Mini Case Study Microsoft & Apple Company Research Papers Example

Mini Case Study Microsoft and Apple Company

Introduction
Microsoft Corporation is well-established international company since the year 1975; it is a mega telecommunication company that entered the market with an aim of making people communicates quickly through provision of computers at home (Harter, 2012). Microsoft since its creation has relied on the speed at which the technological development is moving with. Microsoft provides a variety of products in the market; it is best known for its communication hardware devices and software (Kumar & Tucker, 2014). It controls a larger percentage of the personal computers (PC) operating system and the famous Microsoft Office which is for the office suit. It also provides search engines like Bing, Windows OS and Xbox video games that will soon be launched officially.
Microsoft had controlled the software market for a very long time until Apple launched its Tiger operating system that proved to be superior that the Microsoft software. Apart from competition Microsoft had been facing internal wrangles, and its product quality could not much the market requirement hence the company had to re-strategies so as to stay relevant (Harter, 2012). Several strategies of Microsoft failed due to its failure to cope up with the competition a good example is Zune that could not match iTunes of iPhone.
Apple Company is a famous telecommunication started by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. The founders were college dropout and worked tirelessly to make their company scale the heights of prosperity. The company grew rapidly during the period 1980 to 1995 after which it faced bankruptcy in 1996, the company recovered from the bankruptcy and was renamed Apple Inc (Menzel, 2014). It specialized in mobile technology so as to differentiate itself from Microsoft dominated PC software; it became extremely successful in Mobile industry as Microsoft was going down (Pon, 2014). By the year 2011, it had accumulated a market capitalization of $220 million and it famous slogan "Think Different" was trending as it grew it market share. Its prime strategy that was to differentiate its products totally from the Microsoft control PC software market worked well, and Apple prospered due to the new strategy.

Cross-Case Analysis of the two Companies

The only possible way for one company to score more than the other is through execution of a successful, workable policy. Completion between Apple and Microsoft is specific since it deal with technological improvement, managerial process, product novelty, satisfaction of emergent customer need and market review (Wasserman, 2012). These factors mentioned earlier are important in strategy formation among the two companies. The progress of one company is however dependant mostly on company vision And vision and not to leave the objectives (Gawer, 2012). In this case study, Microsoft failed because it failed to identify consumer's needs through its strategy and thus gave room for Apple to surpass it.
Microsoft is thus considered successful due to its strategies that were aimed at consumer need at that time. Microsoft on the other hand failed due Failure in product innovation, product launch, leadership and industry development (Wasserman, 2012). The difference arises in a situation where Apple were able to differentiate its product to suit the consumer needs, coming up with risky innovation that satisfied consumers and finally licensing products that were necessitated to satisfy consumer needs.

Conclusion

Finally, the analysis shows that a company that roles a strategy that satisfy their consumers paves its way to success. Success only comes to companies that format its strategies in a manner that the consumer's feels that their needs are met. Successful companies in the market do develop new ideas, come up with new technologies and thus capture the consumer attention and hence remains relevant and thriving.

References

Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A., & Strategy, D. S. (2012). How companies become platform leaders. MIT/Sloan Management Review, 49.
Harter, T., Dragga, C., Vaughn, M., Arpaci-Dusseau, A. C., & Arpaci-Dusseau, R. H. (2012). A file is not a file: understanding the I/O behavior of Apple desktop applications. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 30(3), 10.
Kumar, A., & Tucker, B. J. (2014). U.S. Patent No. 8,825,873. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Menzel, A. (2014). How well placed Apple is to sustain its recent success in the Consumer Electronics Industry. GRIN Verlag
Pon, B., Seppälä, T., & Kenney, M. (2014). Android and the demise of operating system-based power: Firm strategy and platform control in the post-PC world. Telecommunications Policy, 38(11), 979-991.
Wasserman, M., & Agility, P. A. (2012). Network Working Group L. Hornquist Astrand Internet-Draft Apple, Inc Intended status: Standards Track L. Zhu Expires: September 8, 2012 Microsoft Corporation.