Group items tagged

Now we understand what Nokia's CEO meant when he said the company had to "jump into the icy seas" in order to save itself. The "icy seas" in question has materialized as Microsoft's OS, It is ironical that it was Nokia that originally led the main handset makers away from Microsoft  and into the Symbian consortium for fear of becoming commoditized hardware makers. Now, years later, the company has been forced to make a dramatic U-turn. Why didn't Nokia choose Android? Probably because both Nokia and telcos - who are its main customers - fear a Google monopoly (or a Google-Apple duopoly) and don't feel threatened by a now weakened Microsoft. Moreover, the two companies are somewhat complementary, with Nokia having scale but lacking a competitive OS, and the opposite for Microsoft. But critics might wonder whether - in this fierce competition between ecosystems - it is wise to pick a weaker ally for fear of intra-ecosystem competition, and risk losing the battle between ecosystems. Moreover, Nokia will have to pay Microsoft for OS licences and not have exclusive rights, so that the risk of becoming commoditized is for real. Finally, the announcement was made today, but new products will not be ready for months (how different from Apple's approach to announcements!). In the meanwhile, Nokia's market share is likely to plunge significantly. A real jump in the icy seas  

An article on competition in the smartphone industry. Nokia is the market leader thanks to its brand and grip on the Symbian OS, but competitors like Apple and RIM are growing quickly thanks to superior product concepts. It is interesting that Nokia is teaming up with Microsoft in the area of Office applications, in order to increase the appeal of its products.

Innovation leads to imitation. This is especially true for inventions that are somewhat easy to copy, like Nestlé's Nespresso capsules. It is interesting that, to ward off price-based competition, Nestlé has chosen to keep firm in its positioning of Nespresso as a high-end and "affordable luxury" offering. This requires accurate branding, advertising, complementary services, and so on. Of course, some enforcement of its  1700 patents might also come in handy

The smartphone arena is getting hot, and competition is being fought not only in the market but also in courtrooms, over IPR. It is interesting that Microsoft has decided to challenge Google's Android OS indirectly, through the device-maker (and Microsoft partner) HTC, probably a weaker party than Google itself

The shift to netbooks also opens up competition in the field of microprocessors. Can ARM Holdings be successful in fighting against players like Intel and Motorola?

There is another paradigm shift that is currently coming out. Incandescent lamps are getting to the end of their lifecycle, and we are observing competition between low-power fluorescents and LED lights. If progress in LED lights will be fast enough, it is likely that they will become the dominant technology. If not, they might remain confined to niche applications.

Interesting take the the news that space tourism is about to take off. The author's position is that the real business model by private companies will not (only) be to take wealthy people in orbit. Rather, it will be to take up the routinary and menial task of shuttling men and equipment to and from orbiting space stations in a more efficient way than governmental space agencies, with efficiency coming from competition. This will free up government agencies to pursue projects that are clearly beyond what private firms can do, i.e. going to the moon and Mars.

The battle for smartphones is no longer a Symbian / Nokia vs.Microsoft affair. The two real competitors appear to be Apple and Google. However, it is interesting to notice that their strategy is markedly different, and depends on the underlying business model of the two companies. Apple wants to use cheap Apps to bring users to its devices. Google wants to use Internet access to bring users to its search algorithms. In any case, it is interesting to notice that both firms base their competitive position on a mixture of openness (to achieve reach) and secrecy/closeness (to make money).

Palm, once clear market leader in the "palmtop" segment clearly has lost ground in the shift to smartphones. Now it is attempting a revival, based on its web-oriented operating system. Will this be enough to fend off competing solutions from Apple, Microsoft, Nokia/Symbian and Google/Android? The answer depends on whether there something specific in Palm's business model, acting as differentiator and potentially as a source of competitive advantage.

2010 seems to be a key year in the paradigm shift from traditional to future (electric?) vehicles. Even if the sales figures are still likely to be low for the next years, most carmakers are committing substantial investment in the new "dominant design". However, the competitive landscape will probably be shaped by new entrants and by startups, that still have to emerge above the horizon

HTC is probably becoming an important player, since Apple has decided to sue the company for patent infringement. The real question is whether Apple is really concerned about unfair competition by HTC as a smartphone maker, or whether it is trying to cripple the supplier of hardware to the "real" competitors at the level of operating systems (i.e. Microsoft and Google).

The story of Zai, makers of luxury ski equipment, is interesting and typical of firms who plan to work on a differentiation strategy and carve themselves a niche with little competition, at the same time solving technical tradeoffs in a different way than done by "traditional" competitors

Radical innovation happens in services too. Companies like Mastercard and Visa are now facing strong competition from Internet-based players like PayPal and have to start developing new products. It is interesting that MasterCard has gone beyond the usual approach of acquiring smaller firms and has set up an R&D unit. This may help develop absorbtive capacity and avoid running into integration problems.

'Early adopters', 'trendsetters', 'opinion leaders', 'first movers' - are the labels describing those who are ahead of the mainstream, who are keen to try out new things. The article explains the subtle differences between those terms and how can companies proactively incorporate using these groups and their insight into their innovation management process.

An interesting comment on the way with which technology is likely to shape the concept of home entertainment in the near future. As it appears, it will be based on bringing "intelligence" on board devices rather than adopting a single do-it-all server. Implications on competitive advantage for the many potential competitors are pretty obvious

Google is pushing on its cloud-based strategy, with multiple sources of content - be it books, TV, or else - being delivered to multiple devices from its own data centers. It is likely to find weak resistance from stalwarts of past technology, but some fierce competition from the likes of Facebook.

According to Nokia, CEO, the company is like a "burning platform", and the only way out is to "dive in the icy waters". Translated: due to competition by Apple, Android and RIM, Symbian is dead and only a radical and seemingly irrational about-face can save the company (in the parable, diving the ocean's icy waters). Stay tuned for further announcements

Large corporations such as Microsoft and Amazon are making huge investment in data centers for cloud computing all over the world. These are mostly sunk costs, which make it very likely that while capacity will overshoot, competition will drive prices down to marginal cost. A good prospect for the paradigm to become dominant... maybe less so for the companies involved (at least at first).

The EU commission wants to end Microsoft's bundling of a browser with the operating system. But can you really force a split between the two? And can you force Microsoft to carry competing products as well? In the end, it depends on product architecture

A few months ago, The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA), started running a project on how to increase growth through innovation. Harvard Business School will send their MBA students to Sweden to learn and study the "Swedish miracle". How did they do it and what can we learn from the Swedish model about the importance of innovation for creating increased growth and competitiveness.