A NDROID : S TRATEGIC MANAGEMENT .

Shibin S Cherian.

Submitted for the Module Strategy management for the Award of Master s in Business Administration.

Shibin S Cherian 2/14/2014

2/14/2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE 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 ANDROID AND 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: ................................................................................................. 9 PORTERs FIVE FORCES TO ELABORATE WIDER IMPLICATIONS: ........... 10 Figure 2. Porters five forces for competitive 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
1

2/14/2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
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 OBJECTIVES of this report: 1. Recognizing current strategic issues faced by Android in maintaining a competitive position. 2. Evaluation of appropriate corporate strategic decisions taken by Android. 3. Discussing the broader implications of those corporate strategic decisions.

OBJECTIVES:
1. To evaluate potential strategic concerns faced by Android using appropriate theoretical frameworks. 2. To evaluate specific corporate level strategic options taken by Android to 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 above considered strategic options and to evaluate its impact on Android. 4. Prepare recommendations in light to meet such specific strategic concerns faced by Android.

2/14/2014

CURRICULUM OF ANDROID:
Launched in 2003, Android is surveyed to be one of the most relied and recognized operating system in the digital market of Mobile phones. Recognized as an open source platform, Android was later acquired by Google Inc. in 2005, and now operates has fully owned subsidiary of Google Inc. According to Marketline (2012), Android is concluded to generate the highest source of revenue for Google. Currently, Google generates 96% of its totals revenues from advertising (Marketline, 2013). With an influential market dominance and market acceleration of the mobile industry, 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. Googles further revenue is generated through advertisements attached to these apps. However, in contrast, Apple performs a more direct approach. While developers receive 70% of the revenues for the apps sold through Play Store (Android Market), with the remaining 30% being divided by payment processors and Google, Apple proceeds with a clear 30% cut from the apps sold via the App Store (Marketline 2012; 2013), thereby speculating the fact that Android is somewhat behind the lead in this perspective . Furthermore, Android began its personalized market recently in 2011 while Apple launched its App store in 2008. However, the global mobile phone spectrum is experiencing a mammoth demand accelerating its growth to substantial figures. Popular handset devices such as HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony Experia etc. are powered by Android and are expected to have a strong growth up to 2018 as of now (Marketline, 2013). Though theoretically understood that Android in this regard operates in a fast paced market with further growth opportunities, it is essential that a full pre analysis of Androids strategic decision making for maintaining a global competitive position is evaluated and concluded.

2/14/2014

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.

OBJECTIVE 1: STRATEGIC CONCERNS FACED BY ANDROID:

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 expand Androids environment using SWOT analysis.

Swot Analysis for Android:

Strengths:
1. Fully owned subsidiary of Google Inc. and in collaboration with Open Handset Alliance. 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 as HTC, Motorola, LC, Samsung etc. (Android, 2013) 3. Because of its open source liberty, Android has developed a broad market for freelance 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).

2/14/2014

Weakness:
1. On a contrary note, while Apple boost its audience by delivering a centralized repository 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 upset about 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 various mobile 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 is expected to encounter future business opportunities (Marketline, 2012; 2013). 2. Androids market share has inclined from 46.2% to 50.6% and is expected to grow further 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 Androids compatibility source coding, interestingly, recent surveys concluded that more than 45% of the corporate employees used their mobile devices to share documents using cloud services such as dropbox and GoogleDocs (Gonsalves, 2013; Lavenda, 2013). 2. Report (Lavenda, 2013) estimates that a cost of $2 billion is incurred by US companies 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 corporate documents (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.

2/14/2014 5. With Nokia mobile units being acquired by Microsoft (BBC, 2013), Android potential faces 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).
Table 1: Smartphone OS sales Share (%); Source: Swamy (2014).

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
1

at

substantial

level.

A neologism word coined to describe cooperative competition. 6

2/14/2014

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.

OBJECTIVE 2 & 3: CORPORATE STRATEGIC DECISIONS FOR ANDROID AND ITS WIDER IMPLICATIONS:
While feasibly Android executes generic corporate strategies in order to perform functional and profitable business, it is essential to identify core strengths potential to that, stratigies it to the is and for also a opportunities to develop sustainibility. In addition important evaluate exhibit

framework which would market attractivness of Android. Ansoff (1957) sugesstes a matrix (ordinarily known

2/14/2014

as the Ansoff Matrix) that would evaluate an organisations current and future potentials for its market sustainbility. Elaborating the Ansoffs matrix could get comprehensive. Therefore this report will now narrow its scope towards Androids 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 its global smartphone shipments upto 81% (Palenchar, 2013; Kerr, 2013). During the first quarter of 2013, global android smartphone proceeds reached $5 billion (Enst & Young, 2013). 95% share of all Android smatphone profits were captured and dominated by Samsung (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 to their personal choice of hardware device (Marketline, 2013). Android excels in delivering product development at a innovative scale (Android, 2013).

2/14/2014 Popular handset devices such as HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony Experia etc. are powered by 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 mobile industry, 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 pentrated the digital and telecommunications market (Werner, 2013). Android integrates continous growth development with its strategic alliances to deliver customer satisfaction for its products (Enst & Young, 2013). Android was succusseful in sustaining its open source platform encouraging developers 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 with its 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 will elaborate 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 products features. 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.

2/14/2014 The Android Home Phone System: Powered with full internet access, the android home 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, washer and dryer, Android has been successful in penetrating the appliances market. The Android Home Command Center: Android provides an all out home control devices 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 ELABORATE WIDER 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 daily purposes. 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

10

2/14/2014

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. the limitation, down Due to and this the scope

report will point necessary links to reach a conclusion regarding Android. the market strength of

Figure 2. Porter s five forces for competitive strategy: Source: Porter (2008)

11

2/14/2014

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 smartphone industry 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.

12

2/14/2014

CONCLUSION:
Observably, Android penetrated the digital market at a gargantuan level. Reconsidering the SWOT analysis, Android currently operates on an innovative scale with comparable observations with its competitors, RIM, Windows and iOS (Business wire, 2012), however, the brand equity of RIM, Windows and iOs can be claimed to be of potential competitor stress. In addition, Android must initiate strategic proposals in order to acquisite successful co-opetitve operations. As mentioned earleir, failure of co-opetitive merging with Blackberry can be deemed to be considered for further static and raw market analysis; Whether Android could have done something to avoid such failure could be a potential query. However, it is also to be noted that predominantly, Blackberry lost its competitive position globally before its merging with Android (Kelion, 2013). It is also urged that Android must stringtly consider the data protection tasks in order to avoid corporate data leakage, however, this can be challenging as Android will have to deal with developing proprietory platform in order to subsidize the increased levels of cybercrimes and malwares at a substantial level. Android must recognise that initiation of cloud services has made a predecisive choice for its customers, therefore android must find measures to compete with the exsisting cloud services. As stated by BBC (2012), android was observbed to be vulnerable to MITM cyberattack and must consider immidiate remedies to counter this issue. In light to Ansoffs Matrix, Android was concluded to have penetrated the market at efficacious rate; becoming market leader. Android elevated itself in the market with global smartphones shipments up to 81%, signifying this penetration strategy as commendable. When compared with Apple (Burnette, 2009), Android produces liberty in its platform rather than to use a proprietary software platform. However, it is also to be noted that such stringent policy in using proprietary software is what keeps Apple comparatively secure than Android. While Destructuring Porters five forces for competitive strategy, it was observed that Android operates in a balance
13

2/14/2014

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 malware threats. Potential investment in research and development must be considered here. 2. Further historical statistics is to be implemented in order to develop strategic operations. Due to the content limitation of this report, only the stated objectives were referred. 3. Android can potentially propose to innovate proprietary semiconductor unit 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 can further 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 competitor stress on the long run. Android must consider in leading diversification strategies to maintain its sustainability in the market. Further

14

2/14/2014

strategic acquisitions can be considered by Google in order to eradicate further rivalry competition. 6. With Samsung generating almost 95% of profit from Android, Google can further generate reserves in developing further frameworks and strategies to expand future opportunities in the technology industry.

15

2/14/2014

REFERENCES
Andriod: 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. 113124. 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 [Accessed 24 jan 2014]. Bhasin, H., 2012. Android Analysis. [Online] Available at: www.marketing91.com/android-swot-analysis/ [Accessed 24 jan 2014]. 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 Management Information 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-trendsand-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-

16

2/14/2014 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-threatsand-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 [Accessed 24 Jan 2014]. 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-percentof-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-shareandroid-windows-phone-gain-kantar-475877 [Accessed 24 Jan 2014].

17

2/14/2014 Veracode, 2013. Man in the Middle Attack. [Online] Available at: http://www.veracode.com/security/man-in-the-middle-attack [Accessed 24 Jan 2014]. Werner, C., 2013. Android to the Rescue. Firehouse, 38(5), pp. 72 - 73.

18

2/14/2014

ANNEXURE 1: 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. Possible growth 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 alternatives. strategic

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

19

2/14/2014

innovation. However, the risks associated with new product development are well known. Diversification: Diversification involves producing entirely new product propositions for new markets. This is the riskiest of the four strategic approaches, especially, if it is not built upon existing core competence of the business. P.s - The matrix presents four possible market and/or product combinations for an organisation to propagate via exsiting and/or new goods in a existing and/or new market(s), thereby deducting two key aspects to develop a marketing strategy: What to sell and who to sell. Ansoffs Matrix relates merely to markets and products thereby giving organisation four alernate stratigies that could coincide with their organisations objectives.

20

2/14/2014 ANNEXURE 2: Porters five forces.

Porter five forces analysis is a framework for industry analysis and business strategy development. It draws upon industrial organization (IO) economics to derive five forces that determine the competitive intensity and therefore attractiveness of a market. 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 to normal profit. Three of Porter's five forces refer The to competition are from external sources. remainder internal threats. Porter referred to these forces as environment, the micro to

contrast it with the more general term macro environment. They consist of those forces close to a company that affect its ability to serve its customers and make a profit. A change in any of the forces normally requires a business unit to re-assess the marketplace given the overall change in industry information. The overall industry attractiveness does not imply that every firm in the industry will return the same profitability. Firms are able to apply their core competencies, business model or network to achieve a profit above the industry average. A clear example of this is the airline industry. As an industry, profitability is low and yet individual companies, by applying unique business models, have been able to make a

21

2/14/2014

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: the bargaining power of suppliers and the bargaining power of customers. Porter developed his Five Forces analysis in reaction to the then-popular SWOT forces is based analysis, on which he found unrigorous. Porter's five the Structure-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 by incumbents (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

22

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.

23