Strategic Management

Industry Paper Final

Communications Equipment Industry Mobile Devices Segment

Team Foxtrot

Fall 2009

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................3

Description.................................................................................................................................................3

Segments....................................................................................................................................................3

Socio-Economic Factors..............................................................................................................................3

Relevant Governmental or Environmental Factors....................................................................................3

Economic Indicators Relevant for the Industry.........................................................................................4

Porters Five Forces......................................................................................................................................5

Threat of New Entrants..............................................................................................................................5

Suppliers..................................................................................................................................................10

Buyers......................................................................................................................................................13

Threat of Substitutes................................................................................................................................16

Rivalry......................................................................................................................................................17

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................22

Critical Success Factors...........................................................................................................................22

Prognosis..................................................................................................................................................23

Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................25

Appendices..................................................................................................................................................27

Industry Ratios........................................................................................................................................27

Other Relevant Indices.............................................................................................................................28

2

Introduction

DescriptionThe mobile device industry currently provides devices for approximately 4.1 billion users

around the globe. Given that two out of every three people on the planet own and use a mobile device, this industry is key to providing essential tools for business, pleasure, and safety. The industry first picked up steam when the company Motorola developed the first practical mobile phone for use outside of a vehicle in 1973. The first citywide cellular network was then launched by Japan in 1979 and then in the US in 1983, the first mobile phone was approved by the FCC for use and made by Motorola. Since then customers have grown each year, phones have gotten smaller and more powerful, and smart phones seem to have taken over in 2009 and look to be the way we will do business in the future.22

Globally, Nokia is the world’s largest manufacturer of mobile devices, along with Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Motorola and LG Electronics. While Samsung and LG Electronics are major players in the mobile device segment, these two companies cross multiple industries and will not be considered in this industry analysis. This analysis will focus on the US market currently and the key players for this analysis are Apple, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, and RIM (Research in Motion). Apple is represented as being the newest entrant with the successful iPhoneTM and Motorola as an original mobile device manufacturer to give a broad spectrum for analysis. These companies comprise many of the largest manufacturers distributing to the US and will give a good overview of the industry and various products available to consumers.

SegmentsWithin the Communication Equipment industry, five main segments emerge. These

segments are: Mobile Devices, Enterprise Mobility Solutions, Mobile Applications, Home and Network Mobility, and Mobile Computing Devices.1 The focus of this paper will be the Mobile Devices segment.

Socio-Economic Factors

Relevant Governmental or Environmental FactorsThis industry’s desirability is subject to multiple governmental and environmental

factors.

The current regulation for the cell phone carrier industry is governed domestically by the Federal Communication Commission. The allocation of frequencies is regulated by the FCC in the US and by other agencies in foreign countries. There is a limited spectrum available to wireless service providers. The impact of the most recent auction of the 700 MHz bandwidth by the FCC is not known.23

3

Current safety of cell phone usage, in particular texting while driving has become an issue. Laws have been passed regarding the use of cell phones in this regard. A current potential solution has been proposed to place a device blocking text messaging in moving vehicles. Controversy surrounding this device, and laws concerning the safety of cellular phones have recently shadowed this industry.

Research studies have been performed linking the radiation emitted from cellular phones to tumors. This has created some reluctance among subsets of users.24

Cell phone usage has multiple security issues. Information can be stolen over unsecure networks (identity theft). Homeland Security has expressed concern because a cell phone can be used as remote detonation devices for potential terrorist activities. This was found to be the case in the post 911 Madrid Spain railway bombing.

International anti-trust regulations and standardization of cell phone carriers are a concern for cell phone manufacturers. Multiple networks have developed and created a need for phones to have multiple compatibilities increasing the need for larger storage and increased technology innovation.

Government policy may favor government owned companies or those in which the government has a controlling interest versus multinational corporations. Operating software for wireless devices and other intellectual property does not have the same protection abroad as it does domestically.

Standardization of communication protocols has been problematic. The formation of the Interoperability Group (IOP) for the standardization of Multimedia Messaging Service is an example of an attempt to introduce standardization. Exclusion from a group such as the IOP can create difficult hurdles to overcome.

Economic Indicators Relevant for the IndustryThe current global economic downturn which began in the second half of 2008 has

impacted the wireless handset industry, resulting in the slowing of end user demand. Industry experts have predicted shipments to decline 10% which would be the first decline in handset shipments since 2001. The expected decline would be a result of slowing growth in emerging markets and decreased replacement sales in established markets. As a wireless carrier, Verizon has had the slogan of “New every Two” providing end users with a replacement or upgraded phone every two years locking wireless clients into extending their contract agreement by two years. The economic downturn has created a subset of consumers who do not wish to be ties into a contract in economically uncertain times.

Revenue is expected to decrease at an average annualized rate of 4.9% through 2009. The industry is expected to contract in the five years through 2014, at a real average rate of 0.4%.

The uncertainty and volatility of global economic conditions poses a risk as consumers and businesses may delay investments in technology and innovation in response to tighter credit, negative financial news, or declines in current assets.

4

Economic difficulty could impact key suppliers resulting in product delays or potential abandonment of product lines, unfinished goods in process and unusable inventory.

Global markets for high tech electronic devices are highly competitive and subject to rapid technological change which when coupled with governmental factors can rapidly affect a manufacturer’s operations and financial stability.

The ability of regulators to influence the timing of the introduction of new technologies (such as the release of the 700 MHz bandwidth mentioned above) can create a situation where technology becomes instantly obsolete thereby adversely affecting the supply chain and disrupting the industry in general.

Porters Five Forces

Threat of New EntrantsEconomies of Scale

The following graph illustrates the increasing average total assets in the industry, indicating that economies of scale may exist. In the most recent five-year period, average assets have climbed 79% from 14,640 to 26,256.

Average Industry Total Assets from 2004 - 2008

The graph shown below displays that the average industry capital expenditures as a percentage of sales has stayed pretty consistant until a 65% jump in 2008. Capital spending has roughly stayed the same and if anything, has increased some in 2008. Economies of scale either do not exist here, or the industry has already achieved economies.13

5

Average Industry Capital Expenditures as Percentage of Sales from 2004 - 2008

Looking at the cost of goods sold per employee, we see that the number is decreasing which indicates that the unit costs of mobile devices are on the decline. Economies of scale do appear to exist here as it is becoming less expensive to produce each device, making this industry appear attractive and the threat of new entrants low.13

Average Cost of Goods Sold per Employee from 2004 – 2008

We can conclude from the analysis that economies of scale do exist and this represents a high barrier to entry. Therefore, the industry is attractive.

Working Capital Requirements

The fixed costs to sales ratio is definitely on the lower side over the past five years. This means that only a fifth of sales are contributing to fixed costs. This makes the industry unattractive, as

6

the threat of new entrants is high as many businesses would be willing to take the risk in this industry with such low fixed costs.13 The annotation in the graph, ‘in millions’, is a typo.

Fixed Costs to Sales Ratio from 2004 – 2008

Proprietary Product Differences

Mobile phone manufacturers have the ability to create and use their own proprietary software packages. This can create differences between manufacturers if one software platform is so unique that it stands out among the rest. For example, the Apple iPhone uses Apple’s proprietary software and the software is the primary selling point of that very popular phone. These types of proprietary product differences can create a high barrier to entry. This causes a low threat of new entrants and makes the industry attractive.14

Absolute Cost Advantages

Patents are abundant in the mobile device world. All key players in the industry hold various patents, and continue to invest in intellectual property to stay competitive. The Apple iPhone is a recent and a prime example of cost advantages through patent holding. Some companies have managed to work around Apple’s iPhone patents, which attempt to protect their intellectual property. However, Palm recently seems to have crossed the line with their most recent touch screen device and will most likely feel pressure from Apple in coming months.7 Also last year RIM and Motorola had disputes over RIM’s patent holdings, limiting Motorola’s development.6 These types of patents on the core technology around mobile devices constitute a high barrier to entry, causing a low threat of new entrants and making the industry attractive.

Brand Identity

According to an employee of a major mobile device manufacturer, buyers currently offer phones from each major mobile phone manufacturer, albeit not the same model for each customer. Buyers are heavily influenced by what their customers (the end users) desire. End users tend to lean toward brand loyalty in their mobile devices. End users have migrated toward RIM’s Blackberry for business enterprise applications as an example, and have made it the standard in

7

business phone hardware. This end user dictates a lot of what the buyer (mobile network provider) is interested in and causes them to make choices based on identity. This creates a high barrier to entry and makes the industry attractive.14

Access to Distribution

Access to industry distribution is not a deterrent in the cellular phone industry. Distribution channels include primarily shipping from the manufacturer to the mobile phone network provider, along with specific retail outlets. This would make the industry unattractive because the barrier is low and the threat is high.

Expected Retaliation

The existing software operating platforms dominated by Google and Microsoft do not pose a significant retaliation as more phones utilizing those platforms would be welcome to the industry. Chipsets are developed by multiple companies which do not exclusively manufacture for a given cellular phone manufacturer. Motorola in the past did have some exclusivity in its chipset, not making an exclusive arrangement between a chipset manufacturer and cell phone manufacturer impossible. Retaliation could occur with exclusive agreements with component manufacturers; however, at present the research team has identified none. It also does not appear that the current manufacturers retaliate against newcomers to the industry in any concrete manner. The lack of retaliation makes this industry attractive.14

Decision Matrix

Key Factors Weights Attractive Unattractive

Economies of Scale 20% X

Working Capital Requirements

15% X

Proprietary Product Differences

15% X

Absolute Cost Advantages 10% X

Brand Identity 15% X

Access to Distribution 15% X

Expected Retaliation 10% X

Attractive = 70%; Unattractive = 30%

8

Conclusion

The industry is attractive from an analysis of threat to new entrants when given the weight of the economies of scale, proprietary product differences, absolute cost advantages, brand identify, and expected retaliation. From the other side, the working capital requirements show that fixed costs are low and this would make the industry inviting to potential competitors. However, the economies of scale and absolute cost advantages are key areas that remain attractive and predict future high barriers to entry.

SuppliersMobile Phones are made up of many parts that come from many different suppliers.

These parts can be grouped into three main categories: Software Platforms, Hardware Chipsets, and Mechanical Parts. Software applications are a commodity, so they will not be discussed.1

Supplier Concentration

From reading this, the inputs are commodity items. I do not see anything that really gives suppliers power. You should have jumped down to access to capital and labor.

There are only a few main software platforms available for the cell phone manufacturers to use. They can develop and use their own proprietary software, in which they would be their own supplier, thus no power struggle involved. The main non-proprietary software platforms available are Google’s Android (a free open-source platform), Nokia’s Symbian, and Microsoft’s Windows Mobile. Although limited in number, because of the recent availability of free open-source software platforms with the new Global Handset Alliance, the industry retains the power from software platform suppliers.14

Unlike software platforms, there are quite a few hardware chipset suppliers. The main ones include Broadcom, Qualcomm, Nokia, Texas Instruments, Infineon, and Ericsson. Since chipset suppliers are not concentrated, the buyers have the power.8 & 9

There are many different mechanical parts that make up a mobile phone. Most of these are commodity items like metal and plastic parts and need not be discussed. There are, however, some parts that have only a few suppliers and some parts where there is only one supplier, such as the display module, camera module, or flexible printed circuits. The buyers do not have the power over these suppliers. If the parts suppliers for some reason become capacity constrained or insolvent, it could result in an interruption in mobile phone manufacturing or increased prices.1

Presence of Substitute Inputs

There are a variety of substitute inputs for the three main mobile phone parts. Since buyers have the option of creating and using their own proprietary software, they do not have to use a software platform from a supplier. Thus the buyers have the power over software platform suppliers. The mobile phone must have a circuit board with a chipset, so there is no substitute input for the chipset. Chipset suppliers have the power here. When it comes to the main

9

mechanical parts for which there are only one or a few suppliers (Display, Camera Module, Speaker, etc.), these are central parts that make the mobile phone what it is. Therefore, there are not substitute inputs for mobile phones that include these parts. Thus the suppliers of these parts retain the power over the buyers.14

Importance of Volume to Supplier

Mobile phone software platforms, mobile phone chipsets, and mobile phone mechanical parts are all created and designed to supply pretty much all of their product to the mobile phone industry. Without this industry, these suppliers would not have substantial sales to keep them in business. Thus the industry has the power.14

Impact of Inputs on our Cost or Ability to Differentiate

Suppliers of all three main cell phone components very much affect the manufacturers’ ability to differentiate. The overall end user experience is based on the software platform used. Yes, the software can be customized to differentiate; however the “bones” of the software are the same. The chipset provides the main functionality, memory, and processor for the mobile device. The primary mechanical parts affect the look, feel, and sound quality of the device. All of these areas can reflect back on the manufacturer and affect the final product. This gives the suppliers power.14

Threat of Forward or Backward Integration

There does not currently seem to be a threat of forward or backward integration with the suppliers in this industry. This does not put the suppliers in a position of power, making the industry attractive.

Access to Capital

The profitability of this industry has been inconsistent from 2004 to 200827. The industry is currently contracting as customers are not purchasing or upgrading to new mobile devices. The industry had a history of profitability which peaked in 2006 and began declining in 2007. The effects of the current economic recession have not been fully captured, although the recession was declared to have started in December of 2007. Because the industry profitability is declining as inflation is increasing, debt financing is more difficult to obtain, giving power to the suppliers, and making this industry less attractive. The following chart plots the Inflation rate versus Industry Leaders Net Operating Margin.

10

Access to Labor

In the US, the cell phone manufacturing industry does not have unions. That is good for the industry, as it keeps the power in the manufacturers’ hands. Research and development of the mobile devices requires highly skilled engineers. If there were a shortage of skilled labor, this would make the industry unattractive. However since the recent downturn of the economy, labor of any kind appears to be plentiful to obtain since unemployment rates are so high. Most, if not all, of the manufacturing is outsourced to third parties. These third parties use mostly unskilled workers in assembly plants, and turnover is not a concern since new employees can be quickly trained to work on the assembly line. The industry is attractive when it comes to access to labor.14

Conclusion

11

The industry overall is attractive because the suppliers are not concentrated, the inputs cannot be differentiated, the industry makes up the majority of the suppliers’ volume, there is no threat of forward or backward integration, and there is easy access to labor.

Decision Matrix

Key Factors Weight

Attractive Unattractive

Supplier Concentration 10% X

- Software Platforms x

- Chipsets x

- Mechanical Parts x

Presence of Substitute Inputs 20% X

- Software Platforms x

- Chipsets x

- Mechanical Parts x

Differentiation of Inputs This subsection is no longer required.

10% X

- Software Platforms x

- Chipsets x

- Mechanical Parts x

Importance of Volume to Supplier 20% X

Impact of Inputs on our Cost or Ability to Differentiate 10% X

Threat of Forward or Backward Integration 10% X

Access to Capital 10% X

Access to Labor 10% X

Attractive = 60%, Unattractive = 40%

BuyersBuyers in the mobile devices industry fall into two categories: Mobile carriers which

account for the large portion of purchasing, and third-party distributors and retailers.1

Buyer Concentration

12

The amount of buyers in the US is smaller than the amount of mobile device manufacturers in the industry. Mobile carriers such as AT&T and Verizon Wireless are some of the largest buyers followed by Sprint and T-Mobile. Retailers such as Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and independent mobile device stores also sell these devices and represent a much smaller portion of the industry’s distribution. US buyers are more concentrated than manufacturers and therefore hold the power as almost all global mobile device manufacturers’ products are available to US buyers. This makes the industry in fact seem unattractive due to this weakness.11, 12, and 13 A bit of waffle here.

Buyer Switching Costs

Buyers such as mobile carriers do not normally experience large switching costs when moving between manufacturers. The exception would be a situation such as the iPhone which is exclusively available through the buyer AT&T. If AT&T were to drop the iPhone they would most likely have a mass exodus of customers who would follow the iPhone to its new home, creating revenue losses from mobile device purchases and wireless service purchases to utilize their device. However, there are very few reasons this situation would normally happen as AT&T would most likely do anything Apple asked, for example when they waived their technical requirements for the iPhone in order to carry it. According to an employee with a major mobile device manufacturer, buyers definitely are in a better position in most cases. Aside from a breakout hit like the iPhone, devices that popular are few and far between. Since many phones experience medium or low levels of popularity, buyers can at any time decide not to purchase the phones if they are not selling well or if the manufacturer will not meet the buyer’s technical requests. The industry does not have power over the buyers regarding switching costs making it unattractive.14

Buyer Information

Buyers of mobile devices know what it takes to make a mobile device. The prices of key components such as the chipset, software, and camera lens could be obtained within the industry. Additionally, given that there are so many manufacturers of devices, it is possible to compare phones with similar characteristics and use benchmarking to determine what it costs to make a good phone. Buyers do have power over the industry in this regard as the knowledge of the costs associated with mobile device production can be determined. This makes the industry unattractive.

Threat of Backward Integration

Backward integration does not appear to be popular among mobile device buyers or retailers and has not been attempted by any of the major companies such as Verizon or AT&T successfully at this point. This does not put the buyers in a position of power, making the industry attractive.

Pull Through

Pull through is definitely a part of this industry. Since brand identity is key to mobile devices, pull through is quite evident. For example the Blackberry line by RIM Inc. has essentially become a status symbol of the business executive and they would not want to be seen on a LG Chocolate phone (marketed towards youth) typing emails. A large amount of marketing

13

expenses occur in most manufacturers such as the 13.5% that RIM spent in the past year pushing their smart phones to the corporate world. Overall in the industry, mobile device advertising is growing at about 45% per year and is currently at $3.1 billion annually.25 There is pull through, and the industry has the power making it attractive.2 Ok, but you should have given a graph of the trend over 5 years for the industry, and don’t talk raw numbers.

Brand Identity of Buyers

Brand identity does impact the buyers of mobile devices. Buyers are looking for devices that appeal to all of the different segments of the population and for devices that will be considered by the retail customers as desirable to be seen with and to utilize. The Apple iPhone is not only trendy but the symbol of a young, tech-savvy, and even artistic generation. The industry has the power making it attractive. .

Price Sensitivity

Buyers representing cell phone carriers are not extremely price sensitive to fluctuations in the industry. Buyers’ ultimate goal is to make the $50 to $100 per month from the mobile customer that they will pay for the network service, not so much the profit from the initial purchase of the phone. These buyers are most likely going to eat the increased costs from a manufacturer if they know a popular new phone will be coming out and it will increase their cellular service customer base. This makes the buyer not very sensitive to changes and gives the power to the industry, making it attractive.

Price to Total Purchases

For mobile providers, mobile device purchases represent a large portion of their inventory. This is because without these devices getting to their customers, there would be nothing to utilize the national networks they have setup for communications. Given that buyers depend on the industry so heavily to keep it in business, the industry has power and is attractive.

Conclusion

Overall, buyers would not hold power over the industry. Therefore, the industry would be attractive.

14

Decision Matrix

Key Factors Weight Attractive Unattractive

Buyer Concentration 15% X

Buyer Switching costs 10% X

Buyer Information 5% X

Threat of Backward Integration 5% X  

Pull Through 20% X

Brand Identity of Buyers 25% X

Price Sensitivity 10% X  

Price to Total Purchases 15% X  

Attractive = 70%, Unattractive = 30%

Threat of SubstitutesTechnology currently exists which performs each independent function of a mobile

phone; however, a handheld netbook computer (Acer Asus) or notebook computer (multiple brands) is currently the only device capable of performing all functions currently available on a mobile phone.  The devices are very similar except for size.  Functionality and capacity of a netbook or notebook is generally higher whereas portability of a mobile phone is generally greater10.  Streaming data access improvements to online or on network storage has made the capacity issue less problematic for mobile phones.

 GPS positioning is available in a single device (e.g. Garmin, TomTom, etc…), which can be utilized without dependence on a cellular carrier network.  If the end user only desires GPS functionality then this could have an adverse affect on sales.

  Scheduling and organizing software currently exists on many handheld devices (e.g. Palm, HP iPaq) which are independent of a wireless carrier. This also could adversely affect sales. 

Radio devices exist for communication, which operate independently of wireless carriers for local limited communications.  The range consideration defines this substitute.

All in all, the threat of substitutes does not seem great enough to make the industry unattractive. The majority of people are moving toward one device that can do it all, so the existing substitutes are posing less of a threat as this move is made.

Rivalry

15

Degree of Concentration and Balance among Competitors

The mobile device industry in the US currently has six major firms that total 88% of the market share. Five or less of these firms represent 82% of the market which surpasses the 60% mark and indicates that concentration exists. Both Samsung and Motorola have market shares within 10 percentage points of each other which results in a balanced industry, as these are the two largest players currently. The industry is balanced and concentrated with a high level of rivalry and is therefore unattractive.15

Pie Chart of Current US Mobile Device Market Share

Diversity among Competitors

While all firms have decided to focus on either traditional mobile phones and/or smart phones, the one strategy that is evident across all firms is the development of the smart phone. A quick trip to the web store of any of the five largest firms in the industry will show that each offers some type of smart phone with internet and email capability. Firms such as RIM and Apple have decided to strictly focus on smart phones that require data plans with most mobile carriers. Samsung, LG, Nokia and Motorola continue to offer devices marketed towards both arenas as more of the population can’t afford a $30-$50 additional data charge to their monthly bill at this point. The bottom line is that each firm has a flagship smart phone that is leading the way as well as requiring heavy R&D financial commitments, as the traditional mobile device will slowly become less popular in the coming decade. All of the largest firms also market towards the mobile providers as well as third-party retail outlets as there is currently no benefit to staying out of these distribution lines.1 & 16

Since all firms are following very similar strategies and no large niches exist, the level of rivalry is high as they fight for the same markets. This makes the industry unattractive in its current state.

Industry Growth Rate (Past & Projected)

16

The graph below shows the industry growth of mobile device users from 1985 to 2008, and then uses projections based on industry analysis for the coming years through 2013.17

Industry Growth of Mobile Device Users from 1985 to 2013

2009 will most likely mark the first year of a decline in the need of mobile devices with a 10% drop in consumption. This has been attributed to the current economic crisis as well as the saturation of the market as the 76% of the population now own a mobile device. Once we enter 2010, growth is expected to pick back up again in the mid-single digits with an average of 5% growth per year through 2013. With the current inflation rate averaging around 3%, this indicates that the industry growth rate will be higher and firms will continue to increase market share without taking it away from other firms in the industry. Because of this, rivalry is reduced and the industry becomes attractive.1 & 18

Fixed Costs / Value Added

When considering fixed costs and EBITDA, it is evident that the fixed costs have generally followed the same trend as EBITDA when we examined a five year average of the industry. Fixed costs are starting to get higher which points towards the conclusion that economies of scale may exist (see Threat of New Entrants section – economies of scale). An EBITDA that is positive means that a profit is being made within the industry.13

The following data shows that the ratios of EBITDA and the fixed costs ratios appear to be somewhat similar but have started to take a different turn in the last two years. Fixed costs have stayed the same while EBITDA has plummeted and only represents 7.43% of the total sales. After the industry’s first year of decline expected in 2009, it will pick back up and increase a minimum of 5% in the foreseeable future. The fixed cost ratio will decrease since

17

sales will increase, while the EBITDA will increase due to sales as well.13 (see New Entrants Section for more detail)

EBITDA and Fixed Costs Margin Trend from 2004 to 2008

While fixed costs are increasing along with value added, this most likely means that economies of scale are possible within the industry. Since value added is not particularly low and the positive future projections will help its ratio to sales, the data agrees with the known fact that mobile devices are not commodities yet. Rivalry does not increase and is moderate, making the industry attractive.13

18

Intermittent Overcapacity

The following chart shows the current capacity utilization for Communications Equipment (ref):

Capacity Utilization: January 1996 – June 2009

The current trend is toward lower capacity utilization which is seen by the 2009 rate of 65%. The lower utilization which does not meet the 80% normal range means that the industry is susceptible to intermittent overcapacity. This increases rivalry and makes the industry unattractive.19

Growth of Foreign Competition

As the table below shows, only two of the top six global market share leaders in the mobile phone industry are US based companies (Apple and Motorola). This clearly shows that foreign firms can easily penetrate the US market. These two US firms hold 5.7% and 21.10% of the global market share, indicating that US firms are competitive in the global marketplace. However, global firms hold four of the six top spots in total US market share for a combined total of 62%. Time will tell if the US companies will gain significant market share to be top competitors but this will not happen anytime soon. Global firms appear to easily penetrate the US market and rivalry is increasing making the industry unattractive.26

19

Company2008 Global

Market Share

Samsung 22.40%

LG 20.50%

Motorola (US)

21.10%

RIM 10.20%

Nokia 8.40%

Apple (US) 5.70%

Other 11.70%

Corporate Stakes

The firms in the industry are not universal in their dependence on a single industry segment for their revenue. Nokia, the largest global retailer of cellular phones is not diversified and depends entirely on sales of cellular phones for revenue. Motorola is more diversified in providing other types of communications equipment to enterprises. Research in Motion, the maker of Blackberry is entirely dependent on cellular phone sales. Palm is split into two divisions for its revenue: handheld devices and cellular phones. Apple is the most diversified and involved in computers, handheld electronics, and cellular phones just to name a few areas. The aggregate conclusion is the revenue is highly dependent on the mobile device industry for each firm. This creates an increase in rivalry and makes the industry unattractive.

Exit Barriers

Mergers are not common among the top players in the mobile phone manufacturing industry that serves the US; however, that does not mean it wouldn’t ever happen. In 2008, Motorola considered selling off its mobile phone division, but the sale was never finalized.20

Also, Japanese firms Casio, Hitachi, and NEC recently merged in order to cut costs and become more competitive.21 However, no mergers have taken place in the US and there is currently no indication that one will.

Converting operations to another product/service seems unlikely due to the technical nature of this industry and how specific it is to one main product. Exit barriers appear somewhat high based on the high costs involved with getting out of this industry. This increases rivalry and makes the industry unattractive.

Decision Matrix

Key Factors Weigh Attractiv Unattractiv

20

t e e

Degree of Concentration and Balance Among Competitors 10% X

Diversity Among Competitors 5% X

Industry Growth Rate 25% X

Fixed Costs to Value-Added 20% X

Intermittent Overcapacity 5% X

Growth of Foreign Competition 20% X

Corporate Stakes 10% X

Exit Barriers 5% X

Attractive = 45%, Unattractive 55%

Conclusion

The industry is unattractive mainly because of the concentration and balance among competitors, the diversity among competitors, overcapacity, the growth of foreign competition, corporate stakes, and exit barriers. Even though many more categories are unattractive than attractive, the weights are only separated by 10% meaning that it was a close race.

Conclusion

Critical Success FactorsSocio-economic Forces - Standardization of communication protocols in the industry are a significant hurdle. While these hurdles affect all companies in the industry; a successful company will need to comply with the Interoperability Group for standardization.

Economies of Scale, Product Differentiation and Brand Identity - The ability for a company to achieve economies of scale quickly is important for success in this industry. A company must quickly differentiate itself with proprietary software and establish brand identity in the mobile device segment.

Presence of Substitute Inputs and Importance of Volume to Suppliers – Entrants in the mobile device industry must be aware of the supplier power with the chipset and circuit boards. Establishing positive forward looking relationships with these suppliers is important for success and weighted heavily in the analysis. The importance of volume to suppliers, whose business would not be sustainable otherwise, is important in balancing the relationship which must be established for both buyer and supplier to be successful.

Brand Identity, Pull Through, and Price Sensitivity – Establishing very quickly Brand Identity is a key success factor in this industry and subsequently pull through. This will lead to

21

tolerance in price sensitivity with buyers which will be necessary to maintain profitability and further innovation.

Growth of Foreign Competition and Industry Growth Rate – Surveillance of the industry growth rate is key to responding to changes within this industry. The climate exists where foreign competition can easily usurp market share and most be monitored to insure competitive advantage in technology, brand identity, and pricing.

Apparently you didn’t understand what was expected here. Only 2 or 3 CSFs. CSFs are those factors that can be used to predict success or failure. What you have here is more of a list. Now, which are truly critical? Since economies exist, I would suggest efficiency. Since brand identity is important, that can be another. Then, reading between the lines, R&D would be a 3rd. You have to fix this before doing the firm paper.

PrognosisThe following Table summarizes the decision matrices for the industry utilizing Porter’s strategy.

Key Factors Attractive Unattractive

Threat of New Entrants 70 30

Suppliers 60 40

Buyers 70 30

Substitute products 100 0

Rivalry 45 55

Total 345 155

Attractive = 69%, Unattractive = 31%

According to our decision matrix, the mobile phone industry is attractive to enter. However, the firms have to be cautious about suppliers with respect to presence of substitute inputs, impact of inputs on the cost or ability to differentiate, and access to Capital; and very cautious of rivalry with respect to growth of foreign competition, corporate stakes, and degree of concentration.

Prognosis for this industry is fair. The future growth for this industry is demonstrated by the industry growth rate, the price sensitivity, potential economies of scale, and the importance of volume to suppliers.

This industry has high barriers to entry; therefore, there will be fewer firms willing to enter. Consequently, most of the market is dominated domestically by approximately 5 large companies. Due to absolute cost advantage due to patents and intellectual property, working capital requirements where only one fifth of sales are contributing to fixed costs, and economies of scale that allow production of each device to occur at a lower cost, the industry is attractive to enter.

22

The industry has very little impact of substitutes because by definition, the desired characteristic is mobility and functionality. This makes the industry very attractive.

The mobile phone industry has significant attractiveness in its power over suppliers. The supplier concentration, the differentiation of inputs, the importance of volume to suppliers, and the access to labor contributed significantly to the attractiveness.

In evaluating buyers in the industry, the industry again appears attractive due to the lack of threat in backward integration, the presence of pull through, the brand identity of buyers, the price sensitivity, and the price to total purchases.

The mobile phone industry does have a balance in rivalry. The industry is unattractive because of the degree of concentration, the diversity among competitors, the presence of intermittent capacity, the growth of foreign competition, the corporate stakes present, and the exit barriers that exist. The industry is attractive with a great industry growth rate and fixed costs to value added presence. The current climate of rivalry made the industry unattractive.

This analysis concludes that the industry is attractive if the critical success factors are kept in focus and balanced against the unattractive aspects of the industry.

23

Bibliography1. Motorola, Inc. “2008 Annual Report.” Motorola.com March 2009. 9 September 2009

https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/620076/20090309/AR_36099/images/Motorola_Inc_AR2008.pdf

2. RIM, Inc. “2009 Annual Report.” Rim.com March 2009. 9 September 2009 http://www.rim.com/investors/pdf/RIM09AR_FINAL.pdf

3. Apple, Inc. “2008 10-K Report.” Corporate-ir.net October 2008. 9 September 2009 http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/10/107/107357/items/315133/AAPL_10K_FY08.pdf

4. Nokia, Inc. “2008 Annual Report.” Nokia.com March 2009. 9 September 2009 http://www.nokia.com/NOKIA_COM_1/About_Nokia/Sidebars_new_concept/Annual_Accounts_2008/Nokia_in_2008.pdf

5. Palm, Inc. “2009 Annual Report.” Shareholder.com June 2009. 9 September 2009 http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/PALM/722535900x0x302996/fc5f86a8-8a30-4c60-93ca-347e9d3797b9/PalmReportsQ4AndFY09Results.pdf

6. Retrieved September 29, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/RIM-Sues-Motorola-Over-Patent-Abuse-91963

7. Retrieved September 29, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/01/27/apple-awarded-iphone-patent/

8. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSSEO16932520080527

9. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=QCOM

10. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from the World Wide Web:http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/101092/netbooks-can-they-bridge-the-gap-between-mobile-phone-and-notebook.html

11. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators

12. Retrieved September 22, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://cellphones.about.com/od/phonemakers/All_Cell_Phones_Sorted_By_Manufacturers.htm

13. Research Insight. Retrieved September and October 2009.

14. Davis, Lindsey. Personal Interview. Multiple times through September and October 2009.

15. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212001304

24

16. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Home

17. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933563.html

18. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ICTEYE/Reports.aspx#

19. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2009/pdf/Industrial09.pdf

20. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.newser.com/story/17880/motorola-may-sell-ailing-cell-phone-division.html

21. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mobilemarketingnews.co.uk/Japanese_Mobile_Phone_Groups_Announce_Merger_39144056609.html

22. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone

23. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction

24. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mobiledia.com/news/30541.html

25. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55S2FY20090629

26. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212001304

27. Retrieved September23, 2009 from the World Wide Web:http://quicktake.morningstar.com/StockNet/Profitability10.aspx?

Appendices

Mobile Device Industry Ratios

Year ended: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Current Ratio 2.25 2.71 2.31 1.87 1.72Quick Ratio 1.91 2.21 1.90 1.47 1.33Inventory Turnover 9.25 12.30 14.71 16.26 17.95

25

Receivables Turnover 5.05 6.29 7.03 7.08 6.48Total Asset Turnover 0.71 0.88 1.02 1.12 1.14Average Collection Period (Days) 47.01 46.31 51.18 56.75 57.46Net Profit Margin (%) 8.46 14.48 10.54 8.38 -14.76Return on Assets (%) 7.96 15.96 12.63 9.35 -17.34Return on Equity (%) 13.32 25.70 21.08 1.02 9.66Return on Investment (%) 12.28 24.55 20.51 16.57 -44.06Long-Term Debt/Common Equity (%) 10.21 7.78 5.53 95.57 -15.04Total Debt/Total Assets (%) 5.53 4.09 4.33 12.42 29.17

Other Relevant Indices

Information on the five companies we studied

Nokia

The company is the world's #1 maker of cell phones. The company's business is divided primarily between three divisions: devices and services (mobile device manufacturing and multimedia internet services) and NAVTEQ (digital map data and content). Nokia's wireless network products business is operated in partnership with Munich-based Siemens as Nokia

26

Siemens Networks; the joint venture is the #3 player in the wireless networking equipment market, behind Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent.

Company Type Public - NYSE: NOK; OMX Helsinki: NOK1VMain Headquarters

Fiscal Year-End December

2008 Sales (mil.) $71,475.7

2008 Employees 125,829

Nokia Income Statement

  2008 2007 2006

Revenue ($ mil.) 71,475.7 75,152.3 54,250.9

Gross Profit ($ mil.) 24,487.2 25,469.8 17,650.9

Operating Income ($ mil.) 7,266.0 12,233.1 7,579.4

Total Net Income ($ mil.) 5,621.1 10,605.0 5,680.9

Diluted EPS (Net Income) 1.48 2.69 1.39

Nokia Financial Ratios

Company IndustryMedian

MarketMedian1

Price/Sales Ratio 0.76 1.44 6.88

Price/Earnings Ratio 9.76 (51.02) 25.00

Price/Book Ratio 3.04 2.53 6.62

Price/Cash Flow Ratio 12.11 13.95 42.73

HeadquartersKeilalahdentie 2-4Fl-02150 Espoo, Finland 

 Key Executive Officers

Chairman Jorma Ollila Network | E-mail

27

President, CEO, and Director Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo Network | E-mail

EVP and CFO Richard A. (Rick) Simonson Network | E-mail

Motorola

The company is the #3 manufacturer of wireless telephone handsets. It also sells wireless network infrastructure equipment such as cellular transmission base stations and signal amplifiers. Motorola's home and broadcast network products include set-top boxes, digital video recorders, and network equipment used to enable video broadcasting, IP telephony, and high-def television. Its products for business and government customers consist mainly of wireless voice and broadband data systems used to build private networks and public safety communications systems.

Company Type Public - NYSE: MOTMain Headquarters

Fiscal Year-End December

2008 Sales (mil.) $30,146.0

2008 Employees 64,000

Motorola, Inc. Income Statement

  2008 2007 2006

Revenue ($ mil.) 30,146.0 36,622.0 42,879.0

Gross Profit ($ mil.) 8,395.0 9,952.0 12,727.0

Operating Income ($ mil.) (2,413.0) (25.0) 4,945.0

Total Net Income ($ mil.) (4,244.0) (49.0) 3,661.0

Diluted EPS (Net Income) (1.87) (0.02) 1.46

Motorola Key Financial Ratios

Company IndustryMedian

MarketMedian1

Price/Sales Ratio 0.73 1.44 6.88

28

Price/Earnings Ratio (4.29) (51.02) 25.00

Price/Book Ratio 1.95 2.53 6.62

Price/Cash Flow Ratio (38.31) 13.95 42.73

Headquarters:1303 E. Algonquin Rd.Schaumburg, IL 60196United States  

Motorola Key Executive Officers

Title Name & Bio ContactChairman David W. Dorman Network | E-mail

President, Co-CEO, and Director; CEO, Broadband Mobility Solutions

Gregory Q. (Greg) Brown

Network | E-mail

Co-CEO and Director; CEO, Mobile Devices Sanjay K. Jha Network | E-mail

Apple, Inc.

Apple’s entry into the cellular phone market has been the iPhone. Sales of the iPhone have made Apple a major player in the cellular telephone industry.

Company Type Public - NASDAQ (GS): AAPLMain Headquarters

Fiscal Year-End September

2008 Sales (mil.) $32,479.0

2008 Employees 35,100

Apple, Inc. Income Statement

  2008 2007 2006

Revenue ($ mil.) 32,479.0 24,006.0 19,315.0

Gross Profit ($ mil.) 11,145.0 8,154.0 5,598.0

Operating Income ($ mil.) -- -- --

29

Total Net Income ($ mil.) 4,834.0 3,496.0 1,989.0

Diluted EPS (Net Income) 5.36 3.93 2.27

Apple, Inc. Key Financial Ratios

Company IndustryMedian

MarketMedian1

Price/Sales Ratio 4.77 2.19 6.88

Price/Earnings Ratio 31.85 28.57 25.00

Price/Book Ratio 6.31 6.50 6.62

Price/Cash Flow Ratio 14.56 15.15 42.73

Headquarters:1 Infinite LoopCupertino, CA 95014United States  

Apple Key Executive Officers

Title Name & Bio ContactChairman William V. (Bill) Campbell Network | E-mail

COO Timothy D. (Tim) Cook Network | E-mail

CEO and Director Steven P. (Steve) Jobs Network | E-mail

Research in Motion (RIM)

The company provides wireless hardware, software, and services to customers worldwide. Its popular line of BlackBerry smart phones handle voice, e-mail, and text message communications, as well as Internet access and multimedia applications. RIM also provides software development tools and makes radio-based modems that other manufacturers incorporate into portable devices. The company sells to corporations, resellers, and wireless carriers. BlackBerry devices are offered by service providers including AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless.

Company Type Public - NASDAQ (GS): RIMM; Toronto: RIM

30

Main Headquarters

Fiscal Year-End February

2009 Sales (mil.) $11,065.2

2009 Employees 8,387

RIM Income Statement

  2009 2008 2007

Revenue ($ mil.) 11,065.2 6,009.4 3,037.1

Gross Profit ($ mil.) 5,097.3 3,080.6 1,657.8

Operating Income ($ mil.) -- -- --

Total Net Income ($ mil.) 1,892.6 1,293.9 631.6

Diluted EPS (Net Income) 3.30 2.26 1.10

RIM Financial Ratios

Company IndustryMedian

MarketMedian1

Price/Sales Ratio 3.23 1.92 6.88

Price/Earnings Ratio 19.27 36.23 25.00

Price/Book Ratio 6.02 2.73 6.62

Price/Cash Flow Ratio 19.19 6.14 42.73

Headquarters:295 Phillip St.Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3W8, Canada 

RIM Key Executive Officers

Co-CEO and Director James L. (Jim) Balsillie Network | E-mail

President, Co-CEO, and Director Michael (Mike) Lazaridis Network | E-mail

COO, Administration and Operations Dennis Kavelman Network | E-mail

31

Palm

Historically the leading provider of handheld computers, the company now primarily markets Internet-enabled mobile phones (also known as smart phones). Its phone line includes the entry-level Centro and more advanced Treo and Pre lines. The company sells its products directly and through distributors, wireless service carriers, retailers, and resellers. Its carrier partners include AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and Verizon Wireless. The company markets its products globally; however, the majority of its revenue comes from sales in the US. Palm traces its roots back to 1992.

Company Type Public - NASDAQ (GS): PALMMain Headquarters

Fiscal Year-End May

2009 Sales (mil.) $735.9

2009 Employees 939

Palm Income Statement

  2009 2008 2007

Revenue ($ mil.) 735.9 1,318.7 1,560.5

Gross Profit ($ mil.) 159.8 401.9 575.1

Operating Income ($ mil.) (302.6) (137.8) --

Total Net Income ($ mil.) (732.2) (105.4) 56.4

Diluted EPS (Net Income) (6.51) (1.05) 0.54

Palm Key Financial Ratios

Company IndustryMedian

MarketMedian1

Price/Sales Ratio 4.64 2.19 6.88

Price/Earnings Ratio (2.38) 28.57 25.00

Price/Book Ratio (3.15) 6.50 6.62

32

Price/Cash Flow Ratio (8.82) 15.15 42.73

Headquarters:950 W. Maude Ave.Sunnyvale, CA 94085United States  (Map)

Palm Key Executive Officers

Title Name & Bio ContactChairman and CEO Jonathan (Jon) Rubinstein Network | E-mail

SVP and CFO Douglas C. (Doug) Jeffries Network | E-mail

SVP Worldwide Sales David (Dave) Whalen Network | E-mail

33