Mobile Industry Analysis Essay

This was a device hat not only functioned as a telephone but also allowed for the sending and receiving of email and text messages as well as web browsing” (BlackBerry). The LEG chocolate became something more in 2006, it became the first stylish phone, and customers were choosing fashion over functionality (Chowder, 2012). Another major milestone was when Apple released the phone in 2007. The phone was unique since it was the first phone to have an operating system (SO) this allowed applications (APS) to run on the phone. Apple received a competitor in 2008 when ETC revealed its newest phone which ran on the Android operating system.

When Android’s makers Google, decided to come into the smoothened realm they want to create an open source market where others could customize their phone experience which has lead in a growth of popularity over Apple (Chowder). In 2012, Windows introduced their front runner in the mobile phone market which was Monika Alumina 800, which ran on the Windows 7 mobile operating system. Windows tried to capture some of the market by introducing an operating system that users were accustomed to already. By late 2012, four major players emerged in the mobile operating system industry each player had some unique features to help them gain market share.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The Four Players Android/Google Android is a mobile operating system used on smartness and tablets. It is made by Google and licensed to several companies such as ETC, Samsung, LEG, and Motorola. Google also makes its own series of mobile phones dubbed the nexus series. It is designed to sync seamlessly with Google’s suite of products such as Gamma, Google play, Google Talk, and Youth (Google, 2013). The Android Market is the Application store and boasts a robust 700,000+ APS. The android operating system is entirely open source.

This meaner that the developers who get a license from Google are allowed to customize the SO, as long as they make how they did it freely available. This meaner the user can get very different appearances across the different type of phones, as opposed to ISO which always looks the same, on every phone. Google is above all else, a service company, they make money by advertisements. An android phone links to all of Google’s products. It tells the company tons of micro- data about the user that normally cannot be retrieved from a computer. Google uses this information to develop advertising custom for its users.

It then charges other companies to advertise on its platform. Apple Ranked by Forbes as the Word’s #1 most powerful brand, Apple creates the mobile platform ISO. This is used on their line of phones and pads. They are the most recognizable brand in the mobile market today at least in wealthy nations such u monomers Ana e n e states. Apple Is Known Tort making products Tanat “Just work”. They charge a premium for their product with the expectation that it will be reliable, last several years, and are easy for people to learn how to use. Apple generally target businesses and individuals who are in visual, audio, and other retrieve professions.

Apple is known for their multimedia applications that can create music, movies, and various multimedia presentations (Dilled, 2012). BlackBerry BlackBerry has their own proprietary operating system exclusively for its BlackBerry smartness and mobile devices. This operating system was designed for Blackberry’s specialized functions, including the trademark trackball, tracheal, tracked and the touchstones. The BlackBerry SO offers native support for corporate mail via MIDI, which enables effortless wireless sync with Microsoft Exchange, Lotus

Domino and email, contacts, calendar, notes and so on, while used along with the BlackBerry Enterprise Server, making this very secure and a unique feature to BlackBerry (Afghanistan, 2013). Windows Windows was a late bloomer into the mobile market, yet that has not stopped them from gaining ground year after year. Windows knows to keep gaining ground they must be innovative, their newest phone does exactly that it has a feature called Tap and Send. Two windows phones can use the technology in their phones called MFC (Near Field Communication) to send information between the two Just by being lose to each other.

Early adopters are going towards the Windows phones Just for the new exciting innovations Windows are crafting (Sherman, 2013). Apple’s SOOT Strengths Apple has developed a very unique closed ecosystem. All of apple’s products are interlinked with one another. The cloud allows customers to download music, APS, movies and more to a device and sync those purchases to other Apple devices; this in return strengthens their customer loyalty and gives the company a competitive advantage.

They are also a leader in being one of the most innovated companies in the mobile device technology. Apple has also claimed their title as being the world’s most valuable company by market capitalization. “Apple’s market cap was boosted by a $56 (14%) surge in July, a gain that was softened by a stock repurchase plan that reduced its number of outstanding shares in fiscal SQ by 23. 5 million” (Elmer-Dewitt, 2013). Weaknesses Apple phones are known to have a higher price point than other leading phones. Some critics argue that the price is not Justified.

With Apple’s closed ecosystem also comes the incompatibility with different operating systems outside of the ecosystem, which detours new users on the different operating systems to switch (Numismatist, 2013). With the difficulty of alluring to new customers Apple has lost the majority of the market share. Apple continues to be in the news for patent infringements. Opportunities Apple has developed a lower price option for the pad tablet which is the pad Mini, and now is the process of developing a lower price option for the phone 5, these new lower costs options will help in winning new customers.

Another way of Apple can win back their title as majority market share holder is by expanding their range of cloud services. Threats One of the most severe threats Apple and the other tech companies are facing is raped change, Apple Is near ten pressure to Keep releasing new products . Narrow SO is the main competitor for ISO in mobile device market (Numismatist, 2013). Blackberry’s SOOT One of Blackberry’s advantages is its very secure mobile phones. The company released its phones with secure encrypted network that allowed sending emails between phones without possibility of stealing the information.

Unlike other mobile phones and smartness companies, BlackBerry tries to appeal for a narrow customer segment – governments and corporations. The result is a more focused approach to satisfying the needs of this narrow segment, something that other businesses rarely do (Gausses, 2013). Weaknesses Blackberry’s brand has been around before the phone was even thought of. When the phone was launched, BlackBerry had a better quality phone on the market and had larger sales in the market and great brand reputation but soon they were falling due to the lack of marketing.

BlackBerry spent and continues to spend significantly lower amounts ($41. 3 million) on marketing, about 10 times lower than Apple ($400 million) and 8 times lower than Samsung ($334 million) in 2012 (Bennett, 013). While BlackBerry shares something in common with Apple that their devices are ran on their own operating system, BlackBerry users have a negative experience. The lack of customers to BlackBerry meaner the less likely app developers will spend money on developing an app specifically for BlackBerry which meaner BlackBerry customers have lower amounts of APS available to them.

Another BlackBerry weakness is seen by the lack of presence in the tablet market. BlackBerry tried to launch their PlayBook tablet but that was an unsuccessful effort since it captured only a small market share, resulting in losses for the company. Without this presence in the tablet market it is hard for BlackBerry to compete with competitors like Apple. While BlackBerry had a failed attempt at the tablet market, the market is growing by 50% annually. According to estimates, it will be worth $100 billion by the end of 201 5 (Bennett, 2013). The company could bounce back and capture some of this market share by introducing a new tablet.

BlackBerry has now developed a new mobile advertising strategy by introducing new phones and trying to appeal to the first time phone buyers. Threats One of the most severe threats BlackBerry faces is trying to keep up with genealogy. The companies who cannot keep up with the competition will soon fail, though they must put out good quality products in order to survive which is where BlackBerry is failing (Gausses, 2013). The smoothened market is becoming overstated with smartness which is causing a halt in growth rate, which is causing a lack of expansion for BlackBerry in the United States, Canada and Europe.

Goggles SOOT As the company states:” Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (Beatable, 2013). Google openness is the key why Google is the industry leader. Google has an access to 79% of the world desktop search market users and 89% of the world mobile search market users (McCracken, 2013). Commanded, tense Internet users represent an extremely large market that Google can use to promote and sell its products and services. In 2012, Google added 51 patents and was the 21st business worldwide in terms of number of patents.

Intellectual property is the key in competing against competitors and Google with Motorola’s acquisition gained a strong advantage over its competitors. Weaknesses More than 90% of Google’s revenue comes from online advertising. Google as any other firms, find it hard to covert the baby boomer generation to mobile devices, who represent a growing group in online advertising. With all of Google patent’s the company often finds itself involved in litigation’s. Court fees are costly and time consuming which distracts Google from coming up with new innovations. Google has seen huge successes in the mobile industry.

The Android operating system is used in more than half of all smartness in the US, that number Jumps to 70% worldwide (McCracken, 2013). Google could strengthen its entry into mobile market by introducing more of its own products. Threats The growing number of mobile users meaner fewer searches made on the personal computers and lower income growth or even decline for Google (Beatable, 2010). Microsoft has introduced their new Windows 8 operating system for mobile devices; Microsoft is looking to take away Google/Android users which will result in loss potential revenues.

Windows/Microsoft SOOT Over 90% of all personal computers use a Windows operating system, so most users are already familiar with the Windows operating system which makes it easy for Windows to attract new users on the mobile market (Sister, 2013). Weaknesses A Microsoft/Windows Weakness is that does not produce its own hardware and has to depend on other smoothened companies to develop products that can run on the Windows operating system. Another concern is the amount of virus attacks against the company and security leaks.

Opportunities The Mobile industry is booming, even though the company was late to the industry they could grow by mobile advertising (Kookiest, 2013). The company has introduced a new tablet to the mobile device industry, Surface ART which has widely popular in the short time it has been in the market. Threats Microsoft is competing in a very fast paced market and has the pressure to make the Windows operating system popular on the mobile market, yet their competitors like Google and Apple have already established positions.

Many new open source projects are coming to the market which can be an alternative to Microsoft. Porter’s Five Forces Model of the Mobile SO Industry Potential Entrants: * Increasingly threatening * Legal matters * Loyal consumers Rivalry: * Fierce * Intensely competitive * “Cutthroat” mentality Supplier Power: * Few SO developers * Many manufacturers * Low Bargaining Power Buyer Power: Price conscious * Low switching costs * High bargaining power Substitutes: * Minimum to none * Smartness are now “all-in-one” devices Figure 1 – (Porter, 2011) Porter’s Five Forces of Competition Michael E.

Porter, a Harvard University professor, developed an article in 1979 which discusses the five competitive forces that shape strategy within a particular industry (Porter, 2011). Porter makes the assumption that all industries are not the same in terms of profit potential and some may be much more attractive than others (Coulter, 2010). He created the five forces model to help businesses further understand all aspects of an industry beforehand, so that the best possible strategic decision can be made (Porter). Porter) states that “industry analysis and looking at the competitive environment is the starting basic discipline of any strategy formulation process”. The five forces that evaluate the opportunities and threats in greater detail within an industry include current rivalry, potential entrants, bargaining power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers and substitute products (Coulter). The mobile operating system (SO) industry is a very complex technological industry, which already includes the existence of four superpower companies.

Using Porter’s five forces model, the mobile SO industry will be evaluated, specifically highlighting Android, ISO, Windows Phone (WAP) and BlackBerry SO. Current Rivalry The mobile SO industry consists of a small group of competitors, and of this small group there are two dominant competitors. According to a report from DC, Android and ISO combine for 92. 3 percent of the worldwide smoothened market (Restive, 2013). Similarly, Android and ISO share 91. 6 percent of the U. S. Market (Adam, 2013). As shown in Figure 2 and 3, ISO is much more popular in the U. S. Arrest with a share of 39. 2 percent, while Android is much more popular on a world scale with an astounding worldwide share of 75 percent. In the first quarter of 2012, BlackBerry SO held 6. 4 percent of the worldwide market share but one year later BlackBerry SO has dropped too 2. 9 percent share. BlackBerry SO has also seen their market share slowly decrease since ten Doglegging AT U S. Market. WAP continued to De the fourth leader in market share within the U. S. , but in the world market WAP increased their share this past year, moving ahead of BlackBerry SO for the first time.

Figure 2 and 3 show that the mobile SO industry has only four competitors who are not nearly balanced in terms of overall market share worldwide and within the U. S. Android and ISO are noticeably dominant players in this industry. BlackBerry SO and WAP are still competitive but not by such standards. Top Smoothened Platforms – U. S. Source: commodore Mobiles I I Market Share (%) of Smoothened Subscribers I Operating System I May 2013 | March 2013 | January 20131 Android | 52. 4 152 1 52. 3 | ISO 139. 2 139 137. 8 1 Blackberry’s | 4. 8 | 5. 2 | 5. 9 | Windows Phone | 3 13 1 3. 1 | other 10. 6 1 0. 8 | 0. Figure 2 – (Adam, 2013) Top Smoothened Platforms – Worcestershire: DC I I Market Share (%) of Smoothened Subscribers I Operating System I IQ – 2013 | IQ 59. 1 1+15. 9 1 ISO 117. 3 123 1-5. 71 Windows Phone | 3. 2 | 2 | +1. 2 Blackberry’s | 2. 9 | 6. 4 | -3. 5 | other 11. 6 19. 6 1-8 1 Figure 3 – (Whether, 2013) – 2012 | Year Difference I Android 175 1 With only a few strong competitors, there is room for opportunity in the mobile SO industry. However, the rivalry within the industry is fierce. Android, ISO, BlackBerry SO and WAP are all intensely competitive and continually strive to be the best.

Rapid technological innovation is constant and this creates a rapidly changing and evolving market. Firms in this industry feed off of one another, adopting creative ideas and new technology to stay competitive. In 2010, ISO introduced the pad and this created a tablet phenomenon followed by Android’s Galaxy, BlackBerry SO’ Playbook and Wop’s Surface (Behaves, 2013). As a new product or feature is developed by one firm, its competitors must match it in order to gain more customers. The rivalry in this industry is so intense that firms developing new technologies often obtain a patent ND this creates conflict on a legal stage (Harbinger, 2010).

Since customers are very price conscious in this industry, it has resulted in relative price parity, with one exception. Apple sells its products at a much higher cost than its competitors, making them highly profitable. There is a strong industry sales growth and to succeed in this industry firms must maintain a cutthroat mentality. Polite firms have a much tougher time surviving, especially with the existence of elite superpowers such as Android and ISO. Firms in this industry respect each other because they enjoy pushing one another to the limit.

However, they definitely do not “like” each other as they are constantly trying to take customers away from each or file lawsuits against one another shown in the Figure 4 (Harbinger). Hogue 4 – (Santos, 2 Potential Entrants Currently a handful of start-up firms are hoping to enter the market and end the superpower dominance by the top four competitors in the mobile SO industry; Android, ISO, BlackBerry SO and WAP. Bunt Phone. Canonical revealed Bunt Phone in January 2013 but the full version is not expected to launch until October 2013 (Boxful, 2013).

Bunt Phone can operate on basic and high-end hardware, it as an easy app development and one of its unique features is that docking a high- end Bunt phone will turn a computer into a Bunt PC (Boxful). However, many are still skeptical of Bunt Phone’s “geeky’ image; it’s still unannounced hardware or network partners and its inability of reaching deadlines thus far (Boxful). Sailfish SO. Jolly, creator of Sailfish SO, has come a long way and is making moves fast (Boxful, 2013). It is planning to enter China’s market and it is actually creating its own phone which should be out by the end of 2013 (Boxful).

Sailfish SO has a distinct “cool” actor, it appears fun to use, has the ability to run Android APS and the fact that they are making their own phone is helpful (Boxful). However, Jolly isn’t a well-known name yet and few people have tried the Sailfish SO so only time will tell whether or not this start-up will last (Boxful). Tizzy SO. Tizzy SO, formerly known as Omega, is now supported by Samsung and Intel (Boxful, 2013). This SO should be one of the biggest threats to the mobile SO industry but in fact it has been lingering since 2011 (Boxful).

Tizzy SO is backed by Samsung and Intel, it supports both HTML and Android APS and it is looking to be suitable for both high-end and cheap phones (Boxful). However, Tizzy SO may not be all that it is talked up to be as Samsung has a bad track record with Ox’s outside of Android and this SO has been in creation for a relatively longer time than usual (Boxful). Firebox SO. Firebox SO, built by Maxilla, is the furthest along of any start-up competitor (Boxful, 2013). There are currently phones out that have this SO installed.

Maxilla’s strategy is to first sell their product in developing countries such as Spain, Portugal, Venezuela, Brazil and Poland (Boxful). Firebox SO has already gained great support from networks and manufacturer’s; it is already in working order, targeting “untapped” markets and Maxilla is already a well- known brand which gives them an edge (Boxful). Firebox SO will have to compete with Android as they already have low-cost phones available (Boxful). Barriers to entry. There are many obstacles that these potential entrants need to be aware of when entering the mobile SO industry.

Each entrant poses as a threat for existing firms because they have the potential to become a major competitor, taking away a share of their profitability. In the mobile SO industry, barriers to entry are high but the market is rapidly evolving and there is still a need for a competitor that can compete with ISO and Android. Economies of scale. The mobile SO industry consists of multiple fixed costs, leading to significant economies of scale. Some of the general fixed costs include the cost of manpower, intellectual know, intellectual property, computers, test equipment, prototyping devices and supplier and manufacturer contracts.

New firms entering this industry will have significant costs that will be extremely expensive, even if they choose to manufacture product cheaper overseas. As firms get larger, their volume increases, therefore having a greater opportunity to cut down costs. New entrants sun as Daunt phone, Assaults so, laze so Ana Hereto so are most likely to succeed if they bring a distinct competitive advantage or have similar resources already intact. Firebox SO, an already well known firm, is planning to enter UN-tapped markets which is a great strategy because it is something that existing competitors are not too familiar with yet.

Government policy. Another barrier to enter this industry involves the government. The mobile SO industry is littered with hardware and software patents held by existing firms. In a recent study, it is predicted that 25 percent of the patents issued in the U. S. In 2013 will be mobile related (Lawson, 2013). Existing firms such as ISO and Android are not shy about filing lawsuits if they suspect that another firm has infringed on their patents either (Harbinger, 2010). However, WAP has taken a different approach and believes that it is more beneficial to threaten and not sue (Say, 2013).

Courts do not always guarantee a lawsuit, they tend to underestimate the amount of the prosecution and it usually sakes years to settle, which becomes irrelevant in this fast-paced industry (Say). In a hard to believe report by Reuters, Microsoft is expected to make $3. 4 billion in Android royalty fees in 2013, which is more than it makes on its own WAP (Say). Both new entrants and existing firms need to be careful and know when to sue and when to only threaten, because it could cost them more than they had hoped for. Brand loyalty. A very common barrier to entry in almost any industry has to do with brand loyalty.

Android, ISO, BlackBerry SO and WAP are constantly trying to develop loyalty to heir consumers because brand loyalty is almost non-existent in this industry. According to a study concerning smart phones, 66 percent of buyers have no brand loyalty, 23 percent would change if offered a better user experience and 23 percent would also change if a newer system would give them access to more innovative services and applications (Milky, 2013). Brand loyalty is still prominent in this industry but it is not a barrier than cannot be overtaken by new entrants or existing firms.

Bargaining Power of Buyers One of Porter’s five forces involves those individuals and organizations that purchase your products (Coulter, 2010). The amount of bargaining power that these buyers have directly affects an industry profitability (Coulter). In the mobile SO industry, buyers bargaining power is high, which meaner that they have the ability to force down prices, bargain for higher quality or more services, or let the competitors fight each other until they receive the best deal possible (Coulter). There are many factors that contribute to the bargaining power of buyers.

Customers in this industry do not necessarily purchase large volumes of the seller’s product, but what they do continually purchase is their service which can add up quickly. Customers have a lot of bargaining power here because they are able to choose whichever SO they like best. The costs of switching to another SO are relatively low, giving the buyers even more power. Mobile Ox’s are continually mimicking one another’s features such APS available for purchase, syncing technique and similar devices such as the introduction of a tablet.

Since the product differentiation in this industry is limited, it becomes a major threat to all competitors. Buyers of Android will likely not switch to ISO and vice versa because these mobile Ox’s are becoming increasingly similar in every which way. SO does not give its customers buying power because their products are consistently more expensive than Its competitors Decease teen nave developed an image known for its quality of product and service. Android, BlackBerry SO and WAP can take advantage of this and sell cheaper products than ISO, with the intent to attract more customers.

Quality and price are two specific needs that all buyers seek to find in the mobile SO industry. Buyers that seek quality products have limited bargaining power because ISO is a premium product and they must pay top dollar for the highest quality in this industry. However, buyers that are more price unconscious have much more bargaining power because they do not necessarily desire one specific SO, so they can shop around from one competitor to the next. Bargaining Power of Suppliers.

Similar to the bargaining power of buyers, companies within the mobile SO industry must also analyze the bargaining power of suppliers. Within the U. S. And around the world there are countless smoothened manufacturers readily seeking software services. For the most part these manufacturers are relied on for their hardware services. Figure 5 takes a look at the allocation of smoothened manufacturers within the U. S. In 2012. Figure 5 – (Nielsen, 2012) It is evident that there are a large number of suppliers, but only a small number of SO producers.

These suppliers have very limited bargaining power because these SO firms such as Android, ISO, BlackBerry SO and WAP have many manufacturers to choose from and they can easily switch suppliers if there ever became a problem with quality or price. Suppliers are even more limited because BlackBerry SO and ISO develop their own hardware (German, 2011). However, Android and WAP are open sourced (German). Some of the manufacturers that currently supply Android consist of big names such as Samsung, ETC, Crockery, Sony, Ericson, LEG and Motorola German). Some of the manufacturers that supply WAP include Samsung, LEG, Dell, ETC and Monika (German).

Smoothened manufacturers have limited bargaining power in the mobile SO industry and must take advantage of their opportunities when granted, especially if Android and WAP decided to produce its products in-house (German). Substitute Products Porter’s fifth competitive force is the threat of substitute products. Industries must be aware of threats within their own industry, but also be aware of threats from other industries. The industries that would be the most threatening to the mobile SO industry would be those that have the ability to satisfy the same consumer need by offering substitute products (Coulter, 2010).

The threat of substitute products in the mobile SO industry is extremely low. This is because Android, ISO, BlackBerry SO, WAP and the rest of the SO industry now has the ability to sync anything and everything that was once considered a substitute. Keep, founded in 2003, saw immediate success because it became an alternative to the mobile phone (Keep, 2013). It allows people to make free international calls with the ability of live video chat (Keep).

At this time, Keep was considered to be a substitute product to the mobile phone industry because it was a unique form of communication that threatened to replace phone to phone conversation. Email was another form of communication that was developed earlier but became a threat at one time. However, the mobile SO industry has far surpassed these substitutes with the implementation of new technology. Android, ISO, BlackBerry SO and WAP all have the ability to sync multiple features into one device. Android and ISO each have 700,000 APS available to users in their

x

Hi!
I'm Laurie!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out