Motorola Mobility - Essay Example

? Motorola Mobility MOTOROLA MOBILITY Since the acquisition of Motorola Mobility by Google Inc, one of the most significant organizational changes that have occurred was the layoff of staff to achieve a leaner company. However, it is imperative to note that Google Inc retained most of the engineering innovators at the Motorola Mobility who had worked hard to keep producing innovative products even as the company declined (Gold, 2012: p51). The retention of these engineers is obviously an opportunity that Motorola Mobility should tap in to. The problem with the declining market share for the company had nothing to do with the quality of engineers at Motorola Mobility, and it is vital to diagnose the real problem. The decline at Motorola Mobility has been blamed in part to the many number of models that were produced to cater to particular geographical and demographic areas, which was met with limited appeal. In addition, Motorola Mobility shied away from investing in products that were riskier, but more innovative for the long term. According to Iqbal Arshad, who was head of the Droid and RAZR teams, the company saw an increase in commitments from stakeholders who ensured they released at least forty products every year (Gold, 2012: p51). This reduced their ability to focus and seek to make a more lasting innovative difference. Motorola Mobility should seek to cut back drastically on the models that they release, as well as seek to sell directly in only a limited number of countries. The company has to simplify its business in order to focus on specific innovative products. In addition, the company could bring in new engineers to supplement the current ones who know the culture of Motorola Mobility (Goggin, 2012: p744). In order to reclaim Motorola’s market share, the organization could pitch Motorola Mobility as the underdog start-up of the industry and develop a model that is symbolic of the turnaround. The firm will only get one chance to re-define their product and, therefore, the themes they select must be innovative, viable, and iconic. The new flagship model should also be designed to appeal to a mass market, rather than the more limited target market of the Droid. The company should also improve on its personalization scheme that allows Motorola Mobility device users to customize their products (Goggin, 2012: p744). While it is still in its infancy, the innovative scheme portends one of the organization’s biggest opportunities. The customization process could be enabled as an app or on a website, allowing the customers to request their customized phone remotely from various colors and textures. The customization process should also last for a shorter time in order to counter attempts by rivals to pick up on their innovation and differentiate it by making it faster (Goggin, 2012: p745). Finally, this customization scheme should also allow for customization of software, which will require the engineers at the firm to come up with innovative ways to enable this feature. Despite the takeover by Google Inc, it may be prudent to maintain Motorola Mobility as an independent firm that engineers products independently. This would be the best choice for Google Inc that supports other companies on its Android platform and for Motorola Mobility as it will give them the innovative freedom required (Ickin et al, 2012: p51). It is important that the Motorola Mobility brand remains live from the bottom to the top, including in its management. However, running the company as an independent entity may not portend any business advantage to Google Inc as the organization is losing money. Since Google cannot offer early access to Motorola Mobility of its Android platform due to its other smartphone partners, it should be left up to the firm to create their own signature product. Having lost money prior to its acquisition, Motorola Mobility should now focus on producing a flagship Motorola product without relying on Google’s Android platform. It is clear that innovation is not a problem for Motorola Mobility as evidenced by the success of the Droid RAZR and the Motorola X in the last two years (Ickin et al, 2012: p51). Therefore, by reducing their number of products and focusing on innovating specific products that meet the needs of a larger demographic, it will be possible to create a new flagship Motorola Mobility product sans preferential treatment from Google Inc. However, Motorola Mobility can also become the showcase for the Android platform. It should seek to integrate Android functionality into its products (Ickin et al, 2012: p52). As Android becomes more fragmented with handset makers who use it as their software platform opting for customization of their phones using unique features, it might be time for Google Inc to make Motorola Mobility its flagship Android carrier. It will give them the vehicle that they need to offer their customers their form of Android experience as they see fit. Without attempting to dominate the market in order not to upset its partners, Google Inc should seek to use Motorola Mobility as a showcase for their Android software. However, this could be a difficult strategy as its partners will be interested to see how these new products are introduced into the market. The moment that Motorola Mobility becomes the showcase for Android will be the key, however, as doing it before offering it to its partners will be damaging (Ickin et al, 2012: p53). Finally, Motorola Mobility should also seek vertical integration with Google Inc to create directly its own flagship product with the latest version of Android software. Taking the route blazed by Apple, Motorola Mobility could create an entire end-to-end product that runs on Google’s software, as well as hardware (Roy, 2013: p44). This would allow Google to finally get a product line that it fully controls, while also giving Motorola Mobility a head start in competing with its main competitors who are also Google Inc’s partners. Motorola Mobility, since it still has most of its in-house expertise, would be in direct competition with companies that had lower innovative performance less than five years ago, enhancing their competitive advantage. This will be a huge risk for Google Inc as Samsung and other partners would leave but would portend an immense opportunity for Motorola Mobility (Roy, 2013: p44). References Goggin, G. (2012). Google phone rising: The Android and the politics of open source. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 26 (5), 741-752. Gold, S. (2012). Android: A secure future at last? Engineering & Technology, 7 (2), 50–54. Ickin, S. Wac, K. Fiedler, M. & Janowski, L. (2012 ). Factors influencing quality of experience of commonly used mobile applications . Communications Magazine, 50 (4), 48-56. Roy, D. (2013). Intellectual property strategy for competitive advantage. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 6 (1-2), 36-61. Read More