The leader said that samsung and wah had been the strongest challengers for both companies, that samsung was still selling apples globally, and that china had hit the price of apples once after they had been raised by foreign forces. However, the characteristics of the two are not the same: the strategic coverage of the samsung is consumer electronics plus industrial chain layout, while china is based on multi-situations based on communications capacity. The fact that samsung is now a korean national enterprise, but that the real control behind it is the united states consortium, should also be the underlying reason why samsung’s founder family will never have a good balance between korea and america. One thing to be commended is that samsung’s korean team is very executive, but its weaknesses are also poorly localized globally, with relatively few local executives. It is not a good thing that zhou’s boss once told a story he heard in the course of his european research that the high-level assembly of samsung europe has few locals outside of koreans, causing industry ridicule. To a certain extent, china has drawn on the strong execution culture of the samsung, which, because of its unique organizational design, is more aggressive than the samsung. During the service of the zhou counselor's team, one of the executives said that the team's ability to execute can exhaust samsung and his opponents. It was a joke, but it was clear that the market activities and marketing planned by china were far more intense than those of its opponents. This is an excerpt from the discussion of both challenges the competitiveness of apples. Overall, we prefer to define samsung as an “innovation department” based on supply chain advantages, but china is more like a cross-industry, cross-industry “branding”, both of which have powerfully challenged apples with different fates. The extract here deals with the competitiveness of both, in particular the analysis of china’s capacity to implement the final china region, and also represents an in-house insight into the depth of our team。
This is an excerpt from an in-depth article in the english financial times' chinese-language column, " who is the ultimate challenger of apple? " , in which the system presents the strategic features of apple, samsung, huacheng, and vivo's four smartphone giants, and this section selects a serial apple section。
In reality, the strength of apples does not really break the confidence of challengers, and to a certain extent, samsung huai has had experience with super apples。
It is common knowledge that there has never been a fairy emperor in the history of business, and that the “imperial” is bound to escape the ultimate fate of the great and failed. Looking at the history of technology, powerful companies tend to decline by ignoring opportunities for marginalized innovation, and the story of nokia goes from invincible giants to walking down the altar. Similarly, any seemingly perfect competitive advantage is bound to have a clear logical backlash, which makes it possible to divide competitors, and the rise of the microsoft empire comes only from a small mouse. So the clearest thing about samsung and china is that they have to be at a strategic height different from apples, looking for local differential advantages to gain a reverse。
Yes, challenging giants must be courageously differentiated. Three stars are almost the first to show apples, not only to launch a full range of products at a higher frequency, but also to invest heavily in design and brand operation. The structure of the company, which has the american stockholding gene, the national competitiveness of the republic of korea, and the strategy of the global localized layout to meet apples is clear, namely, to fight the noble “tech church” with a more organic, more configured and more product-formulated global value chain. The following is a summary of the samsung mobile phone “globalized value chain” strategy:
We have summarized the overall strategic thinking of the samsung brand in three main points: first, a fully localized corporate citizenship strategy based on the global market layout, which makes samsung a global technology giant that competes side by side with apples, and second, a value chain that combines the comparative advantages of east asia’s industrial chain, with high r & d inputs and a lead in maintaining devices, which allows the samsung brand to have sufficient low-cost manufacturing advantages to match multi-dimensional competition in consumer electronics. The third is to insist on high-end branding with branding operations, synergizing the whole product line, and implementing “branding operations” through high performance orientation to support multiple flagships, multiple series, multiple prices, multiple choices and the high difference between apples. It is evident that the three stars' “globalized value chain” strategy, with its highly disparate strategic thinking, has lengthened the operational capacity of the front line and the apple to act faithfully as plan b (the apple option) in the eyes of the big global t (large operators)。
It should be said that samsung is not only the only company that has succeeded in surpassing its overall market share of apples, but is now the only firm on the global scale that truly counterbalances the high-end products of apples, although the producers that have launched the worst shocks in the last few years should be the same. Recall that the starting point for china’s challenge to apples began around 2014 with mate7 as a big screen and business-spirited mobile phone, just in time for the chinese government’s civil servants to abandon apples, and almost once, jean-claude’s branding became the mainstream of government and business. Later, in 2016, p9 created global leadership in the image field because of its collaboration with cards, while the “real return” of apples was a low-capacity picture of mobile phones, and the p9 had a bad night almost overnight world. This has enabled the chinese terminal team to become more confident on high-end machines, with high-end strategies closely attached to apples and to complete a major reversal in the fourth quarter of 2018。
At the same time, the rise of china was accompanied by a high-end strategic breakdown of the ov giants. In june 2018, both vivo and oppo quickly followed up on the launch of two high-end series: nex, find x. The competition for china’s brand challenging apple high-end machines was objectively initiated by china, followed by vivo and oppo. Overall, since 2016, china’s brand challenging apple high-end machine has begun to become a strategy。
Let us recall today the reasons for china's “brand totem” to achieve a high-end stage breakthrough, perhaps summing up four important reasons: first, the talent element. In order to have a globalized gene from the start of the operator’s business, china’s globalizers are able to integrate china’s manufacturing capacity and europe’s top scientific and human resources, and receive positive feedback from high-end european consumers; and secondly, the dividends of globalization. The r & d capacity of huaijiang is derived from the way consulting firms like ibm have managed their american-style companies and are in a period of stability in us-china relations, which not only allows them to access the best materials and devices in the world, but also provides a bottom-up r & d advantage on the cylindrium chips and os operating systems; and, thirdly, to re-brand their brands. China’s willingness to invest heavily in high-end brand operations against apples and to learn from the sinking methods of vivo and oppo in china’s market channels has placed its high-end brand folding and national brands in a solid position; and, fourthly, a high-level game. In fact, there is little outside interest in china’s efforts to boost the chinese region’s overall brand-up, internally known as the “ camp one gun” eco-drive thinking of multiple, high-end, holographic channels, a management technique that is leading the industry. The summary is as follows:
Why say "a full battalion gun" is a missing element of success? From the point of view of the close research observations, china clearly confirms three main logics: the ability of a single model with no apples to hit a global and high-price level would have to learn from the use of double flagships and multiple categories by three stars; the determination of china to invest in high-end brands, although it is only a matter of financial numbers, the high-māori generated by high-end brands is a strategic problem, and higher unit prices can support the adoption of better technology and equipment by the flagships; and the strong local demand for higher-price space, supported by economic levels, especially for super-high-end machines like porsche. But the three major logical opposites are the ease with which multiple series of products can generate source stocks, the heavy input of branding profits, and the difficulty of maintaining a premium on apples at a super-high end. Behind these challenges is the need for a high-level manoeuvre of a “campus-wide gun”, ensuring that each product is as high as seafood and reducing corporate financial risk。
Here we can see the experience of china as a challenge to the apple elevator, summed up as — firmly recapturing the apple elevator's business experience, controlling the delivery and precision channels of high-strength products marked for three stars, maximizing profits through a high-level "one full battalion gun" exercise in the chinese district, and creating a "brand tote." overall, this experience is also worthy of the vivo lessons and legacy of today's overall market share advantage。
As a result, the year 2019, when samsung and china were shining collectively, was the darkest time for apples, both of which truly broke the invincible myth of apples。
