Rivalry of Technology giants: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Apple - Importance of strategies and strategic moves.
The Big 4 have battled for long and employed different strategies, made a mix of sequential and simultaneous strategic moves against each other to excel in the industry.
Microsoft had the first mover advantage with "Hotmail" but couldn't keep up. "Yahoo mail" and eventually "Gmail" overtook.
Yahoo, with the launch of its search engine, became the most popular website. It's strategy was to identify what people wanted and then build upon the requirement. Google made the strategic move by thinking ahead in time what people might want, what would be beneficial for future users. It used this concept to launch the most successful search engine, as we all know: www.google.com
Microsoft is trying to catch up and it recently launched "Bing". It's strategic move was to differentiate by providing an active engine for searching low air fares, electronics etc. If latest talks are to be believed, Microsoft and other media companies are thinking of ways to block Google from indexing their content and make it available exclusively by Bing.
Now, Yahoo has recently launched BOSS (Build Your Own Search Service), a customizable search engine by user itself.
In terms of OS (Operating System), who can forget the launch of MAC from Apple, amidst the monopoly ( and hence huge success) of Microsoft Windows. Apple played it on user experience, security and innovation and took a pie from Microsoft. It was important for Apple to launch Mac OS as Apple was going through a rough phase. Now, Google has joined the race and launched "Google Chrome OS", just a few days ago. It takes the step into the future by utilizing "Cloud Computing". The success of Chrome OS is yet to be observed.
Music industry couldn't remain unaffected. When Apple launched iPod, Microsoft responded with Zune.
There are numerous examples, from past, present and will continue in the future. Strategically, it's better for all of them to work together ( somehow ! ) and continue to enhance user-experience. ( this is at least I want as a user myself)
Microsoft's bid to acquire Yahoo, although an unsuccessful attempt, does indicate the strategic moves that companies are willing to make in order to gain competitive advantage.
Sources (Live links):
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3207435
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14955213&fsrc=rss
http://developer.yahoo.com/search/boss/
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
SDA - Drug Hoarding and 'Prisoner's Dilemma'
What is Prisoner's Dilemma ?
The prisoner's dilemma is only one of many illustrative examples of the logical reasoning and complex decisions involved in game theory. The prisoner's dilemma takes the form of a situation or game where two people must separately make decisions that will have consequences not only for their own self, but also for each other. When stuck in the situation or when playing the game, people confront a dilemma concerning their decisions, because when motivated solely by self-interest, they face more severe consequences than when motivated by group interests, as illustrated below. In order to make the best choice, each player would have to know what the other will do, but the structure of prisoner's dilemma prohibits players from having such knowledge, unless the situation or game is repeated. The prisoner's dilemma also is generally characterized by its lack of a single optimal strategy and the reliance of both parties on each other to achieve more favorable results.
Drug Hoarding Example: Understanding the Rash Urge to Stockpile Antibiotics
Dilemmas often arise when people feel vulnerable. A case in point is the situation regarding the drug Ciprofloxacin, which some are stockpiling more to combat anxiety than to ward off anthrax.
The benefit of these purchases is a feeling of greater personal security, but one social cost is that Cipro may be in short supply if and when it's needed in large quantities. Another social cost is the increased bacterial resistance to the antibiotic that is likely to result from its widespread use.
This is a classic case of The Prisoner's Dilemma.
If we refrain from buying our own supplies of Cipro, there will be more available in any emergency and the bacteria that constitute our common environment will not have as many tutorials to help them learn how to outwit the antibiotics.
Alas, this is not to say that buying Cipro in anticipation of a possible emergency never makes sense, especially if one believes that the conditions of the prisoner's dilemma simply do not apply or that the public health system will not be up to the job in an emergency.
The best way public health people can minimize hoarding is to repeatedly stress that there is not yet such an emergency. And short of an unpredictable and improbable scientific breakthrough by a scientist in the employ of terrorists, the risk from anthrax is tiny.
Another way to limit private stockpiling is for authorities, preferably scientists rather than politicians, to clearly proclaim that penicillin and doxycycline are also effective in combatting anthrax and that there is no shortage of these drugs. Finally, if and when much more Cipro is deemed necessary, government officials can always break the drug's patent, as Canada has done prematurely, and go to generic versions of the drug.
I reinforce the writer's viewpoint that the bottom line is that private stockpiling of antibiotics makes no sense for most people. Nevertheless, for the relatively few who feel especially vulnerable — because of their psychology, physical location, or occupation — buying the drugs is not an irrational way to increase their feeling of security (as long as they refrain from taking them without a very good reason to suspect exposure).
The results and after-effects of such a scenario are eagerly awaited which might lead to another form of dilemma.
Reference: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/
The prisoner's dilemma is only one of many illustrative examples of the logical reasoning and complex decisions involved in game theory. The prisoner's dilemma takes the form of a situation or game where two people must separately make decisions that will have consequences not only for their own self, but also for each other. When stuck in the situation or when playing the game, people confront a dilemma concerning their decisions, because when motivated solely by self-interest, they face more severe consequences than when motivated by group interests, as illustrated below. In order to make the best choice, each player would have to know what the other will do, but the structure of prisoner's dilemma prohibits players from having such knowledge, unless the situation or game is repeated. The prisoner's dilemma also is generally characterized by its lack of a single optimal strategy and the reliance of both parties on each other to achieve more favorable results.
Drug Hoarding Example: Understanding the Rash Urge to Stockpile Antibiotics
Dilemmas often arise when people feel vulnerable. A case in point is the situation regarding the drug Ciprofloxacin, which some are stockpiling more to combat anxiety than to ward off anthrax.
The benefit of these purchases is a feeling of greater personal security, but one social cost is that Cipro may be in short supply if and when it's needed in large quantities. Another social cost is the increased bacterial resistance to the antibiotic that is likely to result from its widespread use.
This is a classic case of The Prisoner's Dilemma.
If we refrain from buying our own supplies of Cipro, there will be more available in any emergency and the bacteria that constitute our common environment will not have as many tutorials to help them learn how to outwit the antibiotics.
Alas, this is not to say that buying Cipro in anticipation of a possible emergency never makes sense, especially if one believes that the conditions of the prisoner's dilemma simply do not apply or that the public health system will not be up to the job in an emergency.
The best way public health people can minimize hoarding is to repeatedly stress that there is not yet such an emergency. And short of an unpredictable and improbable scientific breakthrough by a scientist in the employ of terrorists, the risk from anthrax is tiny.
Another way to limit private stockpiling is for authorities, preferably scientists rather than politicians, to clearly proclaim that penicillin and doxycycline are also effective in combatting anthrax and that there is no shortage of these drugs. Finally, if and when much more Cipro is deemed necessary, government officials can always break the drug's patent, as Canada has done prematurely, and go to generic versions of the drug.
I reinforce the writer's viewpoint that the bottom line is that private stockpiling of antibiotics makes no sense for most people. Nevertheless, for the relatively few who feel especially vulnerable — because of their psychology, physical location, or occupation — buying the drugs is not an irrational way to increase their feeling of security (as long as they refrain from taking them without a very good reason to suspect exposure).
The results and after-effects of such a scenario are eagerly awaited which might lead to another form of dilemma.
Reference: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
