Cell Phones Cheap-Apple vs. Google vs. Microsoft: One Platform Will Not Rule Them All


Cell Phones Cheap-Apple vs. Google vs. Microsoft: One Platform Will Not Rule Them All

 

 

 

By Mylan Cellular

May 14, 20137

Visit our ONLINE STORE for a complete selection of discount cell phones, used cell phones, refurbished cell phones as well as new and used tablets.

There are narratives circling the technology business that are carrying out their welcome. the first one, and also the one wherever I would like additional intelligent voices would prevail, is that the narrative that there will solely be one winner during this business. particularly that for Google’s scheme to win, Microsoft and Apple should fail. Or that for Microsoft’s scheme to win, Apple and Google have to be compelled to lose. And in fact for Apple to win, Google and Microsoft have to be compelled to lose.
Perhaps this narrative is best encapsulated in the latest Nokia Lumia smartphone TV ad, which showcases the apparent epic battle between iPhone and Android users. As funny as the commercial is, average consumers — the ones that make up the target market — really don’t care which phone you or I use. Last year I wrote a column on that very subject called I Chose the iPhone, You Chose Android — So What?
As far as I can tell, these narratives are rooted in not only a limited view of the technology industry’s history, but also in a very short-sighted one. It seems as though since Microsoft’s Windows platform dominated much of computing for several decades, it must mean it’s inevitable that this domination repeat itself. It seems the expectation from many is that we are simply waiting to see which platform wins. More specifically, which platform will dominate computing market share the way Microsoft did in the past. Let me explain why this is not going to happen.
Big Consumer Markets Cell Phones Cheap at http://www.mylancellular.com
The reason I say the “one platform to rule them all” narrative is deeply flawed is because when Microsoft dominated computing, the market was very small from a global standpoint. The market for PCs back then was tiny compared to today’s market for smartphones, for example. Small markets favor fewer players who typically dominate the segment. The global consumer market for technology is massive. Massive global consumer markets can sustain many players, competing for segments of markets, and all making money.
Look at how many automobile companies the global consumer market can sustain. Look at how many clothing companies, types of aspirin, types of cereal, etc., the market can sustain. Believing that for Google to win Apple has to lose – or vice-versa – is like believing that for Pepsi to win, Coca-Cola has to lose; for Burger King to win, McDonald’s has to lose; for BMW to win, Mercedes-Benz has to lose. We all know how silly that sounds — and that’s the point.
Interestingly, even though a few major conglomerates own many of the underlying products that make up the variety I mention, each product’s success often transcends the company itself but is wrapped into a larger experience. This larger experience is bound to something central that’s key to that company’s sustainability in the global consumer market: its brand.
Now, if we must get into a discussion about who has the best chance to win or lose, I would argue that it’s not the platform we should be looking at, it’s the brand.
Brands Rule the World
When you look at the global consumer market, you simply will not find a company succeeding and competing on the basis of a product which does not have a strong brand. A strong brand stands out. It is recognizable. It leads to continually high customer satisfaction, loyalty and trust. A strong brand continually re-creates an enjoyable and memorable experience for its customers.
When a company builds a brand that the global consumer market considers valuable, it puts itself in a lasting position. Nike, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Coke, Pepsi, McDonald’s, etc., are not in danger of going out of business anytime soon. To predict their demise is as ridiculous as predicting the demise of the strong global consumer brands in the technology industry. Of course, not all brands survive. We have countless examples of mismanaged companies, who lacked the foresight to disrupt themselves and invest in the future. But the time it takes for a brand to unravel is much longer than it is for a company without a strong brand.
A strong brand is not just sustainable, it is also versatile. Brands compete well in their own markets but a strong brand also allows a company the ability to compete in new markets with new products. A strong brand is one of the strongest, most defensible assets any company has. It is one of the foundational things that often gets overlooked in many analyses.
It’s time to re-think the importance of winners and losers in the technology industry. It’s time to take a more holistic look at who is well positioned to still exist in 20, 30, 50 or even 100 years. Products come and go, but brands have the best chance at standing the test of time.
Bajarin is a principal at Creative Strategies Inc., a technology-industry analysis and market-intelligence firm in Silicon Valley. He contributes to the Big Picture opinion column that appears here every week.

We Offer Cell Phones Cheap at http://www.mylancellular.com Because we think you deserve a better and less expensive smartphone that matches your needs and wants and without having to pay a fortune for it.. Visit MylanCellular Today and get what you deserve.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s