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

« Debate Review: Ted Cruz knocked this one out of the park | Main | Can We Now Finally Agree that Smart Watches Were a Dumb Idea? - This is Apple's Revenge on the Nerds »

January 15, 2016



Everyone knows NOT to believe anything microsoft says. Yeah! the surface is a "wonderful success" ..that's sarcasm BTW. ...and all we have to do is "wait for" another 3 years... but, but, but we have been waiting for many years already??? ...are we going to start doing the "tic, toc" thing now too?

IMHO, It sure looks like a lot of channel stuffing going on priot to christmas. Pathetic!

All you microsoft astroturfers, please prove to the readers of this blog just how big a success surface really is? ...and tell us how wonderful x-box is too, while you are at it. ...LoL!

Just face it. Windows is just bloated, buggy, slow, insecure virus-ridden CRAP! ...and only sells because of microsofts current but eroding monopoly. Their consumer products in a competitive environment just fail over and over and over and over... This leads to the only conclusion: No one buys microsoft unless they are forced.

All you microsoft astroturfers now take your thumb out of your ass and yell: NO ONE WANTS WINDOWS ON A PHONE! ....LoL!!!!!


Here we go again with the microsoft TOTAL NONSENSE "market share" talking points used as an excuse for the fact that windows is just bloated, buggy, slow, INSECURE VIRUS-RIDDEN CRAP! Windows only sells because of microsofts current, but eroding, monopoly.

Another non-sense microsoft talking point is that users can be stupid enough to corrupt any system. AND that is suppose to tell us what???'s an excuse microsoft for building insecure virus ridden crap! You can build the safest system in the world, such as an airplane, but someone can still fly it into a mountain! As a user I can put windows and linux machines next to each other and destroy both of them with a hammer, what!

The inference of the non-sense "market share" excuse is that linux would be just as bad as microsoft if it had a larger desktop market share. What total garbage!

Decades of experience has shown this bogus market share statement to be TOTALLY FALSE. In spite of that, this market share stupidity gets regularly regurgitated by the uninformed and/or astroturfers. This a lot of discussion debunking this microsoft talking point on the web. For a good example please read:

"In the past, it has been suggested that Linux had so little malware because its low market share made it a less profitable target. Rick Moen, an experienced Linux system administrator, counters that:

[That argument] ignores Unix's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment and instantly earn lasting fame, and yet it doesn't happen.[3]"

In addition:

"Some Linux users do run Linux-based anti-virus software to scan insecure documents and email which comes from or is going to Windows users. SecurityFocus's Scott Granneman stated:

...some Linux machines definitely need anti-virus software. Samba or NFS servers, for instance, may store documents in undocumented, vulnerable Microsoft formats, such as Word and Excel, that contain and propagate viruses. Linux mail servers should run AV software in order to neutralize viruses before they show up in the mailboxes of Outlook and Outlook Express users.[1]"

Imagine that! you get the irony of Linux protecting windows? The lesson is without Linux, windows would be an even bigger pile of insecure virus-ridden crap ...too funny.

All you microsoft astroturfers now stop taking stupid pills and yell: NO ONE WANTS WINDOWS ON A PHONE! ....LoL!!!!!


@Wayne.. ...I mostly agree with your observations, but I find you are not asking the right questions and come across as a microsoft apologist (also, the "wait for" non-sense is typical of astroturfers too - are you a more subtle and possibly gentler baron95 in disguise???? LoL!)

Consider trajectory! The key question is WHY is microsoft in DECLINE as others are rising?

The answer is simple. microsoft is now and has always been an abusive monopolist first. They are monopoly brain dead and can't innovate! It shows over and over again in their exceedingly shallow strategy and awful products and monopolist tactics. Notice they are always late to market with crap and astroturf the hell out of said crap! ....just research the progression of WP discussions on Tomi's blog! Developers laugh at microsoft any more.

All microsoft could think about for the last few decades is how to tie everything to their desktop monopoly and squeeze all the money out of their partners and customers without providing any real or increased value. They have breed enormous resentment within the business community and their customers!

The truly unfortunate technical situation for them (but expected of an abusive monopolist) because of their feeling of invincibility they believe their own astroturfing and haven't seriously invested in windows. NOW windows has evolved into severely bloated, extremely buggy, unbelievably slow, highly insecure virus-ridden OS!

THE REALITY is that NO ONE wants that utter windows crap on their equipment any more ...unless forced! They are out of the game except for the desktop! ...and I suspect they will loose that soon too.

We have lots of experience with microsoft's frequent attempts at consumer products in a competitive environment and they just fail and fail and fail over and over and over and over... Please show us the proof that surface is so wonderful now! ...OR it is just more of the same astroturfing... LoL!!!!

The ultimate battle is between Google and Apple. microsoft acts just like a lazy, stupid (brain dead) drunk with money that hasn't realized the party is over.

All you microsoft astroturfers, now stop and take your heads out of your ass and yell: NO ONE WANTS WINDOWS ON A PHONE! ....LoL!!!!!


@Wayne Brady
"Msft has t he most complete answer by far for desktop plus tablet. It's still in it's infancy...but has seen quite a come back from a disastrous opening."

For the longest time I believed in convergence: One OS/UI to rule desktop, laptop, tablet, phone (smartwatch?). Or, better, a smartphone as a universal pluggable computer.

This morning I listened to the Linux Luddites podcast #69 (predictions section).

There it was argued that this convergence is irrelevant. Neither the OS nor the User Interface will matter. Instead, there will be cloud services like email, office and other (productivity) software that will run on anything that might be at hand, if necessary with local data (on your phone). That would be an extention of the offerings of the big three now.

Note that Google, Apple, and MS all three offer laptops, tablets, and phones that are integrated into their services. The idea of all three seems to be to have an escape if the others exclude them from one of the hardware categories.

I think MS is weakest here. They deliver the "default" office suit, but are very weak on tablets and phones and have an aweful reputation on desk/laptops. Google is weak in laptops, but the chromebooks have the potential to break a boycott (or dirty tricks) by MS.

Apple, again, have locked themselves into the high price segment.

The war is far from over.


PS, the mobile phone will be the universal key to the online services delivered on all platforms. Google and Yahoo are already preparing tests along these lines.


And, as was predicted, feature phones will run Android.

Is Android the Future of Feature Phones?,2817,2498017,00.asp

The $270 Kyocera Dura XE for AT&T looks and works just like flip phones have done for 15 years or so. It flips open, has relatively fixed functions, and no app store. But under the hood there's a strange amount of power for an easy-to-use flip phone: a Snapdragon 210 processor, 1GB of RAM...and Android.


I have my reservations about the cloud! The industry is always being subject to a constant stream of technology hype. Many are echoing the cloud hype without fully understanding where the adoption of cloud and many new technologies will lead. Economics is the problem, IMHO. And without a doubt, economics is the most powerful incubator and driver for technology.

Look deeper into cloud computing, where the concept of savings due to scale is routinely pointed out. Yet the justification, economics, long term viability and even the practicality in some usage scenarios, of using cloud computing have yet to be proven. Cloud like all new approaches must consider the changing economics of computing and explicitly consider the growing need for power efficiency, manageable complexity, always-on reliability and reduced software licensing costs (among other concerns). I just want to follow the money and I don't see economic transparency in cloud solutions...and hand waving from Amazon is not understanding. So far this looks a lot like IBM TSO from the 70s.


How an abusive monopolist sows the seeds of resentment bit by bit.

Remember NO ONE WANTS WINDOWS ON A PHONE ....hmmmm could it be that forcing users to use crap and reputation play a big part :-)


I was responding to a series of statements by you, while kind of true, show a bit of a misunderstanding of what assembler, cross compiling and portability means.

> In simple terms, in early days, application programners were likely to use X86 assembler to "optimize" code. All these optimizations must be ported "by hand" when cross compiling to ARM.

> Programs with inline assembler code are not fully portable to other hardware platforms. If you are designing for portability, avoid using inline assembler.

> You cannot cross-compile assembler, you have to translate it "by hand", i.e., programmers have to think how to perform what was done on one architecture on the other architecture.

Firstly, x86 assembly/object code must be ported if you want to run it on ARM, either by hand or through automated binary translation like FX!32. But that has nothing to with cross compiling. You have to do that no matter whether you are cross compiling or not.

Secondly, assembly code is by its nature always unportable, no matter whether it is inline assembler or not. Also one can write unportable non-assembly code. And only Microsoft forbids the inline assembler on x64 and ARM. Others (GCC, LLVM, ...) don't have a problem with that.

Thirdly, assembly code is not compiled. Not cross-compiled. Not (natively) compiled. It is *assembled* into object code.

@Wayne Brady
I think the iPad Pro was never designed as a fully functioning laptop replacement. It is instead a receptable for the new iOS enterprise apps.


"Secondly, assembly code is by its nature always unportable, no matter whether it is inline assembler or not. Also one can write unportable non-assembly code. And only Microsoft forbids the inline assembler on x64 and ARM. Others (GCC, LLVM, ...) don't have a problem with that."

I seem to have utterly failed in communicating my central argument: Code written to MS win32 api, both inside MS itselves and outside, is so riddled with inline assembly that porting it to other architectures is only seldom worthwhile.

Nothing you wrote argues against this central point.

For the rest, it might not come as a surprise by now that I do know how (cross-)compilers, assemblers, and CPUs work. And this is all irrelevant to this point.

MS made bad coding choices and cut corners to get to market early. Those producing programs for Windows followed suit.

These choices and decades of running on only a single CPU platform have resulted in code that make porting to another CPU an expensive challenge. To break this bad coding habit, MS have removed this option from its "modern" tools.

The initial question was why is the win32 api is not supported by MS on ARM? My answer is that porting would only rarely be worth the effort. MS do not want the headache of keeping win32 alive on ARM.

Among all the complaints that I do not "understand" the technology because I somehow do not use the correct words and phrases, there was not a single refutation of the above.


"I have my reservations about the cloud"

Ask a youngster to see her phone. What is on it? Pictures, movies and communication history, email (do they still use that?), twitter, facebook, whatsap, etc.

What are the odds all of it is backed up to online servers? High.

This will cover 90% and more of smartphone userrs in the West.

And now try to find a spreadsheet file. So much for "productivity tools".


Here are statistics on cloud use in the EU:
82% of cloud users save or share photos online, 54% save or share text documents,
spreadsheets or electronic presentations. Only 11% of cloud users pay for the service they are
using. The main reason for using the cloud was because of ease of access to files from several
devices or locations.

I am amazed that 54% actually save or share "office" documents.


@Wayne Brady
Tim Cook's words that people don't need laptops any more are just marketing statements. If he actually believed what he said, Apple would have a very different product portfolio now.

While the larger screen, stylus and keyboard are not strictly required for the enterprise apps, they can definitely increase efficiency in using them.

Ok, I'll stop nitpicking.

What remains is that there is no technical hurdle against Win32 on other platforms. Microsoft supported at least seven (x86, Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, x64, ARM) with their Win32 operating systems. ARM64 is said to be in the works, which would make it #8.

Binary translation for x86 code works fine and runs at 50%+ of native speed since 20 years (FX!32 was released in 1996). Which is sufficient for legacy applications.

The reasons for the failure of Microsoft on non-x86 are entirely elsewhere.



My, my, aren't we the ultimate hypocrite?
You are lambasting Microsoft for an attitude that's 10x more pronounced with Apple.

What Microsoft is doing here simply amounts to 'new machines need the latest OS'. I think that has been standard operating procedure with Apple for - well - forever?

Yeah, good luck trying to install OSX 6 on a newly purchased Mac. Chances are high that the necessary drivers don't even exist.

Oh, it gets worse:

They virtually forced the last 3 OS upgrades on me, just to continue running that godforsaken XCode with the latest SDKs on my machine. Those new OSX versions did nothing for me, except causing problems with some older software.


@winter ...still sounds like IBM's TSO from the 70's. The cloud issue, IMHO, is about economics and I see incredibly complex systems being built and my question is: are they really better and less expensive?. Who is making the money here? You may have noticed that no one really starts a cloud business from scratch, it seems to arise from existing company’s with lots of equipment and networking capacity because of their own needs and then wish to put their "spare capacity" to use.

I looked around and cloud computing professes many advantages and many of the justifications do not consider economics. Clearly these non-economic justifications are biased to those vested in a positive outcome. But are they telling the truth microsoft ,,,LoL? Those that attempt to exploit economic agreements do so by tying the cloud economics to boxes, networking, geographic local or other physical characteristics and never consider the overall execution costs of performing specific computational tasks associated with “end user work” such as memory management, data base activity, back-up and replication, virtualization etc. I find this situation strange since cloud computing is about the cost of “computing”. A clear understanding of the true cost of executing software functions should include not only the end user application requested functions but overall system wide behavior and cost associated with the instruction costs of virtualization, distributed architectures, etc. that also drive power consumption, magnify complexity and impact license fees to name a few. I haven't seen any detailed economic studies, why the big secret?


@tester, just another point about what an abusive monopolist, like microsoft, does! It is this monopoly first strategy with their innovation free and late to market products that will be the ultimate demise of the microsoft we know today. In microsoft's case it is about sucking their users and partners dry (based on their mobile success, you would think they would want repair their reputation and business practices). In apple's case (I suspect but I haven't thoroughly investigated), it's more about more stability and function. The end goals are different, IMHO. I have been watching microsoft for decades and they really are totally brain dead and think they are invincible. The arrogance is simply stunning! Watching their decline starting with windows 10 as a watershed event will be fun.

All you astroturfers stop saying La, La, La, La... and now say NO ONE WANTS WINDOWS ON A PHONE


"I looked around and cloud computing professes many advantages and many of the justifications do not consider economics."

There are two areas where cloud computing is more efficient than local.
1) When storage is more expensive than bandwidth. Then consolidating storage is economical. This is cyclical, sometimes it is more efficient to use central storage, sometimes local storage.

2) Central maintenance and updating is much more efficient than local maintenance. Given the difficulties of software maintenance by the public, it is ALWAYS more efficient to centralize maintenance.

How to get paid is a completely different question.



"I haven't seen any detailed economic studies, why the big secret? "

I would be interested too, but I very strongly suspect that such studies actually exist but unfortunately are either (a) internal to Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, etc or (b) the kind of industrial reports that cost many thousands of pounds/euros/dollars to get hold of.

This being said, the cloud craze is another swing in the pendulum: there were mainframes and shared minicomputers with centralized storage and I-O accessed via "intelligent" terminals; then workstations with everything needed for computing, storage and output locally; then diskless workstations completely dependent on servers; then PC again with all the gambit of storage and peripherals; now we are back to terminals storing, accessing and even computing everything on the "cloud".

I believe this is a wasteful trend that will recede somewhat.

As Tomi likes to say: everything is going mobile. With the current capabilities of mobile phones -- computing, massive flash storage, a cornucopia of sensors, even (at least potentially) diverse wired and wireless connectivity, why offload everything on remote (not so private) servers accessed via expensive links? Such evolutions as using a phone as a wireless router (tethering and all that), Microsoft Continuum and the IoT (controlling everything in your house from your phone, etc) show that a mobile phone can become the center of one's IT needs, instead of being the appendage of the cloud.

The evolution of distributed systems is far from finished.


"I very strongly suspect that such studies actually exist" ...but I believe are hidden because the economics really aren't there and there might be some bad news too.

Consider virtualization. Is it more efficient to perform a computation task in a non-virtualized environment vs a virtualized environment? Clearly less instructions are required in a non-virtualized environment then why would scaling to large numbers of virtualized servers be less expensive? For example, one way to understand this is to map energy costs by individual instruction or per software function execution sequence. Why use energy as one guideline? Because energy is an ever growing part of computational costs. If you are thinking about energy consumption today you will certainly be worrying about it in the future. This is a good bet to become a major consideration of any future (cloud) Internet. I suspect the cloud might not be green (wastes energy).

It seems that the initial low cost of using the cloud is just for a very basic environment that is mostly useless without additional costly tools and license fees. The main result is you simply get to run your virtualized data center (large or small) remotely. Is that really an advantage (big or small?). Are there things you could do locally (maintenance, emergency repairs, unavailable network etc.) that you can't now?


@NO ONE and E Casals
""I haven't seen any detailed economic studies, why the big secret? " I would be interested too"

Facebook is a good example of a purely "cloud" company. The numbers show that the costs per user per year are small, in the $5 range (including marketing and sales).

December 31, 2014 Facebook had 1,390 million users. Revenues over 2014 were $12,466M, net income was $2,925M.

So, on average a 2014 user earned FB $8.97 in revenues and $2.10 in profit spending $1.92 on research. This while growing 58%.

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