Android: Strategic Management

8/12/2019 Android: Strategic Management

1/24

Shibin S Cherian

2/14/2014

ANDROID:STRATEGIC

MANAGEMENT.

Shibin S Cherian.

Submitted for the Module Strategy management for the Award of Mastersin Business Administration.


2/24

2/14/2014

1

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY:................................................................................................ 2

OBJECTIVES:................................................................................................................... 2

CURRICULUM OF ANDROID:....................................................................................... 3

OBJECTIVE 1: STRATEGIC CONCERNS FACED BY ANDROID:.......................... 4

Swot Analysis for Android:......................................................................................... 4

Strengths:.................................................................................................................... 4

Weakness:.................................................................................................................... 5

Opportunities:............................................................................................................ 5

Threats:....................................................................................................................... 5

Table 1: Smartphone OS sales Share (%); Source: Swamy................................ 6

OBJECTIVE 2 & 3: CORPORATE STRATEGIC DECISIONS FOR ANDROIDAND ITS WIDER IMPLICATIONS:................................................................................ 7

Figure 1. Ansoffs Matrix; Source: Ansoff (1957)................................................. 7

ANSOFFS MATRIX FOR ANDROID (DEDUCTING CORPORATE

STRATEGIC DECISION):............................................................................................ 8

MARKET PENETRATION:...................................................................................... 8

MARKET DEVELOPMENT:..................................................................................... 8

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:.................................................................................. 9

DIVERSIFICATION:................................................................................................. 9PORTERs FIVE FORCES TO ELABORATE WIDER IMPLICATIONS: ........... 10

Figure 2. Porters five forces forcompetitive strategy: Source: Porter

(2008).......................................................................................................................... 11

THREAT OF NEW ENTRANTS:............................................................................ 11

THREAT OF SUBSTITUTES:................................................................................ 12

THREAT OF SUPPLIER:....................................................................................... 12

THREAT OF BUYER:.............................................................................................. 12

THREAT OF EXSITING RIVALS:......................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION:................................................................................................................ 13

RECOMMENDATIONS:................................................................................................. 14

REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 16

ANNEXURE 1: Ansoffs Matrix..................................................................................... 19

ANNEXURE 2: Porters five forces.............................................................................. 21
http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067586http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067586http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067588http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067588http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067595http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067595http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067595http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067595http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067595http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067595http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067588http://h/Mba/Semester%202/Strategic%20Management/essay/stg%20assignment%20draft.docx%23_Toc380067586


3/24

2/14/2014

2

EXECUTIVESUMMARY:

The prime objective of this report is to identify the generic strategies

contemplated by Android and further analyze its integration in maintaining

global competitive attire. In brief, this report will elaborate strategic issues

and concerns faced by Android in sustaining global competitive position using

appropriate theoretical frameworks. This report will further examine

corporate level strategic options considered by Android and evaluate the

impact of such wide implications. This report will cover recommendations

based on the following OBJECTIVESof this report:

1. Recognizing current strategic issues faced by Android in maintaining acompetitive position.

2. Evaluation of appropriate corporate strategic decisions taken byAndroid.

3. Discussing the broader implications of those corporate strategicdecisions.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To evaluate potential strategic concerns faced by Android usingappropriate theoretical frameworks.

2. To evaluate specific corporate level strategic options taken by Androidto date in order to develop and sustain its global competitive position.

Specific theoretical backgrounds and framework shall be considered to

investigate this.

3. To elaborate and demonstrate wider implications of the aboveconsidered strategic options and to evaluate its impact on Android.

4. Prepare recommendations in light to meet such specific strategicconcerns faced by Android.


4/24


5/24

2/14/2014

4

This report will thereby exhibit contextual investigation on Androids:

Strategic Issues. Corporate strategic decisions. Wider implications of the considered strategic options. Recommendations to further maintain sustainability.

OBJECTIVE1:STRATEGICCONCERNSFACED

BYANDROID:

On a broader note, it is primarily essential that an Internal and external

analysis of Android is evaluated in order to clarify current strategic concerns

faced by Android today. Humphrey (2005) suggest SWOT matrix/ analysis, a

structured planning methodology to investigate Strengths, weakness,

opportunities and threats observed in a business venture. While strengths

and weakness evaluate internal analysis of an organization, opportunities

and threats define the external analysis. Therefore, this report will further

expandAndroids environment usingSWOT analysis.

Swot Analysis for Android:

Strengths:

1. Fully owned subsidiary of Google Inc. and in collaboration with Open HandsetAlliance. The popularity and credibility of Android is much appreciated due to the

brand equity of Google (Marketline, 2013).

2. In contradiction to Apple Inc., Android is compatible with multiple handsets such asHTC, Motorola, LC, Samsung etc. (Android, 2013)

3. Because of its open source liberty, Android has developed a broad market forfreelance developers to further develop and expand free apps for Android market

(Android, 2013).4. Most interestingly, Android is cost effective. Transparency can be observed with all of

Androids licensing agreements, further expanding Androids price comparison

prospects with other operating systems like IOs (Apple Inc.), Windows, RIM etc.

(Marketline 2013; Android 2013).


6/24

2/14/2014

5

Weakness:

1. On a contrary note, while Apple boost its audience by delivering a centralizedrepository popularly known as iTunes, Android provides least of multimedia support

(only in comparison to iTunes).

2.

Play store further (Android Market) received feedback from users who are upsetabout ads being displayed at the bottom or top of the app, thereby declining user

delight (Bhasin, 2012).

3. Because of the Android OS compatibility, integration of its software onto variousmobile manufactures can be concluded as time consuming as along with production,

they also need to carry a pilot study.

Opportunities:

1. Android currently operates in faced paced growing market of digital media and isexpected to encounter future business opportunities (Marketline, 2012; 2013).

2. Androids market share has inclined from 46.2% to 50.6% and is expected to growfurther at a rapid pace (Swamy, 2014).

3. Growth of sales for Android has been observed to have increased at a rapid pace(Swamy, 2014; Marketline, 2013).

Threats:

1. Apart from the inevitable threats of Malware and viruses due to Androidscompatibility source coding, interestingly, recent surveys concluded that more than

45% of the corporate employees used their mobile devices to share documents usingcloud services such as dropbox and GoogleDocs (Gonsalves, 2013; Lavenda, 2013).

2. Report (Lavenda, 2013) estimates that a cost of $2 billion is incurred by UScompanies as a result of data transfer to unsactioned services. Potential exposure of

data can be observed though various scenerios such as theft, Ad-supported apps

(often requesting permission to access sensitive data such as calendar or address

book), and even employee redundancy.

3. Half of the redudant employees do not assume its unethical to posses corporatedocuments (Feltham & Xu, 2013).

4. In addition to this, Veracode (2013) exposes a man in the middle (MITM)cyberattack where con artist invites himelf into a conversation between two users,

gaining access that could potentialy interest the interceptor for unprecedented

scheme of cybercrimes.


7/24

2/14/2014

6

5. With Nokia mobile units being acquired by Microsoft (BBC, 2013), Android potentialfaces the threat from Apple inc., RIM and Microsoft Windows, who have established

their own version of brand equity in the market.

The SWOT analysis above summarizes the fact that Android currently

operates on an innovative scale with comparable observations with its

competitors, RIM, Windows and iOS (Business wire, 2012). Although Android

currently holds the potentials to uphold brand identity, the brand equity of

RIM, Windows and iOs can be claimed to be of potential competitor stress. In

addition, the Opportunities are observed to be stagnant ever since its

inception. For instance, the co-opetition1 of Blackberry messenger with

Android and iOs raised market stakes and expectations (Kelion, 2013).

However in contradiction, Swamy (2014) reports that with such co-opetition,

Blackberry experienced observable profit only in China where they increased

their market share from 0.0% to 0.1% from 2012 to 2013 and have began to

lose market share all around the world (see table below).

While predominantly blackberry lost its

global competitve position, it is also

essential to consider that negative impact

of such merging can obstruct future

growth and merging opportunities for

Android. Essentially, Android must

stringtly consider the data protection

tasks in order to avoid corporate data

leakage. Observing the stated Threats, it

is challenging for Android to subsidize

the increased levels of cybercrimes and

malwares at a substantial level.

1A neologism word coined to describe cooperative competition.

Table 1: Smartphone OS sales Share (%); Source:

Swamy(2014).


8/24

2/14/2014

7

Observably, innovation of smatphones itself became a prime purpose for

securing sensitive data within fingertips and any flaw in securing such data

will cause Android its loyality and demand. However, reasonably, it is beyond

Androids capability to control every single data protection dispute. The

initiation of cloud services made a separate trail of its own in the digital

market leaving its market targets in a predecisive choice. The choice of

securing sensitive data over a cloud server has developed a sense of security

among consumers today (Sucia, et al., 2013; Choudhary & Vithayahtil, 2013).

For instance, a recent update by BBC (2012) exhibits that Android Apps are

at potential risk to MITM attacks, descripting potential distubance among its

corporate networks. This must essentially be considered as a strategic issue

among the rest stated.

OBJECTIVE2&3:CORPORATESTRATEGIC

DECISIONSFORANDROIDANDITSWIDER

IMPLICATIONS:

While feasibly Android executes generic corporate strategies in order to

perform functional and profitable business, it is essential to identify core

strengths and

opportunities to develop

potential stratigies for

sustainibility. In addition

to that, it is also

important to exhibit a

framework which would

evaluate the market

attractivness of Android.

Ansoff (1957) sugesstes a

matrix (ordinarily known


9/24

2/14/2014

8

as the Ansoff Matrix) that would evaluate an organisations current and

future potentials for its market sustainbility. Elaborating the Ansoffsmatrix

could get comprehensive. Therefore this report will now narrow its scope

towardsAndroids interests.

ANSOFFS MATRIX FOR ANDROID(DEDUCTING CORPORATE

STRATEGIC DECISION):

Assuming that Ansoffs Matrix is reffered (Annexure 1), this report will elaborate the

contents of the matrix relative to Androids interest.

MARKET PENETRATION:

Androids penetration into the digital market was observably insidious to its competitors like

iOs, Symbian, RIM, and windows. With its aqcuisition by Google, Android climbed itself to

become the most dominating digital innovation in the Digital market. Following points state

a breif idea about Androids market penetration:

Android escaletes itsglobal smartphone shipments upto 81% (Palenchar, 2013; Kerr,2013).

During the first quarter of 2013, global android smartphone proceeds reached $5billion (Enst & Young, 2013).

95% share of all Android smatphone profits were captured and dominated bySamsung (BusinessWire, 2012; Ernst & Young, 2013).

Samsung generates much more revenue and profit from Android than Google does(Marketline, 2013).

MARKET DEVELOPMENT:

Androids market development and sustainbility has much been emphasized on its user

friendly interface comnbined with modern gadgetry and modern user interface. Ever since its

inception, Android was successful in forwarding user engagement to an asthetic experience.

Following points state a brief idea about Androids market development :

Androids OS is compatible with any handset devices giving its customers a value totheir personal choice of hardware device (Marketline, 2013).

Android excels in delivering product development at a innovative scale (Android,2013).


10/24

2/14/2014

9

Popular handset devices such as HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony Experia etc. are poweredby Android and are expected to have a strong growth up to 2018 as of now

(Marketline, 2013).

With an influential market dominance and market acceleration of the mobileindustry, Google Inc. has been observed to uphold a demandable position with

Android being the most popular platform. Further to Androids sustainability, Google

ensures that its own apps are preloaded on all android powered handsets (Android,

2013; Marketline 2012, 2013).

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:

Android suffices in delivering advanced user interface experience to its users by

constantly developing its OS. Following point shall state a breif eminence about Anroids

product development:

Android tablets and smartphones have some influential devices that have pentratedthe digital and telecommunications market (Werner, 2013).

Android integrates continous growth development with its strategic alliances todeliver customer satisfaction for its products (Enst & Young, 2013).

Android was succusseful in sustaining its open source platform encouragingdevelopers to produce promising apps such as GPS grid reference App, Crises direct,

Currency convertor and other casual and commercial apps suitable for daily purposes

(Werner, 2013).

Android is in a constant mode to develop innovative user interfaces compatible withits handset manufactures in order to distribute wide variety of mordenised

telecommunication experience (Marketline, 2013).

DIVERSIFICATION:

Focusing on diversifying and becoming the market leader, Google powers Android in

diversifying its OS into further market segments. Following point brief Androids current

diversification strategy.

The Android TV: Google TV, recently announced smart television by Google willelaborate its market penetration into a diversified sector. Its integration with

Android market and with open app store will allow users to personalize their

experience and elaborate the productsfeatures.

The Android tablet: In alliance with popular electronics manufacturers like LG,HTC, Samsung, Sony, Asus etc., Android tablets have penetrated into the market

with major consumer demand.


11/24

2/14/2014

10

The Android Home Phone System: Powered with full internet access, the androidhome phone system is set to strike a chord into the telecommunications industry.

Numerous manufacturers have placed their c-opetitive proposals in order to

penetrate this product into the designated market segment.

The Android Appliances: Ranging from Android powered microwave, washerand dryer, Android has been successful in penetrating the appliances market.

The Android Home Command Center:Android provides an allout home controldevices that can be remotely be accessed and commended from a single port. This

features include daily household controls such switching the lights on/off, locking the

doors and even controlling the room temperature. This high end product integration

offers the ultimate comfort at their fingertips.

PORTERs FIVE FORCES TO ELABORATEWIDER IMPLICATIONS:

Ansoffs matrix on Android provide a brief summary on Androids potentiality

in market sustainability. Ever since Androids acquisition, Google operates

Android onto a significant accessibility. Existing competitors such as iOs,

RIM, Windows etc. were observed to remain static while Android penetrated

the market. Android elevated itself in the market with global smartphones

shipments up to 81%, signifying this penetration strategy as commendable.

Further to this, Samsung generated about 95% of profits captured by

Android, thereby signifying further cooperative functioning for Android with

Samsung to develop mutual benefits for a long term. Androids compatibility

with majority of mobile handsets concluded a value on to its customers. In

addition to this, Marketline (2013) declares that global smartphone

shipments are expected to grow at an enormous rate up to 2018. Androids

strategic decision in maintaining its open source platform is much

appreciated by the Audience as developers constantly appraise androids open

platforms liberty; allowing developers to generate personalized apps for dailypurposes. When compared with Apple (Burnette, 2009), Android produces

liberty in its open source platform rather than to use a proprietary software

platform. With this, Android devices have a larger breadth of communication

between various devices without restrictions. In addition, Android is observed


12/24

2/14/2014

11

to have constant innovation on its product development and diversification.

Observed earlier, Android is committed in delivering an aesthetic lifestyle for

its consumers by diversifying and constantly developing its user interface.

While notable implications of these strategic decisions are observed, it is

essential to develop a framework to evaluate further market attractiveness

(Coyne & Subramaniam, 1996) for Android. Porter (2008) suggests five

competitive forces that shape strategy (see figure 2 below; refer annexure 2).

This report will direct and convert the analysis above into porters five forces

to investigate market attractiveness for Android. Porters five forces consist of

three horizontal competition namely threat of substitute services or goods,

threat of existing rivals, and threat of new entrants; and two vertical

competition namely bargaining power of suppliers and the bargaining of

power of buyers. Elaborating these five aspects will help elaborate Androids

market attractiveness and obstacles in sustaining its global competitive

position. Due to

the scope and

limitation, this

report will point

down the

necessary links to

reach a conclusion

regarding the

market strength of

Android.

Figure 2. Porters five forces for competitive strategy: Source:


13/24

2/14/2014

12

THREAT OF NEW ENTRANTS:

The threat of new entrants can be considered moderate. The scope of the telecommunications

industry is very complex for new entrants to take over the existing leading technology

companies. However, organizations can arrive into few essentials of the value chain much

easier. Similar to Google, smaller competitors could potentially enter into the smartphoneindustry and can sell their OS to existing manufacturers.

THREAT OF SUBSTITUTES:

Threat of substitutes can be considered moderate for Android. Although observably, several

substitutes such as iOs, Windows, and RIM etc. can be considered substitutes from Androids

perspective. However Androids current market position is noted to be at the top and is

expected in sustain further up to 2018. There by making these threats low.

THREAT OF SUPPLIER:

Threat to suppliers can be considered strong here. Suppliers serve a decisive role in

providing materials for low cost for manufacturing purposes in the technology industry.

Semiconductor companies such as Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Toshiba etc. are most

dominant companies in the market currently and co-opetition with these firms make it

necessary for market sustainability. Androids partnership with Samsung for instance can be

observed to have deemed profitable business in the technology industry, thereby giving

suppliers a strong influence in the market.

THREAT OF BUYER:

Threat of buyer can be considered moderate. With the fast paced growing market of business

and technology, buyers are limited to purchase smartphones since threat of substitutes for

smartphones are low, however threat for substitutes is moderate for android. Therefore the

power of choice for buyers lies more on brand switching than avoidance.

THREAT OF EXSITING RIVALS:

Threat of existing rivals must be considered strong. Major organizations like Apple and

Microsoft are deemed to be highly profitable organizations. They equally create an innovative

and competitive environment for Android to proceed with its market leader attire. These

organizations are also constant enough to utilize their cash reserves to generate strategic

acquisitions or promotional campaigns to acquire market share currently possessed by

Android. Potentially, existing rivals can further growth as observed in Android.


14/24


15/24

2/14/2014

14

with existing rivals and current suppliers being threat and influential

respectively. On a broader implication, Androids competitive strength can be

concluded as moderate due to the high influence of suppliers, which is

contradictory in the case of Apple Inc. and competitive strengths of existing

rivals. Nevertheless, Androids primary succession was observed as an

influential penetration strategy. Referred resources of this report suggest

that currently, Android is maintaining a competitive position in the market

with major strategic concerns centered on Malware attacks, data protection

and vulnerability to hackers. In terms of market quo and status, Android

currently leads the technology industry with shipments made over 81%,

hereby concluding safe zone for Android as of for now.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Android must direct its concerns towards data protection and malwarethreats. Potential investment in research and development must be

considered here.

2. Further historical statistics is to be implemented in order to developstrategic operations. Due to the content limitation of this report, only

the stated objectives were referred.

3. Android can potentially propose to innovate proprietary semiconductorunit to beat down suppliers influence. Further statistical report of

switching cost, penetration and settlement strategies must be

investigated.

4. Strategic acquisitions and merging of current cloud services canfurther subsidize risk of corporate data leakage. However, it is also to

be noted that such strategic co-opetition would require time, deduction

and substantial risk of management expansion (Lahovnik, 2011).

5. Threat of exciting rivals in the market can preserve severe competitorstress on the long run. Android must consider in leading diversification

strategies to maintain its sustainability in the market. Further


16/24

2/14/2014

15

strategic acquisitions can be considered by Google in order to eradicate

further rivalry competition.

6. With Samsung generating almost 95% of profit from Android, Googlecan further generate reserves in developing further frameworks and

strategies to expand future opportunities in the technology industry.


17/24

2/14/2014

16

REFERENCESAndriod: From start up to the World's leading smartphone platform. (2012).

Android, 2013.Android Compatibility. [Online]

Available at: http://source.android.com/compatibility/

[Accessed 24 jan 2014].

Ansoff, I. H., 1957. Strategies for Diversification. Havard Business Review, 35(5), pp. 113-

124.

BBC, 2012.Android Apps 'leak' personal details. [Online]

Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20025973

[Accessed 24 Jan 2014].

BBC, 2013. Microsoft to buy Nokia's mobile phone unit. [Online]

Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23940171


Bhasin, H., 2012.Android Analysis. [Online]

Available at: www.marketing91.com/android-swot-analysis/


Burnette, E., 2009. Hello, Android: Introducing Googl'e Mobile Development platform. 2nd

ed. s.l.:Pragmatic Bookshelf.

Business wire, 2012.Android and iPhone Now Hog 91% of Mobile OS Market Share, New

York: Business Wire.

Choudhary, V. & Vithayahtil, J., 2013. The Impact of Cloud Computing: Should the IT

Department be Organised as a Cost center or a Profit center.. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 30(2 ), pp. 67 - 100.

Coyne, K. P. & Subramaniam, S., 1996. Bringing discipline to Strategy. McKinsey Quarterly.,

Volume 4, pp. 14 - 25.

Elmer - DeWitt, P., 2013. Fragmentation blues: Google's Android vs. Apple's iOS..

Fortune.com, p. 1.

Enst & Young, 2013. View from the top Global technology trends and performance.,

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-View-from-the-top-Global-technology-trends-

and-performance/$FILE/EY-View-from-top-Report-Apr-Aug13.pdf: Enst & Young.

Feltham, B. & Xu, M., 2013. Lessons for managing restructures and avoiding 'sham'

redundancies.Keeping Good Companies, November, 65(10), pp. 620-623.

Gaffney, T., 2013. Following in the footsteps of windows: How Android Malware development

is looking very familiar.. Network Security, 2013(8), pp. 07 - 10.

Gonsalves, A., 2013.Data leakage risk rises with cloud storage services. [Online]

Available at: http://www.csoonline.com/article/730853/data-leakage-risk-rises-with-cloud-


18/24

2/14/2014

17

storage-services

[Accessed 29 January 2014].

Gonsalves, A., 2013. The greatest mobile threats (and Android malware isn't one of them.

[Online]

Available at: http://blogs.computerworld.com/mobile-security/22815/greatest-mobile-threats-

and-android-malware-isnt-one-them

[Accessed 24 01 2014].

Hanafizadeh, P. & Ravasan, A. Z., 2011. A McKinsey 7s Model - Based Framework for ERP

readiness assessment.. International Journal of Enterprise Inforrmation Systems., 7(4), pp.

23 - 63.

Humphrey, A., 2005. SWOT analysis for Management Consulting, s.l.: SRI International..

Kelion, L., 2013.Blackberry expands BBM chat app to android and iOS. [Online]

Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22529074


Kerr, D., 2013.Android dominates 81 percent of world smartphone market. [Online]

Available at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57612057-94/android-dominates-81-percent-

of-world-smartphone-market/

[Accessed 01 Feb 2014].

Lahovnik, M., 2011. Strategic Fit Between Business Stratigies in the Post- Acquisition

Period and Acquistion Performance.. Journal for East European Management Studies, 16(4),

pp. 358 - 370.

Lavenda, D., 2013. The High-Cost. [Online]

Available at: http://harmon.ie/sites/default/files/images/docs/RogueITReport.pdf

[Accessed 24 01 2014].

Marketline, 2013. Google: Company Profile., s.l.: Marketline.

Palenchar, J., 2013. Global Smartphone Growth Slows, But Android Share Surges.. Twice:

This week in consumer electronics , 28(4), pp. 23-23.

Porter, M. E., 2008. The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy.. Havard Business

Review, pp. 86 - 104.

Sucia, G. et al., 2013. Cloud Computing as Evolution of distributed Computing - A Case

Study for SlapOS Distributed Cloud Computing Platform. Informatica Economica , 17(4), pp.

109-122.

Swamy, R., 2014.Blackberry, iOS see fall in global Q4 share; Android, Windows phone gain:

Kanter. [Online]

Available at: http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/blackberry-ios-see-fall-in-global-q4-share-

android-windows-phone-gain-kantar-475877



19/24

2/14/2014

18

Veracode, 2013. Man in the Middle Attack. [Online]

Available at: http://www.veracode.com/security/man-in-the-middle-attack


Werner, C., 2013. Android to the Rescue. Firehouse, 38(5), pp. 72 - 73.


20/24

2/14/2014

19

ANNEXURE1:ANSOFFS MATRIX.

Ansoff (1957) developed a framework to generate alternative strategic

directions for an organization, through considering its product market

options. The options generated support corporate growth objectives. Possiblegrowth opportunities are found by combining existing and new products and

services, and existing and new markets. The options are then presented in a

matrix to reveal four

distinct strategic

alternatives.

Market

penetration:

through this route, an

organization will seek

to increase its share

of an existing market

with its current

products. This may involve persuading existing users to use more, persuading

non users to use, or attracting users from competitors by various methods

such as marketing communication, increase current usage by users through

rewards and loyalty schemes, or competitive pricing.

Market development:An Organization will seek to identify or create new

market segments for its current product offer. The challenge here is to

identify genuine and sustainable market segments.

Product development: This involves the development of new products to

sell in current markets. This activity could include enhancement to existing

products, extensions to the existing product range, or genuine product


21/24


22/24

2/14/2014

21

ANNEXURE 2: Porters five forces.

Porter five forces analysis is a framework for industry analysis and business

strategy development. It draws uponindustrial organization (IO)

economics to derive five forces that determine the competitive intensity and

therefore attractiveness of amarket.Attractiveness in this context refers to

the overall industry profitability. An "unattractive" industry is one in which

the combination of these five forces acts to drive down overall profitability. A

very unattractive industry would be one approaching "pure competition", in

which available profits

for all firms are driven

tonormal profit. Threeof Porter's five forces

refer to competition

from external sources.

The remainder are

internal threats. Porter

referred to these forces

as themicroenvironment, to

contrast it with the more general termmacro environment.They consist of

those forces close to acompany that affect its ability to serve its customers

and make aprofit.A change in any of the forces normally requires a business

unit to re-assess themarketplace given the overall change inindustry

information. The overall industry attractiveness does not imply that

everyfirm in the industry will return the same profitability. Firms are ableto apply theircore competencies,business model or network to achieve a

profit above the industry average. A clear example of this is the

airlineindustry. As an industry, profitability is low and yet individual

companies, by applying unique business models, have been able to make a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)#Normal_profithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing#Marketing_environmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing#Marketing_environmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_scanninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_competencieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_modelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_modelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_competencieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_scanninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing#Marketing_environmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing#Marketing_environmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)#Normal_profithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_organization


23/24

2/14/2014

22

return in excess of the industry average. Porter's five forces include - three

forces from 'horizontal' competition: the threat of substitute products or

services, the threat of established rivals, and the threat of new entrants; and

two forces from 'vertical' competition: thebargaining power of suppliers and

the bargaining power of customers. Porter developed his Five Forces analysis

in reaction to the then-popularSWOT analysis, which he found

unrigorous. Porter's five forces is based on theStructure-Conduct-

Performance paradigm in industrial organizational economics. It has been

applied to a diverse range of problems, from helping businesses become more

profitable to helping governments stabilize industries.

Threat of new entrants: Profitable markets that yield high returns will

attract new firms. This results in many new entrants, which eventually will

decrease profitability for all firms in the industry. Unless the entry of new

firms can be blocked byincumbents (which in business refers to the largest

company in a certain industry, for instance, in telecommunications, the

traditional phone company, typically called the "incumbent operator"), the

abnormal profit rate will trend towards zero (perfect competition).

Threat of substitute products or services: The existence of products

outside of the realm of the common product boundaries increases the

propensity of customers to switch to alternatives. For example, tap water

might be considered a substitute for Coke, whereas Pepsi is a competitor's

similar product. Increased marketing for drinking tap water might "shrink

the pie" for both Coke and Pepsi, whereas increased Pepsi advertising would

likely "grow the pie" (increase consumption of all soft drinks), albeit while

giving Pepsi a larger slice at Coke's expense. Another example is the

substitute of traditional phone with VoIP phone.

Bargaining power of customers (buyers): The bargaining power of

customers is also described as the market of outputs: the ability of customers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargaining_powerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure-Conduct-Performance_paradigmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure-Conduct-Performance_paradigmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure-Conduct-Performance_paradigmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure-Conduct-Performance_paradigmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargaining_power


24/24

2/14/2014

to put the firm under pressure, which also affects the customer's sensitivity

to price changes. Firms can take measures to reduce buyer power, such as

implementing a loyalty program.

Bargaining power of suppliers: The bargaining power of suppliers is also

described as the market of inputs. Suppliers of raw materials, components,

labour, and services (such as expertise) to the firm can be a source of power

over the firm when there are few substitutes. If you are making biscuits and

there is only one person who sells flour, you have no alternative but to buy it

from them. Suppliers may refuse to work with the firm or charge excessively

high prices for unique resources.

Intensity of competitive rivalry: For most industries the intensity of

competitive rivalry is the major determinant of the competitiveness of the

industry.

Documents

Android: Strategic Management