Evolution of the Smart Phone Market

The smart phone market is growing at a very fast pace. The number of smart phones sold world-wide is expected to grow at a pace of more than 15% a year. This is what we call a Developing market. The smart phone market portrays some interesting developments you might expect to see in other fast-growing markets.

Apple really made the market take flight with its original iPhone. Apple has migrated into the high-end, Performance Leader, part of the market with its iPhone4, selling for $199 with a two year contract. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry leaders are losing share” on StrategyStreet.com.) Wisely, Apple kept its old iPhone3 GS on the market as a lower-cost product, selling for $99 with a two year contract.

Competitors have been stumped trying to outflank Apple with new and better functionality. Apple simply has too many apps for most competitors. Only the Android phones, using the Google operating system, have gained share. Nokia and Research In Motion have both lost substantial share in the smart phone market. So, what are the competitors to do? (See the Symptom & Implication, “Competitors in formerly underdeveloped markets have begun meeting one another” on StrategyStreet.com.)

In this market, as in other Developing markets, the competitors strip out some of the expensive benefits of the product and introduce a new lower Price Point. In the smart phone market, the new lower Price Point still delivers one of the most important benefits of a smart phone, internet access. Because these new Price Points have fewer benefits, they cost less and allow the companies to sell to the carriers at lower prices than the Apple i4 product. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Low end products are gaining share of the market” on StrategyStreet.com.) In turn, the wireless service carriers offer lower priced package deals to their users when the packages include the new lower-priced smart phones.

Two developments are of note here. First, the evolution of the market. In this case, as in others, the market develops a new lower Price Point product that satisfies some of the basic needs of the current customer group. More importantly, the new Price Point attracts a new cohort of customers due to its lower prices. Second, prices decline in the market despite the fact that the market is growing very quickly. Prices are declining because costs are going down. Yes. But they are also declining under the press of competition in a market where margins are high enough to sustain lower prices with still-acceptable margins. Virtually all fast growing markets witness falling prices.

Google at Risk

Google continues to dominate the search market. It commands about two-thirds of all the searches done on the internet. Its next closest rival is Microsoft’s Bing which, at 28% market share, includes its integration with Yahoo’s site. (See “Audio Tip #9: Introduction to Step 3 of the Basic Strategy Guide” on StrategyStreet.com.) Google’s dominance in this market has brought with it a disproportionate share of the spending on paid advertising. Google may be putting that premium position at risk.

Google has been investing heavily in developing its local search capability. It hopes to gain even more advertising dollars by making this investment. Now the problem. Some companies, who also specialize in local marketing have begun complaining that Google discriminates against their sites in favor of Google’s own local search results. This is a very dangerous development for Google. It risks its Reliability reputation.

Google’s competitors have had a difficult time gaining market share against Google. As competitors develop new Functions, Google simply copies them. Internet searchers have had little reason to shift from Google to other competitors, including Bing. In our terms, Google’s competitors are not able to take market share away from Google by “winning.” (See “Audio Tip #32: Introduction to Step 7 of the Basic Strategy Guide”) They have not been able to do anything unique that causes a substantial portion of customers to shift their searches to Google. Rather, most of the market share that shifts in this market today comes as the result of a “failure.” Google must fail to meet its searcher’s expectations in order for Bing and the other competitors to have a significant opportunity to gain market share.

Google may be creating this opportunity by risking a failure in Reliability. A searcher has to know that Google will provide the most relevant results. If Google offers up its own less relevant results ahead of other web sites’ more relevant results, Google will lose market share. (See “Audio Tip #72: Reliability Failures Among Outstanding Companies” on StrategyStreet.com.) Google’s actions in promoting its own results over more relevant results are equivalent to a retailer offering a customer a lower quality product over a higher quality product simply because the retailer makes more money with the lower quality product. After a while, customers catch on and defect to other retailers. A failure in Reliability is particularly troublesome because trust is so hard to rebuild.

A Fast Growing Market Begins Developing Reliability and Convenience Innovations

In a fast growing market, new Functions and lower Price drive more share gains than do Reliability and Convenience (see Customer Buying Hierarchy descriptions on StrategyStreet.com in the Perspective, “How Customers Buy” and in “Video 25: Short Explanation of Customer Buying Hierarchy”). After awhile, though, market growth begins to slow and Function innovations become less important than innovations in Reliability and Convenience. We can see this developing in the wireless applications market.

This market has been on a tear for the last few years. Recently, Amazon announced that it was planning to enter the market for phone applications by creating an online store selling apps for smart phones running Google’s Android software. Amazon will then compete with Google’s web site offering apps that work on the Android system.

Amazon’s entrance shows developments in both Reliability and Convenience. Amazon offers Reliability innovations in at least two ways. First, Amazon encourages the reviews from its customers of the products it sells. These customer reviews are important sources of Reliability information about a product. Second, Amazon insists that any app it sells will not sell for a lower price anywhere else. This Reliability innovation assures a customer that Amazon will have prices that are competitive with anyone.

Amazon also brings great Convenience to this market. There are so many apps today that the market is becoming chaotic. Amazon will organize these applications in ways that fit with its customer base. Amazon has a long history of doing this very thing with other products. Just as importantly, Amazon already has a working payment arrangement with millions of customers. It is particularly adept at the “one click” payment system, which enables a customer to pay for purchases very quickly.

Amazon’s entry is a good example of a natural evolution in a fast growing market.

Microsoft Phone 7 - A Long Row to Hoe

Recently, Microsoft introduced Windows Phone 7 Mobile software. This is all new software that Microsoft hopes will stop its slide in market share. It is going to have tough sledding.

Until this introduction, Microsoft’s market share in the mobile software business was dropping off a cliff. The company was one of the early entrants into the market. In 2004, it owned 22% of the market. By 2009, its share was down to 9%. Today it is about 5%. Microsoft was quickly fading away. But maybe the new software can help.

For a bit of perspective, we have to explain that there are five separate players involved in this marketplace: the operating system developers, the phone manufacturers, the wireless carriers, the software application developers and the ultimate users. Each of these entities are in separate businesses and represent separate competition. Microsoft plays in the market exclusively as an operating system developer. That’s what Windows Phone 7 is. The Google Android system is another stand-alone mobile operating software platform. So has been Hewlett Packard’s Palm mobile operating software. Three other competitors offer their operating software only in combination with their handset hardware. These include Nokia, with the Symbian operating system, Research In Motion’s Blackberry products and Apple’s iPhones.

The market share ranking today among those competitors in total operating software starts with Nokia’s Symbian, followed by Android, then Blackberry and Apple. Each of these has a market share that are multiples of Microsoft’s current share. Microsoft is fifth, followed by Palm and others.

The new Windows Phone 7 software is a wholly new product. It is completely different than the previous Microsoft mobile software. So different, in fact, that none of the thousands of applications written for the previous Microsoft software will work with Windows Phone 7. The company must start from scratch with applications.

Consumers love applications and make many of their buying decisions on the basis of these applications. (See the Perspective, “When to Compete on Features” on StrategyStreet.com.) Today, Apple has about 250,000 applications, followed by Android with about 70,000. The differences between the two are probably much less than these numbers would indicate because most of the popular applications are available on both platforms. You can see this in the marginal purchases. Android garners more of the current new purchases than does Apple. So, for all practical purposes, Apple no longer owns a significant application lead on Android.

Windows Phone 7 faces a real hurdle with applications. In some ways, it offers a few benefits over the Android and Apple operating systems. For example, it works off of “tiles” that enable a user to get information somewhat faster than in the Android and Apple software. It works easily with Microsoft Office software and it enables gamers to connect to online games easily. These are modest innovations at best, and likely to be followed by others quickly. For example, Motorola already produces software for its phones that pretty much duplicates Microsoft’s “tiles.” Apps are the big problem.

If you are an applications developer, Microsoft would likely be far down your list of the companies for whom you would write new application software for a smart phone. Android and Apple would lead the pack. Nokia, Research In Motion and others offer more current customers than Microsoft but pose difficulties for developers. Microsoft would fall below all these firms. Microsoft has to solve this problem quickly.

Application developers are also likely to be leery of Microsoft and its continued presence in the market. Not only has the company lost share, but it introduced a software platform called Kin in the spring of 2010 aimed at young people, between 12 and 20. This product did not stay in the market even two months. So developers are likely to hold fire on their application development for the Windows Phone 7 platform until they are relatively sure that the product will succeed.

Microsoft is backing its Windows Phone 7 introduction with a $100 million advertising program emphasizing the ease with which a user can get to the information most important to the customer. This seems to me to miss the mark. This advertising investment is a Convenience innovation that advises the customer why the Microsoft system is faster and, therefore, better. (See “Video 15: Definition of Convenience” on StrategyStreet.com.) But it seems that most of the smart phone purchases today are the result of other current users’ recommendations and demonstrations. This is a Reliability innovation. These current users are apt to emphasize the Function benefits of their phones rather than the speed of access to information.

Microsoft might have spent this money differently. It is already paying some developers to create applications for its platform. My guess is that their $100 million might have been much better spent paying for applications, where Microsoft is likely to fail on the basis of lack of Functions rather than paying for the Convenience innovation of advertising.

Apple's Future in Smart Phones - Part I

Apple is the clear leader in today’s consumer smart phone market. Research in Motion leads the commercial market. I am going to make the case that a few years from now, they will have a single digit market share. They will turn into a Performance Leader, a small high-priced competitor in the market. This position will be similar to the one Apple holds today in the personal computer market. It appears that Apple is following the same pathway it followed in the personal computer market. Perhaps a bit of history is helpful here.

The business model of Apple differed from that of the PC. Apple was not the first personal computer, but it was, by far, the best. And, it got paid for being the best. Apple really created the mass market for personal computers. It had a huge percentage of the marketplace by the time 1981 rolled around and IBM introduced the PC. Apple controlled both the hardware and the software for its personal computer products. On the PC side, Microsoft’s Windows controlled the software, while a large number of companies became hardware producers for the Windows operating system. In the early years of the personal computer, the hardware was far more expensive than the software.

The PC market had a great deal more competition…and cost/price reductions. Apple prevented any other hardware producer from copying its products. There was at least one company who tried, Franklin Computer. But Apple killed them off in the mid-1980s. From that point on, there were no clone producers of Apple machines. The picture was very different on the IBM/Microsoft side. IBM found itself facing many competitors. Most of those competitors we called “clones.” Dell was one of those clones. This large number of hardware competitors reduced the cost of hardware drastically during the late 80s and through the 90s. (See “Audio Tip #196: Why Economies of Scales Exist” on StrategyStreet.com.) The source of much of the cost of the hardware for a personal computer shifted to the Intel or AMD chips embedded in the hardware. Still, AMD constantly challenged Intel, so Intel had to reduce its prices in order to maintain its very high market shares in chips. All of this intense competition reduced the cost of hardware until today the software costs as much as the hardware. Competition forced hardware components and prices down to such an extent that the PC platform had significant price advantages over the Macintosh/Apple platform. Apple was pushed into a high-cost/high-priced hardware position.

The competition in software was much less pronounced. It has only been in the last few years that Microsoft has had to respond to lower cost competition from Linux and Google. These lower cost competitors have had an impact on Microsoft’s prices, but nothing like the impact that the hardware competition had in reducing the price of hardware. The mass market followed the lower priced PC market. Apple today produces a marvelous machine. It has rabid and loyal fans. It also has high prices and a single digit share of the personal computer market. Were it not for the genius of Steve Jobs and his cohorts at Apple inventing new products with higher margins, Apple would be struggling today, much as it was before Steve Jobs returned to the company. It wouldn’t make a lot of money in the personal computer industry because the industry Standard Leaders, the PC producers, are so cost effective, and so much lower in price, than is Apple.

In Part II, we will see how this same pattern is playing out in the smart phone market.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid...Oh, Never Mind

The 2010 American Customer Satisfaction Index E-Business Report is out. The report is the product of the research firm ForeSee Results. The research firm uses data provided by the University of Michigan. Analysts argue that the report should sound an alarm for Google and Facebook, two of the web’s most popular sites. Apparently, the companies are not doing as good a job as they have in the past with privacy policies and ease of use of their web sites. The report’s scores are set so that a score under 70 is considered poor. Facebook gets a rating of 64, despite the fact that it is the largest and fastest growing social networking service in the U.S. Google gets a rating of 80. This rating is down from 86 a year ago. What are we to make of this?
Not much.

If you went out today and purchased an automobile that had the styling, operating capabilities and characteristics of an automobile from 1960, you would be severely disappointed. You would compare that car to today’s car and find the older car sorely lacking. How, then, did anyone sell a car in 1960? They sold cars in 1960 because they didn’t have the automobiles of 2010 to compete with those cars. The relevant comparison is not an absolute measure. It is only a relative measure. We have to view Facebook and Google against their competition, not against an absolute standard. (See “Video #70: Overview of Products and Services Part 2: What to Expect” on StrategyStreet.com.)

When you look at these two companies against their closest competitors, they come out rather well. Facebook’s “dismal” 64 rating compares with its nearest rival, MySpace, with its rating of 63. Google’s “falling” rating of 80 compares with Microsoft’s Bing at 77 and Yahoo at 76. The sky is not falling. (See the Perspective, “How Customers Buy” on StrategyStreet.com.)

In any competitive market, the standard is not absolute performance, but relative performance. If a company’s relative performance begins to fall, it will lose market share and you can expect falling quality rankings to account for much of the market share loss. An absolute standard is meaningless. Perfection of performance has a cost well beyond what the vast majority of customers would be willing to pay.

Who Are Those Guys?

Whenever an industry finds itself in the enviable position of having freedom in pricing, it usually finds that competition emerges out of the woodwork, from the least expected places. In many cases, the companies in these industries don’t conceive of new competition really having much of a chance to emerge. If they do see competition, they usually dismiss that competition as incapable of offering real competition.

Microsoft dominates the PC software market. It is likely to do so for many years to come. But Linux and Google have emerged to be a thorn in Microsoft’s side. Both of these alternatives have small market shares. However, both are able to limit Microsoft’s pricing power in some of its markets, especially governmental markets. (See the Symptom & Implication, “The industry leaders are losing share” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Healthcare pricing seems to be out of anyone’s control today. Maybe ObamaCare will fix that, though that is hard to see when, overnight, we increased demand without increasing any supply. It is more likely that healthcare will continue; indeed, even accelerate. But there is an emergent competitor: medical tourism. Ten years ago, few of us would have considered going to a foreign country to undergo an important medical procedure. As recently as 2007, more than 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for a medical procedure. That market is growing at better than 15% a year. And as medical tourism grows, so too will the skills and capabilities resident at the medical facilities these tourists visit. They will become stronger competitors. (See the Symptom & Implication, “Competition is expanding with the appearance of discounters” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Higher education is another area where school participants seem to have virtually unlimited pricing power. Along with that power has come a boom in for-profit college and university alternatives. These for-profit institutions are still a small factor in the market, but they are growing very rapidly. Now DeVry University and the University of Phoenix are unlikely to challenge the Ivy League any time soon. But, eventually, they will put the breaks on the pricing freedom in many of the lesser known public and private institutions.

The Pre Looks to Go Post

Nine months ago, Palm introduced its new Pre smart-phone. On the occasion of that introduction, we wrote a blog (See Blog Here) predicting that the Pre would have a difficult time competing in this fast-growing market. It’s problem? Lack of apps. At the time, Apple had 35,000 apps. That number has now grown to well over 100,000. Other competitors today have as many as 20,000 or more apps available. The Pre has relatively few. Its shortage of apps has shown up in its market share. Recently it had 5% of the smart-phone market, a long way behind Apple’s 18% and Blackberry’s 43%.

In response to its failure to generate excitement in the market, the Palm plans to increase its advertising and add 200 company trainers to help Verizon’s sales representatives sell the phones. This won’t work either.

Returning again to the Customer Buying Hierarchy that we use to analyze a market, we recall that customers buy Function, Reliability, Convenience and Price. They buy in that order as well. Customers keep moving through the Hierarchy until they have found a single competitor who can offer them something important to them and that no other competitor can offer. (See “Audio Tip #70: Several Rounds in Evaluation Failures” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Function innovations dominate very fast-growing markets. The smart-phone market has been a very fast-growing market. Function innovations in the form of applications are today’s name of the Function game. If you don’t have apps, you can forget about the other Function innovations in your phone. Today’s competition can copy virtually any Function innovation that resides in the phone itself. Apps are something else again. (See “Audio Tip #97: How Do We Know if an Innovation will Remain Unique?” on StrategyStreet.com.) They require a large installed base, strengths of Research In Motion’s Blackberry and Apple’s iPhone. Application developers have little incentive to design new applications for the Palm operating system when at least three other phone providers, Research In Motion, Apple and Google, stand in front of the Pre and its smaller sibling, the Pixi.

Unless all three of these companies, with far more apps than the Palm phones, fail, the Palm phones don’t have much of a future. No amount of advertising, nor increased sales training, can make up today for a lack of applications. If it is determined to spend its money in what looks like a losing cause, Palm would be far better off buying applications rather than spending money on marketing and sales. Today’s smart-phone is sold by one user showing another all the cool things that the smart-phone can do. That is a much bigger sales force than Palm or even Verizon can afford.

Acquisitions to Gain Product Capability

There are three primary reasons to make an acquisition. First, the acquirer may use the acquisition to reduce its cost by consolidating and reducing the total cost of overlapping cost functions. Second, the acquirer may seek to gain a new set of customers. And, third, the acquirer may be seeking a product capability which it does not have. In general, we believe that a successful acquisition will meet at least two out of these three criteria.

Recently, both Apple and Google have made important acquisitions. (See “Audio Tip #104: Where is the “Profit” in Expansion?” on StrategyStreet.com.) Both of these acquisitions have the bonus of acquiring a product capability that the company needs. Google acquired AdMob, a company which places ads on mobile web sites and applications. This is a very fast-growing market. Apple, shortly afterwards, followed suit by acquiring Quattro Wireless, a smaller competitor of AdMob. Google needs this acquisition in order to extend its advertising expertise into the mobile market. Apple needs its acquisition in order to make some revenues on the many free apps that run on its iPhones.

Which of the two companies is likely to be more successful in its acquisition? (See “Audio Tip #200: Using Acquisitions to Create Economies of Scale” on StrategyStreet.com.) Apple should certainly be able to generate revenue relatively quickly because there are so many free apps already out for the iPhone, which run on an advertising business model where the app is free to the consumer. On the other hand, Apple’s culture is hardware oriented. The company may have difficulties in dealing in a largely service-oriented market.

That won’t be Google’s problem. It already lives in the advertising world. In addition, AdMob is a much larger company than is Quattro. Google is likely to have acquired a new product capability with a lower cost structure than its Apple/Quattro Wireless competitor.

Paying Attention to Low-End Competitors

When do we have to pay attention to low-end competitors? The cell phone operating system business gives us an indication.

There are a number of cell phone operating systems from which to choose. The major suppliers include Microsoft, Google, Apple, Nokia and Research in Motion. Google is the newest entry here, and is beginning to make waves with its free Android operating system. (See “Audio Tip #33: Strong vs. Weak Competitors” on StrategyStreet.com.)

There are two separate sets of customers for these operating systems. The first, and most important, are the carriers. The four major carriers include AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and TMobile. A secondary set of customers are the handset makers. These companies are secondary because they conform to the demands of the carriers in the U.S. These handset makers include Samsung, LG, Sony Ericsson, Kyocera, Dell, HTC and Apple.

In the cell phone operating system market, Nokia is the leader with its Symbian operating system. Research In Motion, with its operating system for its BlackBerrys, is also strong. The key growth market today is the smart phone market, where Apple has 13% of the market. Apple is gaining market share, at the expense of Windows Mobile, which has managed to hold on to 9% of the market. Google’s Android operating system is on only 2% of the world-wide smart phones. So should the operating system competitors fear Google’s Android? The answer is yes, for a couple of reasons.

The first, and most important, reason is that the largest carriers, all four of them, have agreed to offer Android phones. (See “Audio Tip #29: Positive vs. Negative Volatility” on StrategyStreet.com.) Whenever the largest customers in the market agree to carry a product, that product has to be taken seriously by other competitors. The adoption of Android systems by the top four carriers argues that Android is a serious competitor.

The next reason is that most of the phone set makers have also adopted an Android operating system for some of their phones. Motorola eliminated Windows Mobile in favor of Android. HTC plans for half of its phones to run on Android this year. And Dell is using Android for its market entry. Most of the other competitors, including Samsung, LG, Kyocera and Sony Ericsson are also making Android devices. Apple will not offer an Android phone. So, the secondary customers have also spoken and affirmed that Android is serious.

Once the major customers have endorsed a low-end competitor, that competitor’s impact on the market will be pervasive. Android will not be a low-end competitor for long. Google will use its growth in the market to fund product innovations which will bring its operating system up to the standards of the better players in the market. Further, the growth of the Android system, which is free, will inevitably reduce the volume of sales or the price, and probably both, of the higher end operating systems. A low-end competitor who continues offering low prices while, at the same time, improving its product’s performance will reduce the margins of all other competitors in the industry. Its performance for price proposition will focus customers’ attention on the marginal differences that the higher end operating systems offer for their marginal prices, depressing either sales or prices. (See “Audio Tip #80: Measuring Customer Cost Savings” on StrategyStreet.com.)

Microsoft Gets Pricing Warnings from Competitors

Recently, Google announced that it was creating an operating system to work on the new small netbook computers. Netbooks are the only part of the PC market that is growing today. Google hopes to introduce an operating system there in order to serve as a stalking horse to slip into Microsoft’s share with desktop and notebook PCs.

Also, Cisco has let it be known that it was considering offering a rival to Microsoft’s Office software. This service would let business users create documents they could draft and share through Cisco’s WebEx meeting and collaboration service. Google has already attempted to best Microsoft in the Office world with its Google Apps internet-based alternative. Google has yet to create much traction with this product. The outlook for Cisco’s product must wait until it actually appears. But the point here is al the new competition.

Why is Microsoft seeing so much new competition in markets where it is the overwhelming dominant leader? Because its prices are so high. It is drawing competitors into the marketplace who want a piece of Microsoft’s enormous profit base. (See Audio Tip #119: A Price Umbrella on StrategyStreet.com.) These competitive forays are likely to continue as long as Microsoft holds the high price umbrella over them. These new competitors have a mighty mountain to climb, so they might not succeed. On the other hand, one of them just might and create real pain for Microsoft. Linux has already damaged Microsoft in some of the large markets that Microsoft serves. (See Audio Tip #102: When is Price Likely to go Down? on StrategyStreet.com.)

Interestingly, Cisco specifically stated that it was not interested in competing with Salesforce.com in selling online applications for corporate users. You probably wonder why. So did I. Here’s why. Microsoft has the following results on a trailing twelve month basis: Operating Margins 37% and Return on Equity 42%. In contrast, Salesforce.com has these results on a trailing twelve month basis: Operating Margins of 7% and Return on Equity 9%. I guess the price and profit umbrella held up by Salesforce just doesn’t allow even big companies to crawl in underneath.

New Product in a Fast Growing Industry: Bing

After failing more than once to create an innovative and attractive search product, the persistent Microsoft is back with a new entry called Bing. Let’s use the Customer Buying Hierarchy to evaluate the prospect for the Bing’s success.

The Customer Buying Hierarchy (see “Video 27: Full Description of How the Customer Buying Hierarchy Works” on StrategyStreet.com) holds that customers buy a product using four categories of evaluation: Function, Reliability, Convenience and Price. Function (see “Video 13: Definition of Function” on StrategyStreet.com) refers to the features of the product that affect how it is used. Reliability (see “Video 14: Definition of Reliability” on StrategyStreet.com) refers to the benefits of the product that assure the customer that it works and will continue to work. Convenience (see “Video 15: Definition of Convenience” on StrategyStreet.com) refers to the ease with which the customer may find and purchase the product. Price is the cash cost the customer pays for the product.

We will begin with a look at Function differences. The search industry has two customers: The consumer searcher and the advertiser. This new Microsoft entry is drawing some good reviews for consumers and some wait-and-see opinions from advertisers. Bing offers some new Function innovations that reviewers prefer to Google’s search results. It appears that the consumer will find Bing an improvement on Google. The advertisers, however, are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. Google’s market share, at over 60% of the current search market, is massively larger than is Bing or its Microsoft predecessor. Even Yahoo Search is much larger than is Microsoft in the market. Many of these advertisers plan to wait to see whether Bing will become the new Google.

The Reliability and the Convenience advantages in this market belong solely to Google. The company name has become a verb describing a search. Most people know about the Google product and believe it to be the market leader. A large percentage of desk top and lap top computers have the Google toolbar with its search box resident on their computers. Google is an easy default choice for most searchers.

So, what is the outlook for Bing? The success of Bing largely depends on what Google does to respond to the Function advantages Bing is bringing to the market. This is still a fast-growing market. This works in Bing’s favor. Consumers are likely to be willing to try something new if they think it might help. Switching to Bing from Google or Yahoo offers little difficultly. Microsoft has the cash to put on quite a marketing blitz. All of these Convenience factors work in Bing’s favor. However, Microsoft has to rely on the forbearance of competitors in order to win in this marketplace. It has to maintain its unique Functions in order to best Google in a world Google dominates. (See the Perspective, “When to Compete on Features” on StrategyStreet.com.) If Google copies Bing’s new Functions, Bing will lose its advantage and will not succeed. The Reliability and Convenience advantages that Google enjoys today give it time to copy Bing’s Function advantages without losing much of its current market share.

If Google neutralizes Microsoft’s Function advantages soon, Bing will bring only modest market share changes.