Cloud Wars: Google Changes the Game from Device Profits to Cloud Profits
In early 2014, we employed the Cyclefund Strategic Investment Framework predictively for the first time to identify the core technology and game-changing category cycles likely to drive the equity performance of Apple (AAPL). At the same time, we leveraged the Cyclefund Strategic Innovation Framework predictively to identify product innovation pathways likely to result in sustainable competitive differentiation leading to strong product cycles and unprecedented profit cycles. (source: Apple page of postpcplus.com)
Now, in mid-February of 2015 we shall apply these frameworks once again, but this time to a new target company: Google (GOOGL). Using the frameworks, we shall answer seven central questions regarding Google and its competitors:
What are the core game-changing product category cycles likely to drive the stock performance of Google?
If we view Google not as a single monolithic company, but instead as a portfolio of individual interconnected businesses, does Google own a comprehensive set of strategic businesses that span the complete set of killer category cycles?
Is it possible for any firm to establish dominant positions across all critical elements of the post-PC device and post-PC service value chains of today and tomorrow?
Does Google possess a set of strategic hardware, software, and cloud service assets that constitute the basis of a potentially dominant wearable mobile post-PC suite?
What are the critical strategic product innovation & evolution pathways likely to result in sustainable differentiation, strong product cycles, and outsized profit cycles for Google?
Will Apple be able to successfully defend its market leading position against simultaneous attacks from above by premium-producer Samsung and below by low-cost producer Xiaomi?
Who will be the ultimate winner in the cloud-service phase of the post-PC era?
We shall employ the Cyclefund Strategic Investment Framework to answer questions 1 through 3, both the Strategic Investment Framework and the Strategic Innovation Framework to answer question 4 regarding the potential genesis of a game-changing post-PC wearable mobile suite, and a new unified Strategic Investment, Innovation, and Evolution Framework to answer questions 5 through 7.
Killer Product Category Cycles for the Post-PC Cloud Intelligence Era
As the modern post-PC market evolves from its current state based largely on device-centric profits to its future state based increasingly on service-centric or cloud-centric profits, we believe that this new post-PC cloud-intelligence era will be defined by fifteen game-changing product category cycles:
We visually organize these 15 game-changing category cycles by employing an extended version of the well-established Cyclefund Aggressive Technology Portfolio Structure for the Post-PC Era (source: Post-PC Portfolios page of cyclefund.com). The extended visual structure includes three new blue-cloud nodes: a new Intelligence node that extends the core of the diagram, a new Wearables node that is positioned to the left of the existing Mobile node, and finally a new Things node that is positioned to the right of the Mobile node, as shown in the complete diagram below.
We refer to this visual diagram as the Cyclefund Extended Cloud Framework for the Post-PC+ Era, where the plus sign (+)
appended to the end of phrase post-PC symbolizes the recent evolution of the post-PC era to include three new killer product categories cycles within the cloud framework, namely the
wearables, intelligence, and things category cycles.
This diagram visually and textually represents the answer to our first question. Specifically, the game-changing product cycles expected to drive the stock price of Google over time are textually
depicted and visually organized by the extended Cyclefund cloud framework diagram above.
With our first question answered, we are now ready to address our second question regarding how one particular company, Google, strategically positions its business units and core product families to
capitalize on these key category cycles. Before we do so, however, we must clearly understand the relationship between game-changing product category cycles within the cloud framework and post-PC
device and service value chain systems.
Paradigm Shift in
Post-PC Device and Post-PC Service Value Chains
Today, we see large numbers of global businesses competing for leading or dominant positions within specific segments of the information technology market. At the same time we also see that there are
a very small number of truly visionary companies competing intensely to define the future of computing. However, this intense competition for the future of computing between a handful of very large
players is happening under an entirely new paradigm, one distinctively different from the one that drove competition during the previous PC era.
During the PC era, the information technology industry was naturally partitioned into segments that logically spanned distinct portions of the supply chain or value chain, with leaders emerging
within each segment without unduly encroaching on adjacent segments. Thus, within a simple PC value chain system consisting of semiconductor suppliers, software suppliers, hardware manufacturers, and
retail stores, we saw Intel, Microsoft, Dell, and Best Buy take leading or dominant market positions within their respective PC supply chain segments (source: iPad page of
inocles.com).
In today's post-PC world, value chain systems are more complicated. They span both post-PC device value chain systems and post-PC service
value chain systems. Device value chains include semiconductor suppliers, system software suppliers, hardware manufacturers, and retail online and offline stores. Service value chains
include cloud service providers, software application vendors, media content creators & distributors, and broadband & wireless access providers (source: iPad page of inocles.com).
However, the fundamental difference between PC era competition and post-PC era competition is not limited to the complexity difference between the respective value chain systems.
The most important difference, the paradigm-shifting difference, is that unlike industry leaders Intel, Microsoft, and Dell who jointly respected natural value chain boundaries during the PC era,
today’s post-PC industry leaders are not following the same model. As a result, we strongly believe that we shall soon see one, two, or three key players emerge who own and exclusively dominate the
critical pathways through both the post-PC device and service value chain systems. This is a major turn of events and a true paradigm-shifting break from the past.
Given this new, unprecedented, groundbreaking shift, it is of critical importance for us to identify the one, two, or three firms that are likely to achieve positions of dominance across the post-PC
device value chain, the post-PC service value chain, or ultimately both value chains. To do so, we must
first show that there is a bidirectional many-to-many mapping from post-PC device and service value chains to the 15 category cycles of the extended cloud framework.
Mapping Post-PC Value Chains to Post-PC Category Cycles
The elements of the post-PC device value chain system are: semiconductor suppliers, system software vendors, hardware manufacturers, and offline and online retail stores. These device value
chain elements map to post-PC product category cycles as follows:
The elements of the post-PC service value chain system are: cloud service providers, application software and service vendors, media content creators and distributors, and Internet access providers. These service value chain elements map to post-PC product category cycles as follows:
In in both maps above, most individual device and service chain elements map to more than one post-PC category
cycle.
Reverse Mapping Post-PC Category Cycles to Post-PC Value Chains
Given that we have established a one-to-many mapping from post-PC value chain elements to post-PC portfolio category cycles, we can now invert the mapping to establish a reverse one-to-many mapping
from post-PC portfolio category cycles to post-PC value chain elements as follows:
With this powerful reverse mapping from game-changing post-PC category cycles to core post-PC value chain
elements firmly established, we can now endeavor to identify a single company that is by itself, or with the assistance of a committed set of industry partners, capable of owning and operating a
strategic set of business units and product families that not only span the entire set of killer post-PC category cycles within the extended cloud framework but also the critical elements of the
post-PC device and post-PC service value chains, in accordance with our reverse mapping.
A Valuable Insight: Google Already Spans All Killer Post-PC Categories!
Upon applying our value-chain dominance theory to post-PC industry leaders Apple, Google, and Microsoft, we were
surprised to find that Google already owns and operates a set of strategic businesses and product families that span all fifteen of the game-changing post-PC category cycles within the extended cloud
framework, as illustrated in the diagram below:
We refer to this visual diagram as the Cyclefund Extended
Cloud Framework Visually Organizing Google's Strategic Post-PC Product Families. It represents a highly compelling and powerful visual depiction of the fundamental essence of Google as a company
and the overwhelming strength of its core brands.
Google Core Brands within the Cyclefund Extended
Cloud Framework
The core Google brand names associated with the fifteen game-changing product category cycles of the Cyclefund extended
cloud framework are listed textually below as follows:
These core Google brands are organized visually in the following cloud framework diagram:
We refer to this visual diagram as the Cyclefund Extended Cloud Framework Visually Organizing Google's Core Post-PC Brand Names.
This diagram visually and textually represents the answer to our second question. Specifically, Google does indeed own a set of strategic interconnected businesses defining, developing, and
delivering core product brands that span the complete set of killer product category cycles, as textually depicted and visually organized in the extended Cyclefund cloud framework diagram
above.
With our second question answered, we are now ready to address our third question regarding the possibility of a single firm establishing dominant positions across all, or most, of the critical value
chain groups within today and tomorrow's post-PC device and service value chains. The one-to-many reverse mapping between post-PC device value chain elements and post-PC category cycles presented
previously provides the overarching framework for us to quickly position Google's core brands in the appropriate value chain groups of the post-PC device and service value chain systems, as presented
in the following two sections.
Google Core Device Brands within the Post-PC Device Value Chain
The Google brands associated with the four device value chain groups of the Cyclefund global post-PC device value
chain system are listed textually below as follows:
These core Google brands are organized visually in the following device value chain diagram:
We refer to this visual diagram as the Cyclefund Global Post-PC Device
Value Chain System Visually Organizing Google's Core Device Brands.
Google Core Service Brands within the Post-PC Service Value Chain
The Google brands associated with the four service value chain groups of the Cyclefund global post-PC service value
chain system are listed textually below as follows:
These core Google brands are organized visually in the following service value chain diagram:
We refer to this visual diagram as the Cyclefund Global Post-PC Service
Value Chain System Visually Organizing Google's Core Service Brands.
The value chain diagrams above visually represent the answer to our third question. Specifically, a single firm, Google, operating in today's global information
technology markets does indeed have a set of interconnected strategic businesses units working together synergistically to enable it to establish dominant positions across all, or most, of the
critical value chain groups of today and tomorrow's post-PC device and service value chains, as depicted in the Cyclefund post-PC device and service value chain system diagrams above.
With our third question answered, we are now ready to address our forth question regarding the possibility of a single firm possessing a complete set of strategic hardware,
software, and cloud service assets that constitute the basis of a potentially dominant wearable mobile post-PC suite. In order to do so we will need to leverage the full power of
the five unique forms of the Cyclefund strategic innovation framework. We review these five forms now.
The Five Forms of the Cyclefund Post-PC Strategic Positioning
Framework
Given the background above, we are now ready to shift our analytical focus from strategic investment frameworks to strategic innovation frameworks. The framework that helps us make this transition is
the Cyclefund strategic positioning framework, a framework that rests at the critical nexus between investment and innovation. This central framework has five forms, the original form plus four
variants, listed below in order of introduction and publication:
Of the five forms of the post-PC strategic positioning framework referenced above, we now apply the third and fifth forms to analyze Google and its most important
competitor in the post-PC space.
Visual Definition of the Google gFamily Post-PC Suite
The strategic importance of post-PC solution
suites in the context of critical consumer buying
decisions was first introduced, presented, and discussed on the iFamily page of cyclefund.com. We strongly believe that consumer, as well as business, government,
and education, buying decisions will be increasingly driven by the overall value of post-PC solution suites. As such, we believe that rivalry among post-PC competitors will intensify significantly
and be fundamentally centered on the central notion of a post-PC solution suite and its associated hardware device, system software, and app & cloud service
assets.
We utilize the third form of the post-PC strategic positioning framework to visually organize the following groups of strategic assets of the gFamily
suite:
Once we have positioned Google's strategic assets within a specific asset layer of the multidimensional strategic positioning framework, we conclude by combining all of
the asset layers together to present for the first time a grand unified visual definition of the Google gFamily Suite.
Google gFamily Post-PC Suite: Hardware Device Assets
The diagram below strategically positions and visually organizes the core hardware device assets of the Google gFamily solution suite concept.
We refer to this diagram as the Core Hardware Device Assets of the Google gFamily Suite. The upper left-hand quadrant represents wearable mobile post-PC
hardware assets, including Google Glass and Android-based smart watches and smart bands (not shown). The lower left-hand quadrant depicts mobile non-wearable hardware assets, including Nexus
smartphones and tablets, Chromebook consumer laptops and professional laptops, Boston Dynamics humanoid and non-humanoid robots, and Google self-driving cars.
The lower right-hand quadrant represents non-mobile non-wearable hardware assets, including Android-based HD televisions and UHD TVs,
and Nest smart thermostats and smoke detectors, as well as Dropcam smart video streaming cameras (not shown). The upper right-hand
quadrant represents non-mobile wearable hardware assets, including Google Cardboard virtual reality headsets.
The center of the diagram represents cloud hardware assets, including Google App Engine, Google Compute Engine, and Google BigQuery, as well as Google Cloud Storage, Cloud Datastore, and Cloud SQL
(not shown), which are directly accessible from all Android and Chrome devices via the cloud.
Google gFamily Post-PC Suite: System Software Assets
The diagram below strategically positions and visually organizes the core system software assets of the Google gFamily solution suite concept.
We refer to this diagram as the System Software Assets of the Google gFamily Suite. The upper left-hand quadrant depicts mobile wearable system software assets,
including Android Wear and Android (not shown). The lower left-hand quadrant depicts mobile non-wearable system software assets, including Android, Chrome Operating System, Chrome browser, and
Android Auto
The lower right-hand quadrant depicts non-mobile non-wearable system software assets, including Android TV and Nest's Linux-based operating system (not shown). The upper right-hand quadrant depicts
non-mobile wearable software assets, including Android and prospective Android VR (not shown).
The center of the diagram depicts cloud system software assets, including Google Voice Search natural language processing artificial intelligence engine, which is directly accessible from all Android
and Chrome devices via the cloud.
Google gFamily Post-PC Suite: Killer App & Cloud Service Assets
The diagram below strategically positions and visually organizes the core app & cloud service assets of the Google gFamily solution suite
concept.
We refer to this diagram as the Killer App & Cloud Service Assets of the Google gFamily Suite. The diagram is organized into four quadrants, with the upper
left-hand, lower left-hand, lower right-hand, and upper right-hand quadrants representing strategic app & cloud service assets for wearable mobile smart devices, non-wearable mobile smart
devices, non-wearable non-mobile smart devices, and wearable non-mobile smart devices, respectively.
The center of the diagram represents cloud service assets, such as Google Play (apps and digital media content
including books, magazines, newspapers, music, TV shows, short films, movies, and games), which are directly accessible from all Android and Chrome devices via the
cloud.
Because we strongly believe in the pivotal role of game-changing apps & cloud services in accelerating the post-PC shift from device-centric profits to service-centric profits, we shall now
further analyze each of the four fundamental quadrants of the Google gFamily solution suite concept.
Master List of Google Wearable Mobile App & Cloud Service Assets
The upper left-hand quadrant is organized into three rows, with the first, second, and third rows representing wearable smart bands, smart watches, and smart glasses,
respectively. Within each row, the top four killer wearable mobile app & cloud service assets are organized in priority order from left to right.
Aggregating strategic assets across smart wearable bands, watches, and glasses, we arrive at the following master list of game-changing wearable mobile app & cloud
services for Google:
Each strategic asset in the list above is followed by a concise definition in
parentheses. One additional strategic asset is not shown in the master list above due to
lack of space in the visual diagram: Google Gmail (email, calendar, and contacts).
Master List of Google Non-Wearable Mobile App & Cloud Service
Assets
The lower left-hand quadrant is organized into three rows, with the first,
second, and third rows representing non-wearable smart phones & tablets, smart laptops, and smart cars, respectively.
Within each row, the top four killer non-wearable mobile app & cloud service
assets are organized in priority order from left to right.
Aggregating strategic assets across smart non-wearable phones, tablets, laptops, and cars we arrive at the following master
list of game-changing non-wearable mobile app & cloud services for Google:
Five additional strategic assets are not shown in the master list above due
to lack of space in the visual diagram: Google Now (see above), Google
Fit (see above), Google Wallet (see above), Google Play Games (social gaming network), and Google Drive (cloud storage, sharing,
and synchronization).
Master List of Google Non-Wearable Non-Mobile App & Cloud Service
Assets
The lower right-hand quadrant is
organized into two rows, with the first and second rows representing non-wearable
smart things and smart televisions, respectively. Within each row, the top four killer non-wearable non-mobile app & cloud service assets are organized in priority order
from left to right.
Aggregating strategic assets across smart non-wearable things and televisions, we
arrive at the following master list of game-changing non-wearable non-mobile app & cloud services for
Google:
Three additional strategic assets are not shown in the master list above
due to lack of space in the visual diagram: Google Photos (see above), Google
Play Music (see above), and Google Wallet (see above).
Master List of Google Wearable Non-Mobile App & Cloud Service Assets
The upper right-hand quadrant is organized into two rows, with the first and
second rows representing wearable virtual reality headsets and recorded reality headsets, respectively. Within each row, the top four killer wearable non-mobile app & cloud service
assets are organized in priority order from left to
right.
Aggregating strategic assets across virtual
reality and recorded reality headsets, we arrive at the following master list of game-changing wearable non-mobile app & cloud services for
Google:
Three additional strategic assets are not shown in the master list above
due to lack of space in the visual diagram:
Google YouTube (see above), Google Play Music (see above), and Google Wallet
(see above).
Google gFamily Post-PC Suite: Grand Unified Visual Definition
By combining the three individual asset layers of the multidimensional strategic positioning framework into a single view for the very first time, we clearly see the extraordinarily massive scale of
the prospective Google gFamily post-PC suite.
The diagram above is called the Grand Unified Visual Definition of the Google gFamily Post-PC Suite Concept. It is structured in three dimensions and contains a total of twelve quadrants organized into three slices of four quadrants each, where each slice represents a unique asset layer of the multidimensional strategic positioning framework. As illustrated in the diagram, each asset layer corresponds to one of the following three distinct sub-suites within the overall gFamily post-PC suite:
Each sub-suite is based on the core set of strategic assets hardware, system software, and app & cloud service assets described
previously.
The strategic asset diagrams above visually represent the answer to our fourth question. Specifically, while a single company,
Google, possess a set of strategic software assets (see the diagram above entitled System Software Assets of the Google gFamily
Suite) and strategic cloud service assets (see the diagram above entitled Killer App
& Cloud Service Assets of the Google gFamily Suite) that constitute the basis of
a potentially dominant wearable mobile post-PC suite, the firm does not currently definitively possess a set of strategic hardware assets
(see the diagram above entitled Core Hardware Device Assets of the Google gFamily Suite) that constitute the basis of
a dominant wearable mobile post-PC suite.
However, as the post-PC era shifts from its current phase based on device-centric profits (which flow in disproportionate share to Apple) to its next phase based on
cloud-service-centric profits, Google's current strategy to focus the bulk of its resources on developing strategic cloud service assets and strategic software assets, rather than hardware
assets may be the optimal strategy for the post-PC world of
tomorrow.
With our fourth question answered, we are now ready to address our fifth question regarding the
critical strategic product innovation & evolution pathways likely to result in sustainable
differentiation, strong product cycles, and outsized profit cycles for Google.
In order to answer this central and perhaps most critical question of all six questions posed above, we shall construct a new multidimensional framework that combines the powerful capabilities of the
Cyclefund strategic positioning, strategic innovation, and strategic evolution frameworks into a single grand unified visual framework for understanding, analyzing, and predicting strategic
moves by leading firms competing in the post-PC wearable mobile suite space. We begin this process by reviewing our formal definition of a post-PC wearable mobile
suite.
Wearable Mobile Suite Innovation Framework
By leveraging the concept of a post-PC suite of cloud-connected smart devices, we have been able to identify, list, define, and organize the complete set of strategic post-PC hardware, software, and
cloud service assets possessed by Google. With this master list of strategic assets well understood, we are ready to explore and analyze what is expected to be the
largest information technology cycle of our time, the post-PC wearable mobile suite product category cycle (source: Wearable Mobile Suite
page of postpcplus.com).
To begin our exploration and analysis of this massive new product category cycle, we begin with a key conceptual definition:
A wearable mobile suite is formally defined as a collection of cloud-connected wearable devices (smart watches, glasses, and bands) and mobile devices (smart phones, tablets, and media players) collectively optimized to provide a unified multiscreen experience for consumer, business, government, and education users as they engage in various personal, professional, and social activities throughout their day and into the night (source: Wearable Mobile Suite page of postpcplus.com).
With the formal definition of a wearable mobile suite of post-PC smart devices well understood, we are now in very unique position to demonstrate precisely how the
Cyclefund strategic positioning framework can be combined with the Cyclefund strategic innovation framework to help private investors and wealth managers understand and analyze the
competitive strategies of key players in this new, massive, and globally accelerating space.
Specifically, by combining the Cyclefund Strategic Positioning Framework for the Post-PC Era (sources: iGlass page of inocles.com and
Wearable Mobile Suite page of postpcplus.com) with the Cyclefund Strategic
Product Innovation Framework for the Post-PC Era (sources: Steve Jobs page of inocles.com and Question 22 on the Post-PC Q&A page of cyclefund.com), we are able to construct a
powerful new visual model for understanding and analyzing competitive product positioning and product innovation strategies in the wearable mobile suite phase of the post-PC era, as illustrated for
the first time in the diagram below.
We formally refer to this diagram as the Cyclefund Unified Multidimensional Strategic Positioning & Innovation
Framework for the Wearable Mobile Suite Phase of the Post-PC Era. Informally, we simply call this diagram the Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite Innovation Framework.
The multidimensional diagram comprises two distinct nested matrices. The outermost matrix represents dimensions defined by the Cyclefund strategic positioning framework. The nested innermost
matrix represents dimensions defined by the Cyclefund strategic innovation framework.
The dimensions of the outermost strategic positioning matrix are the wearable mobile dimension and the post-PC era dimension. The dimensions of the nested innermost strategic innovation matrix are the premium suite dimension, the low-cost suite dimension, the luxury
market dimension, and the mass market dimension.
Collectively, these core dimensions define three key competitive positioning post-PC spaces:
Each of these unique and highly valuable competitive positioning spaces is illustrated in the wearable mobile suite innovation framework above, beginning from the lower
right-hand quadrant and reading through the remaining quadrants in a counter clockwise direction.
Android Wearable Mobile Suites: Strategic Positioning of Product
Innovations
The strategic positioning & innovation framework for wearable mobile post-PC devices presented in the previous section is particularly useful for understanding and analyzing competitive product
positioning strategies of leading companies offering innovative mobile suites of cloud-connected smart devices.
For example, Xiaomi offers an innovative low-cost Android-based wearable mobile suite to customers in global emerging markets, including China, Malaysia, and India. Thus, Xiaomi occupies and actively competes in the
post-PC space for low-cost mass-market wearable mobile suites, as illustrated in the innovation positioning diagram below.
Moreover, Samsung offers an innovative high-end Android-based wearable mobile
suite to affluent consumer and business customers worldwide.
Thus, Samsung occupies and actively competes in the post-PC space for premium luxury-market mobile suites, as illustrated in the innovation positioning diagram
above.
Wearable Mobile Suite Evolution
Framework
In the previous section we demonstrated how the Cyclefund strategic positioning and strategic innovation frameworks can be combined into a single unified
framework to help private investors and wealth managers understand competitive strategies of key players in the nascent, yet massive, and rapidly accelerating post-PC mobile suite space. In this
section, we extend the combined framework by incorporating a critical new analytical dimension of infinite depth. That limitless critical dimension is the time
dimension.
Specifically, by layering the Cyclefund Strategic Product Evolution Pathways Framework for the Post-PC Era
(sources: Steve Jobs page of inocles.com and Question 23 on the Post-PC Q&A page of cyclefund.com)
on top of the Cyclefund Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite Innovation Framework presented above, we are
able to construct a significantly enhanced visual model for not only understanding and analyzing competitive product positioning and product innovation strategies, but also most importantly product
evolution strategies over the critical new dimension of time, as shown for the first time in the diagram
below.
We formally refer to this diagram as the Cyclefund Grand Unified
Multidimensional Strategic Positioning, Innovation, and Evolution Framework for the Wearable Mobile Suite Phase of the Post-PC Era. Informally, we simply call this diagram the Post-PC
Wearable Mobile Suite Evolution Framework.
Android Wearable Mobile Suites: Strategic Evolution of Product
Innovations
The strategic positioning, innovation, & evolution framework for wearable mobile post-PC devices presented in the previous section is particularly useful for understanding, analyzing, and
predicting competitive product evolution strategies of leading companies offering innovative mobile suites of cloud-connected smart devices.
For example, while Xiaomi currently offers an innovative low-cost Android-based wearable mobile suite to mass market customers in global emerging markets, the company is also currently actively pursuing a scale maximizing orange-path product evolution
strategy, as illustrated in the innovation evolution diagram below.
In stark contrast to
Xiaomi, Samsung is currently actively pursuing a profit-maximizing blue-path product evolution strategy by offering premium products to both mass market and luxury
customers across the
globe, as illustrated in the innovation evolution diagram above.
Let us pause for a moment and consider the following key questions: Does the strategic innovation evolution diagram above
look
familiar? Do the scale-maximizing orange-path and profit-maximizing blue-path
strategies represent a page directly out Steve Jobs' playbook? Are we about to witness for the second time in the history of the post-PC era a collision of orange and blue-path strategies over a
narrow window in time that fundamentally reshapes the competitive landscape in the post-PC space?
The answer to all three of these questions is a definitive yes. Specifically, in the recent past we have seen a post-PC collision-path strategy successfully executed by Steve Job and his
team at Apple when the firm shattered the aspirations of all competitors in the MP3 digital media player space in 2005 with the introduction and release of the Apple iPod nano (source: iPod
page of inocles.com). More importantly, as we shall demonstrate below, we are at the very beginning of
an
entirely new phase of the post-PC era.
Google Challenges Apple by Borrowing a Page from Steve Jobs' Playbook
As discussed above, the Cyclefund Wearable Mobile Suite Evolution Framework postulates two distinct innovation evolution pathway strategies (the scale-maximizing orange-path
strategy and the profit-maximizing blue-path strategy) for achieving sustainable competitive advantage within one or more strategic target market segments of the wearable mobile suite
post-PC space.
In the past, it was possible for a single company to possess the strategic assets and requisite core competencies to profitably pursue both orange-path and blue-path innovation & evolution
strategies simultaneously, resulting in a magical competitor-crushing collision-path event, as we witnessed in 2005 with the Apple iPod nano. Since that time, we have seen leading firms pursue either
blue-path strategies, such as Apple and Samsung, or orange-path strategies, such as Xiaomi and Huawei, in the post-PC smartphone space and the post-PC tablet space.
Since Steve Jobs' signature strategic move in 2005 we have not seen a firm uniquely capable of engineering a converged-path or collision-path innovation & evolution strategy in the post-PC space,
until now. As of this writing (mid-March 2015), we strongly believe that we are on the verge of the next singular strategic move in the post-PC space. We expect it to be a move so fundamentally
powerful that it will shift the balance of profitability from device-centric firms to cloud-centric firms, a move so stunning that it will benefit primarily a single firm and its strategic device and
service value chain partners. This prospective dominant game-changing firm and a small handful of its strategic partners stand to reap the lion's share of profits as the post-PC era evolves into its
new cloud-centric phase.
Google Defines the Next Phase of the Post-PC
Era
In this section we discuss how the current phase of the post-PC era, the device-centric phase, and the next phase of the post-PC era, the cloud-centric phase,
are being aggressively reshaped and redefined by a leading post-PC firm working closely with strategic post-PC device and service value chain partners to
ensure strong product and profit cycles for Android wearable mobile suites of
cloud-connected smart devices. Collectively, these firms possess the strategic assets and requisite core competencies to span the critical pathways through both the post-PC device value chain system
and the post-PC service value chain system.
Most importantly, these firms collectively possess the strategic hardware device assets, system software assets, and app & cloud service assets required to offer consumer, business, government,
and education users worldwide the very best wearable mobile suite of cloud-connected smart devices across the three most important quadrants of the post-PC innovation & evolution framework, as
shown for the first time in the diagram
below.
The diagram clearly depicts a rare game-changing collision-path event unfolding in
the Post-PC wearable mobile suite space at this very moment in time, with orange-path and blue-path strategies colliding within the post-PC innovation & evolution framework.
The strategic positioning, innovation, and evolution framework diagrams presented above visually represent the answer to our fifth question. The critical strategic product innovation & evolution
pathways likely to result in sustainable differentiation, strong product cycles, and outsized profit cycles for Google are the orange-path innovation & evolution strategy championed by Xiaomi
converging simultaneously with the blue-path innovation & evolution approach driven by Samsung.
Specifically, the leading post-PC Android device vendor for mass markets, Xiaomi, champions the orange-path innovation & evolution strategy with its game-changing low-cost
wearable mobile suite of cloud-connected devices, which consists of the Xiaomi Mi Band wearable wristband, Redmi 2 smartphone, Redme Note 4G phablet, and the Mi Tab smart tablet, as shown visually in
the upper left-hand quadrant in the diagram above.
In addition, the leading post-PC Android device vendor for luxury markets, Samsung, champions the blue-path innovation & evolution strategy with its killer premium wearable
mobile suite of cloud-connected devices, which comprises the Samsung Gear 2 wearable smart watch, the Galaxy S6 Edge smartphone, Galaxy Note Edge phablet, and the Galaxy Note Pro 12.2 smart tablet,
as shown visually in the lower right-hand quadrant in the diagram above.
Lastly, the Android system software platform developer, Google, orchestrates and encourages post-PC device value chain partners to aggressively pursue both orange-path and blue-path
innovation & evolution strategies by defining, designing, and showcasing its leading-edge premium wearable mobile suite for mass markets, which includes Google Glass wearable smart glasses, the
Google Nexus 6 smartphone, and the Google Nexus 9 smart tablet, as shown visually in the upper right-hand quadrant in the diagram above.
In contrast to Xiaomi and Samsung which are mass-scale providers of smart devices, Google is a relatively small-scale provider of smart devices. Google's vision and purpose at this time is to
motivate mass-scale providers to execute their individual orange-path or blue-path strategies at an accelerated rate, with the ultimate goal, we believe, to bring forth the second successful
game-changing, competitor-crushing collision-path event in the history of the post-PC industry.
The genius of Google's visionary cloud-centric approach is that it effectively enables a single firm, Google, to define, shape, and control of the next phase of the post-PC era as well as the future
of the post-PC space itself without having to commit an overabundance of resources to manufacturing rapidly commoditizing hardware device assets. Instead, the firm can singularly focus its scarce
resources on higher-value layers of the asset stack, namely system software asset layer and most importantly the highly-lucrative app & cloud service asset layer, the two strategic asset layers
perfectly aligned with Google's inherent core competencies in operating systems and cloud services.
With our fifth question answered, we are now ready to address our sixth and final question regarding the ability of Google’s foremost competitor, Apple, to defend its leading position in the post-PC
wearable mobile suite market in 2015 against simultaneous competitor-killing collision-path attacks from below by low-cost producer Xiaomi and above by premium-producer Samsung, with each Apple
competitor pursuing scale-maximizing orange-path and profit-maximizing blue-path post-PC innovation & evolution strategies for their respective low-cost wearable mobile suite and premium wearable
mobile suite of post-PC cloud-connected smart devices.
In order to do so, we will construct a series of competitive analysis tables for the rise of the first post-PC wearable mobile suite, just as we did for the rise of the first post-PC device
(source: iPod page of inocles.com) and the rise of the first post-PC touch device (source: iPhone page of inocles.com).
Competitive Analysis Tables for the Rise of the Wearable Mobile Post-PC
Suite
In this section, we present the multidimensional structure of the competitive analysis tables to be used to rigorously examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of market-leading wearable mobile
post-PC suites from Apple, Samsung, and Xiaomi in early 2015.
Competitive analysis tables for each of these top post-PC suite vendors share a unified organizational structure defined by a rectangular matrix consisting of seventeen unique columns and four
primary rows. The 17 columns represent the key dimensions for competitive analysis. The 4 primary rows represent the core product categories of post-PC wearable and non-wearable mobile devices that
make up a post-PC wearable mobile suite. The four core product categories include the wearable mobile smartwatch category and the non-wearable mobile smartphone, phablet, and tablet categories.
With the fundamental structure of a competitive analysis table well defined, we can now list the key dimensions for analyzing the competitive position of a particular wearable mobile post-PC suite
vendor. In this context, the key dimensions for competitive analysis are defined as
follows:
With the key dimensions well defined, we can now develop comprehensive competitive
analysis tables for each of the top post-PC vendors offering compelling wearable mobile post-PC suites of cloud-connected smart devices to post-PC consumer, business, government, and education users
worldwide in 2015. In the next three sections we present and discuss competitive analysis tables for Apple and its flagship wearable mobile suite for 2015, Samsung and its premium wearable mobile
suite for 2015, and Xiaomi and its low-cost wearable mobile suite for 2015.
By rigorously analyzing the wearable mobile suite offerings from these leading vendors, we seek to answer three central
questions:
The answers to these questions may surprise competitors, analysts, and investors.
From our previous work on post-PC competitive strategies, we know that for any given class of post-PC device there exists a set of game-changing product features that enables a firm or group of firms
to create a new product capable of achieving a dominant market position relative to all existing competitive products for a period of time.
Moreover, the dominant position is typically established very quickly over a very narrow window in time, catching competitors off guard, surprising analysts, and delighting stockholders. Examples
include the collision-path innovation & evolution strategy employed by Steve Jobs and team with the game-changing Apple iPod nano, introduced in 2005 (source: Question 25 and
Question 26 on the Post-PC Q&A page of cyclefund.com) and the blue-path innovation & evolution strategy employed by Steve Jobs and team with game-changing Apple iPhone 4, introduced
in 2010 (source: Question 6 and Question 7 on the Apple page of postpcplus.com).
In short, in 2005 we witnessed the accelerated rise of the first post-PC device, in 2010 we saw the accelerated rise of the first post-PC touch device, and now in 2015 we are beginning to experience
the accelerated rise of the first wearable mobile post-PC suite. Steve Jobs passionately championed these game-changing competitor-crushing innovations in 2005 and 2010 with the Apple iPod nano and
iPhone 4.
Who will lead the charge in 2015? Will it be Steve Jobs' successor Apple CEO Tim Cook with the Apple Watch and the prospective Apple iFamily Mobile Suite? Or will we see a new global leader emerge
who captures the spirit of the people and takes center stage to show the world something different, something unexpected, something truly surprising? Is something new and wonderful about to
happen?
Let us consider and explore the competitive analysis tables associated with the rise of the first wearable mobile post-PC suite to find out. Before we proceed, please note that competitive analysis
tables have two forms, a standard form and a redline form. The standard form of a competitive analysis table is referred to as a competitive strategy matrix or table,
whereas the redline form of the competitive analysis table is called a competitive differentiation matrix or
table.
Apple Post-PC Wearable Mobile
Suite of Cloud-Connected Smart Devices
In early 2015, Apple's flagship wearable mobile post-PC suite comprised four cloud-connected smart devices: Apple Watch smartwatch, iPhone 6 smartphone, iPhone 6 Plus phablet, and iPad Air 2 tablet,
as illustrated below in the competitive strategy matrix entitled The Rise of the First Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite of Cloud-Connected Smart
Devices.
sources: Cyclefund Research, apple.com, gsmarena.com,
wikipedia.com
The first row of the strategy matrix represents the Apple Watch and contains two sub-rows, with the first sub-row representing the 38 millimeter (mm) Apple Watch device and the second the 42 mm
device. The second row represents the Apple iPhone 6 smartphone and contains three sub-rows, with the first sub-row representing the 128 gigabyte (GB) iPhone 6 device, the second the 64 GB device,
and the third the 32 GB device. The third row represents the Apple iPhone 6 Plus phablet and contains three sub-rows, with the first sub-row representing the 128 GB iPhone 6 Plus device, the second
the 64 GB device, and the third the 32 GB device. The fourth and final row represents the Apple iPad Air 2 tablet and contains three sub-rows, with the first sub-row representing the 128 GB iPad Air
2 WiFi device, the second the 64 GB WiFi device, and the third the 32 GB WiFi device.
Please note that all rows of the Apple competitive strategy matrix above are highlighted in blue to denote the blue-path innovation &
evolution strategy employed by Apple for the Apple Wearable Mobile Suite.
By highlighting core Apple product features that provide competitive disadvantage (in red) and advantage (in green) relative to key competitors in the wearable mobile suite market in early 2015, we transform the Apple competitive strategy matrix presented above into
the powerful and visually insightful competitive differentiation matrix
below.
source: Cyclefund Research
We formally refer to the Apple competitive differentiation matrix above as The Rise of the First Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite with Competitive Differentiation Highlights. By examining the
highlighted elements of the matrix, we can quickly identify, list, and expand upon the relative competitive strengths and weakness of each of the cloud-connected post-PC devices that constitute the
early-2015 Apple wearable mobile post-PC suite, and do so for Apple in the next four sections.
Apple Watch Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Apple post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Apple Watch possesses the following eight relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Apple Watch possesses the following nine relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing the 8 positive competitive strengths against the 9 negative competitive
weaknesses of the Apple Watch, we believe that while Apple has introduced a compelling new watch platform that will likely shape the wearable computing industry for the next five to ten years, we
strongly believe that the firm has missed a once in a generation opportunity to surprise the world with something truly wonderful. In summary, the Apple Watch is too thick, heavy, and costly to win
the hearts and minds of the consumer, especially given its substandard battery life and lack of a natural wrist-hugging curve, which would have boosted the wearable's visual appeal.
While Apple has a well-established track record for making its devices thinner, lighter, and appealing across major design innovations (for example, the Apple iPod was made 65 percent thinner and 77
percent lighter between its original introduction in 2001 and 2005 with the introduction of the Apple iPod nano; sources: Cyclefund Research and everymac.com), we believe the
company has inadvertently opened and highlighted a gaping hole in the wearable space for a nimble competitor to enter the market in the near-term with a more svelte, light, and curvaceous wristwatch
that offers superior multi-day battery life.
Perhaps Apple will quickly fill this hole itself with the next major design iteration. However, we strongly believe that the firm does not have the luxury of time that it once enjoyed between major
post-PC design innovations. Apple enjoyed a design innovation window of four years between the introduction of the original Apple iPod post-PC smart media player in 2001 and the first major evolution
of the product in 2005 with the Apple iPod nano. Similarly, the company enjoyed a window of three years between the introduction of the original Apple iPhone post-PC smartphone in 2007 and the first
major product evolution in 2010 with the Apple iPhone 4. In stark contrast, we believe that the innovation window for the Apple Watch post-PC smartwatch, the firm's first true wearable product, is
significantly less, perhaps as short as one year.
In short, we believe that the innovation window in the post-PC device space is experiencing cyclic compression, or temporally accelerated innovation & evolution cycles, and the
industry's current post-PC innovation leader, Apple, needs to move, and move very quickly. Recall that Research In Motion (RIMM) lost the 3G mobile smartphone war to Apple in 2010 because its
offering was too thick, heavy, and slow, with substandard battery life and a sparse selection of apps (source: iPhone page of inocles.com). While the new Apple Watch is not expected to be exceedingly
slow nor offer fewer apps than competing wearable products, it does currently suffer from the other maladies designed into the competitive offering that initially jeopardized and ultimately destroyed
the future of RIMM. The bottom line is clear for Apple: The firm cannot afford to jeopardize its future by assuming that it has several years to introduce the next major evolution of its new
wearable.
Apple iPhone 6 Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Apple post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Apple iPhone 6 possesses the following two relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Apple iPhone 6 possesses the following ten relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing 2 positive competitive strengths against the 10 negative competitive
weaknesses of the Apple iPhone 6, we believe that while Apple has a strong system software platform and a sleek and comfortable physical enclosure, the firm needs to do a complete and rapid revamp of
the device's internal hardware components in order to retain its leading position in the smartphone market throughout 2015, otherwise nimble and agile competitors such as premium-producer Samsung and
low-cost-producer Xiaomi will likely recapture and capture significant share at the high-end and low-end of the market, respectively.
The possibility of Samsung retaking and Xiaomi taking smartphone market share from Apple is highly significant. One of the central benefits of the Apple iOS mobile operating system is its heretofore
unassailable ecosystem of third-party mobile application software developers who prioritize building apps for Apple iOS as their top or first priority and for competing mobile operating systems, such
as Google Android, as their second priority. Should the smartphone unit-share market dynamics shift to favor Android-based firms such as Samsung and Xiaomi over iOS-based Apple, mobile application
developers would naturally reassess their priorities, thereby creating the necessary conditions for the occurrence of a tipping-point event.
Should that tipping-point event occur, we would expect to see a rather marked decline in Apple's unit-share, quarterly earnings, and equity performance over a relatively narrow window
in
time.
Recall that Nokia's mobile and smartphone installed base reached a saturation point globally in the middle of 2010 while Apple's post-PC smartphone installed base reached an acceleration point
globally in late 2011 resulting in Nokia's annual profits achieving a local peak in late 2010 and then declining catastrophically into 2012 (source: Post-PC Waves page of
cyclefund.com) as application developers fled Nokia’s Symbian mobile operating system platform and flocked to Apple iOS.
Apple iPhone 6 Plus Competitive Strengths and
Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Apple post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Apple iPhone 6 Plus possesses the following five relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Apple iPhone 6 Plus possesses the following nine relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing the 5 positive competitive strengths against the 9 negative competitive
weaknesses of the Apple iPhone 6 Plus, we believe that while the iPhone 6 Plus offers a handful of competitive strengths over the iPhone 6, the iPhone 6 Plus shares nearly all of the competitive
weaknesses of the iPhone 6, and therefore it too needs a rapid and substantial internal overhaul to remain competitive in the global smartphone market in 2015.
Apple iPad Air 2 Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Apple post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Apple iPad Air 2 possesses the following five relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Apple iPad Air 2 possesses the following seven relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing the 5 positive competitive strengths against the 7 negative competitive
weaknesses, we believe that Apple iPad Air will maintain its market leading position in cloud-connected post-PC tablets throughout 2015 by addressing its competitive weaknesses and maintaining or
extending its competitive strengths via its natural annual upgrade cycle. However, we are particularly concerned about the last competitive weakness listed above, price, and believe that the Apple
iPad Air will face considerable pricing pressure later in the year due to the expected introduction of competitive tablet product offerings from Samsung, Microsoft, Amazon, and Xiaomi.
Samsung Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite of Cloud-Connected
Smart Devices
In early 2015, Samsung's premium wearable mobile post-PC suite comprised four cloud-connected smart devices: Samsung Gear S smartwatch, Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge smartphone, Samsung Galaxy Note Edge
phablet, and Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 tablet, as illustrated below in the competitive strategy matrix entitled The Rise of the Samsung Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite of Cloud-Connected Smart
Devices.
sources: Cyclefund Research, samsung.com, gsmarena.com,
wikipedia.com
The first row of the strategy matrix represents Samsung Gear S and contains one sub-row representing the 58 millimeter Gear S 3G device. The second row represents the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge
smartphone and contains three sub-rows, with the first sub-row representing the 128 gigabyte (GB) Galaxy S6 Edge device, the second the 64 GB device, and the third the 32 GB device. The third row
represents the Samsung Galaxy Note Edge phablet and contains one sub-row representing the 32 GB Galaxy Note Edge device. The fourth and final row represents the Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 tablet and
contains one sub-row representing the 16 GB Galaxy Tab S 10.5 WiFi device.
Please note that all rows of the Samsung competitive strategy matrix above are highlighted in blue to denote the blue-path innovation
& evolution strategy employed by Samsung for the Samsung Wearable Mobile Suite. For a brief discussion of blue-path strategies related to post-PC mobile suites, please refer to the section above
entitled Android Wearable Mobile Suites: Strategic Evolution of Product Innovations. For a more detailed explanation of blue-path strategies in general, please refer to the Steve Jobs page of
inocles.com.
By highlighting core Samsung product features that provide competitive disadvantage (in red) and advantage (in green) relative to key competitors in the wearable mobile suite market in early 2015, we transform the Samsung competitive strategy matrix presented above
into the powerful and visually insightful competitive differentiation matrix
below.
source: Cyclefund Research
We formally refer to the Samsung competitive differentiation matrix above as The Rise of the Samsung Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite with Competitive Differentiation Highlights. By examining
the highlighted elements of the matrix, we can quickly identify, list, and expand upon the relative competitive strengths and weakness of each of the cloud-connected post-PC devices that constitute
the early-2015 Samsung wearable mobile post-PC suite, and do so for Samsung in the next four sections.
Samsung Gear S Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Samsung post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Samsung Gear S possesses the following four relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Samsung Gear S possesses the following eight relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing the 4 positive competitive strengths against the 8 negative competitive
weaknesses of the Samsung Gear S, we believe that while the Samsung Gear S will struggle to gain traction in the wearable smartwatch space, it will represent a pioneering effort to showcase the
inherent value of a large naturally curved screen for enabling post-PC users to productively access information and immediately process critical alerts, notifications, and messages directly from
their wrist.
Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Samsung post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge possesses the following fourteen relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge possesses the following single relative competitive weakness:
Weighing 14 positive competitive strengths against the 1 negative competitive
weakness of the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge, we believe that Samsung has a barn-burner on its hands and stands to take back share from competitors in the premium device luxury and mass-market segments of
the post-PC smartphone space throughout
2015.
Samsung Galaxy Note Edge Competitive Strengths
and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Samsung post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Samsung Galaxy Note Edge possesses the following ten relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Samsung Galaxy Note Edge possesses the following three relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing 10 positive competitive strengths against the 3 negative competitive
weaknesses of the Samsung Galaxy Note Edge, we believe that Samsung will introduce several compelling new features, including several currently found in the Galaxy S6 Edge, to the next version of the
Galaxy Note Edge, the company's flagship phablet-class cloud-connected post-PC device, expected to be announced and released in late 2015.
Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Samsung post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 possesses the following six relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 possesses the following two relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing 6 positive competitive strengths against the 2 negative competitive
weaknesses of the Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5, we believe that Samsung will introduce several compelling new features, including several currently found in the Galaxy S6 Edge, to the next version of
the Galaxy Tab S, the company's flagship tablet-class cloud-connected post-PC device for consumers, expected to be announced and released in mid-2015.
Xiaomi Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite of Cloud-Connected Smart
Devices
In early 2015, Xiaomi's low-cost wearable mobile post-PC suite comprised four
cloud-connected smart devices: Xiaomi Mi Band smart wristband, Xiaomi Redmi 2 smartphone, Xiaomi Redmi Note LTE phablet, and Xiaomi Mi Pad tablet, as illustrated below in the competitive strategy
matrix entitled The Rise of the Xiaomi Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite of Cloud-Connected Smart
Devices.
sources: Cyclefund Research, mi.com, gsmarena.com,
wikipedia.com
The first row of the strategy matrix represents Xiaomi Mi Band and contains one sub-row representing the 36 millimeter Mi Band Bluetooth device. The second row represents the Xiaomi Redmi 2
smartphone and contains one sub-row representing the Redmi 2 LTE device. The third row represents the Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G phablet and contains one sub-row representing the 8 GB Redmi Note 4G LTE
device. The fourth and final row represents the Xiaomi Mi Pad tablet and contains one sub-row representing the 16 GB Mi Pad WiFi device.
Please note that all rows of the Xiaomi competitive strategy matrix above are highlighted in orange to denote the orange-path innovation
& evolution strategy employed by Xiaomi for the Xiaomi Wearable Mobile Suite. For a brief discussion of orange-path strategies related to post-PC mobile suites, please refer to the section above
entitled Android Wearable Mobile Suites: Strategic Evolution of Product Innovations. For a more detailed explanation of orange-path strategies in general, please refer to the Steve Jobs page of
inocles.com.
By highlighting core Xiaomi product features that provide competitive disadvantage (in red) and advantage (in green) relative to key competitors in the wearable mobile suite market in early 2015, we transform the Xiaomi competitive strategy matrix presented above into
the powerful and visually insightful competitive differentiation matrix
below.
source: Cyclefund Research
We formally refer to the Xiaomi competitive differentiation matrix above as The Rise of the Xiaomi Post-PC Wearable Mobile Suite with Competitive Differentiation Highlights. By examining the
highlighted elements of the matrix, we can quickly identify, list, and expand upon the relative competitive strengths and weakness of each of the cloud-connected post-PC devices that constitute the
early-2015 Xiaomi wearable mobile post-PC suite, and do so for Xiaomi in the next four sections.
Xiaomi Mi Band Competitive Strengths and
Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Xiaomi post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Xiaomi Mi Band possesses the following seven relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Xiaomi Mi Band possesses the following ten relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing the 7 positive competitive strengths against the 10 negative competitive
weaknesses of the Xiaomi Mi Band, we believe that the Xiaomi Mi Band will be a runaway hit across global markets because of its extraordinarily low price point and its unmistakable focus on health,
fitness, and sleep applications that strategically capitalize on the device's light weight, attractive design, and remarkable battery life, essentially allowing users to charge it up once a month and
never take it off day or night.
Xiaomi Redmi 2 Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Xiaomi post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Xiaomi Redmi 2 possesses the following six relative competitive
strengths:
Quad-core central processing unit (CPU)
Intuitive user experience provided by the MIUI mobile operating system skin for Android
Voice-controlled intelligent assistant (must install Google Now via Google Play Store)
Quick charging support
Numerous body color choices
Very affordable price at $110 U.S. dollars unlocked for the 16 GB model
In contrast, the Xiaomi Redmi 2 possesses the following ten relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing the 6 positive competitive strengths against the 10 negative competitive
weaknesses of the Xiaomi Redmi 2, we believe the Redmi 2 smartphone represents an extraordinary value for consumers in the low-cost, mass-market segment of the international smartphone space.
Moreover, we expect both local and global post-PC smartphone competitors will find it extremely difficult to compete with Xiaomi in this particular segment of the market, essentially allowing Xiaomi
to capture new post-PC smartphone users in developing markets, such as China, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia, at accelerating rates.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G Competitive Strengths and
Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Xiaomi post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G possesses the following six relative competitive
strengths:
In contrast, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G possesses the following eleven relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing the 6 positive competitive strengths against the 11 negative competitive weaknesses of the Xiaomi Redmi Note 4G, we believe that while the Redmi Note 4G phablet offers several compelling features at an extremely attractive price point for a phablet-class post-PC device, the device needs significant internal and external enhancements in order to remain competitive in the mass-market segment of the international smartphone space in 2015.
Xiaomi Mi Pad Competitive Strengths and Weaknesses
As illustrated in the competitive differentiation matrix for the Xiaomi post-PC wearable mobile suite above, the Xiaomi Mi Pad possesses the following seven relative competitive strengths:
In contrast, the Xiaomi Mi Pad possesses the following seven relative competitive weaknesses:
Weighing the 7 positive competitive strengths against the 7 negative competitive weaknesses of the Xiaomi Mi Pad, we believe that other than its small screen, thick enclosure, and plastic back, the Mi Pad is a solid competitive offering. Moreover, we expect Xiaomi to address these competitive weaknesses in a new tablet offering later in 2015.
Which Post-PC Vendor has the Best Wearable Mobile Suite for 2015?
In the previous fifteen sections, we presented a detailed competitive analysis of leading wearable mobile post-PC suites for the first time based on well-established competitive strategy and competitive differentiation frameworks from Cyclefund Research. The analysis was conducted in Q1 of 2015, and it included the following post-PC suites from three leading post-PC vendors:
Each of the suites above included individual market leading products from Apple, Samsung, and Xiaomi spanning four fundamental classes of post-PC devices: smartwatches, smartphones, phablets, and tablets. Based on the detailed competitive analysis of the relative competitive strengths and weaknesses of individual devices from the three leading post-PC wearable mobile suite vendors, we present the following best-in-class awards for early 2015:
More importantly, we present the best-across-class award for early 2015 as follows:
The wearable mobile post-PC suite from Xiaomi wins an honorable mention for delivering a complete suite of cloud-connected post-PC wearable and non-wearable mobile devices at a heretofore unprecedented prices point.
Google: The Ultimate Winner of the Cloud-Service Phase of the Post-PC Era
In the previous sections, we introduced the grand unified strategic investment, innovation, and evolution framework from Cyclefund Research and employed this unified model and its supporting competitive strategy and differentiation matrices to analyze the relative strengths and weakness of three leading global post-PC firms, Apple, Samsung, and Xiaomi, fiercely competing in early-2015 for dominant positions within the nascent market for wearable mobile post-PC suites of cloud-connected smart devices, as illustrated in the innovation evolution diagram below.
We refer to this diagram as The Wearable Mobile Post-PC Suite War of 2015 - 2017. It represents the innovation and evolution pathways to be pursued by the world's leading post-PC suite and cloud-service vendors, Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi, and Google, as they compete in the greatest technology war of our time.
Using the unified Cyclefund model and its companion competitive strategy and differentiation matrices, we predict that Apple, Samsung, and Xiaomi will pursue the following competitive positioning, innovation, and evolution strategies within the wearable mobile post-PC space:
Moreover, and most importantly, we predict that Google will pursue a virtual collision-path innovation & evolution strategy designed to uniquely
capitalize on the orange-path competitive strategy of Xiaomi and the blue-path competitive strategies of Apple and Samsung.
How will Google accomplish this truly revolutionary competitor-crushing coup (not seen in the post-PC industry since Steve Job's shattered all competitors in the portable media player space with the
collision-path introduction of Apple iPod nano in 2005, source: iPod page of inocles.com) and catapult itself into the dominant position across all segments of the wearable mobile
post-PC suite space? The answer this critical question is simply: post-PC user engagement 24/7, as illustrated in the multidimensional engagement diagram below.
We refer to this diagram as the Killer App and Cloud Services from Google for Maximizing User Engagement 24/7 in the Post-PC Era across All Post-Post Devices,
Platforms, and Vendors. This post-PC user engagement framework represents what we strongly believe to be the single most comprehensive and compelling competitive approach for monopolizing the
time of nearly every cloud-connected person, device, and thing around the globe.
No competitor comes close, for to do so would require the competitor, and its strategic partners, to span the Cyclefund post-PC device value chain, the Cyclefund post-PC service
value chain, and offer post-PC users a complete set of game-changing post-PC apps and cloud services that span wearable and non-wearable dimensions of the Cyclefund post-PC strategic
positioning framework. As of this writing, Google is the only post-PC firm that possesses the core competencies and strategic assets required to span all of these fundamental competitive
structures.