and eating the cookie to yes, wanting to sleep with his own daugther? But the Republicans have kept silent about it. Now.. Would this be a good tactic by Hillary to attack Trump? No, because it also would raise the issues about her own marriage and unfaitful husband. But... who is the Father of the nation, with two DAUGHTERS? Who loves to make jokes about the rivals. This is a natural for OBAMA to use, as one of Hillary's many surrogates, to poke fun at Trump and saying he, Obama, can't as a father imagine such emotions and that he - Obama - finds it creepy. Then... haha... of course Michelle Obama would be asked about that and she also - true to Hillary's re-election campaign - would chime in as the First Mom, that gosh, if her husband ever said that, she'd slap him on the head so hard it would still ring next October...

The current Republican field is not seriously challenging Trump. This is not normal, in past elections the close front-runners always challenge the front-runner but both Ben Carson and Ted Cruz have that weird non-aggression pact with Trump. Its Survivor Island, its an 'alliance' and obviously in a field of 17 candidates it has worked well, as Trump, Cruz and Carson are ranked 1, 2 and 4 in the national polling and right now, number 3, Rubio is under the biggest attacks he's yet seen. He may not hold that ranking too long as Cruz seems to be the one in ascendancy. But to Trump, this is an abnormal election cycle. It HELPS him win the nomination but makes him FAR MORE vulnerable in the general election and the system 'fails' in discovering the weaknesses of the party's nominee.

But it means its most likely that either Trump or Cruz will be the nominee for the Republicans and this is good for America, because either would lose catastrphically and that loss, in turn (ie Mondale/Goldwater) will help cure the party of the extremist nonsense and return the party back to the moderate sensible positions on anything from climate change to minimum wage to Obamacare (and eventually, even abortion and gun control the most dear positions of the extreme that will be hardest to overcome).

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

To all in the thread..

Mike Huckabee cutting salaries for his staff.. His campaign is in desperate straights and may soon fold. I would expect George Pataki also to soon quit. Rick Santorum will soldier on hoping for his miracle in Iowa (which will never come, and he will quit soon after Iowa) and Lindsay Graham hopes that his warmongering can catch fire with the ISIS threat, so Graham is likely to try to hang onto his humiliating loss back home when South Carolina votes third, in February). But Huckabee... one that I saw early on as one of the stronger candidates and campaigns as a dark horse surpriser for 2016... is totally on the ropes.

Tomi Ahonen :-)


Who needs terror threats when homework assignments will do just fine?

All schools shut down in a Virginia county over Islam homework assignment

The US often claim to be special. But I assume this is not the way they mean it.


This is an example of leadership. We could have used more of it the last 7 years. Both sides gave a concession on an issue important to the other side and reached a deal to avoid a crisis.


@Winter, LA closed down their entire school system for a day over a hoax. The schools in NYC were smarter than that.

Anyway, that "assignment" clearly crossed the line. If it had said "Merry Christmas" the left would have been screaming.


"This is an example of leadership."

Leadership? Much more like leading Kindergarten:

From the piece:
"In their call on Monday, Ryan told his counterpart that he had “to defend having dinner with you.” She said, “Tell them you tried to poison me, but I had the antidote,” according to a Democratic aide."

This is so childish. But I agree that it it is progress

"Anyway, that "assignment" clearly crossed the line."

Closing down the schools over this assignment is STUPID. People who consider writing down some text from a different religion as part of a lesson on religions "crossing the line" are fundamentalist bigots.

It just screams that these people hate the "freedom of Religion" part of the constitution of the USA.


Should I laugh or cry?

Poll: 30% of GOP voters support bombing Agrabah, the city from Aladdin


Kasich Parody Website Announces Putin as Trump’s Running Mate

Besides jabbing at the chummy relationship between Trump and Putin, Kasich’s campaign re-wrote the current Trump campaign slogan as “Make Tyranny Great Again!”

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi everybody

So we now have 4 national polls out after the debate (PPP. Fox, Quinnipiac and CNN/Orc). And we can do the comparison of the polling of only the new results vs the last polls just before the debate. It looks like this:

Trump was 33.0% now 35.0% up 2.0 points (6% gain)
Cruz was 16.1% now 19.5% up 3.4 points (21% gain)
Rubio was 12.6% now 11.5% down 1.1 points (9% loss)
Carson was 12.0% now 8.8% down 3.3 points (27% loss)
Christie was 2.9% now 4.8% up 1.9 points (64% gain)
Bush was 4.0% now 4.3% up 0.3 points (6% gain)
Paul was 2.1% now 2.8% up 0.7 points (31% gain)
Fiorina was 2.3% now 2.5% up 0.2 points (9% gain)
Huckabee was 2.0% now 2.0% flat (no change)
Kasich was 2.3% now 1.8% down 0.6% (24% loss)

Note the hopeless candidates + undecided vote went down from 10.7% before debate to 7.2% now (3.5% of voters either found their candidate or abandoned a loser and is with the above)

So what do we learn? Carson is bleeding support that Ted Cruz is clearly picking up. Christie had a good debate and has moved into fifth ranking ahead of Jeb who is now down to sixth in national polling (even as he had a slight gain too). Rand Paul is showing signs of life. Marco Rubio is stumbling a bit. Trump keeps climbing but now its mild growth at these levels. Kasich's style is not going over well with the electorate.

Also there was a preliminary count on Politico of who would make the adult table debate for the next debate, if these levels hold now. They have only six to make it - Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie and Jeb. The others including Fiorina and Rand Paul would be tossed to the kids' table debate. I think a debate with only six candidates would be/should be an improvement in what can be done in that format and hope it won't be another one with nine candidates.. Of course Dr Carson will not add to any debate but he is gradually fading away and maybe by February we won't have to waste time watching him participate in at least the adult table debate haha.

Ok, I know some of you wanted the debate 'results' so there you go.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

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