Submitted by Group 7

– Amod Velingkar (PGP/21/133)

– Mohit Mishra (PGP/21/156)
– Praveen Nirapure (PGP/21/166)
– Ritika Gupta (PGP/21/173)
– Pranamit Sen (PGP/21/341)
Android evolved as on open source operating system for smartphone devices that
was characterized by its ease of use, customizable according to the handsets along
with the support to fix bugs.

 Developed as a Linux based open source OS for digital cameras by Andy Rubin
and Chris White.
 Soon evolved to become a viable competitor for a standardized open OS for use
by the phones of the OHA.
 Now owned by Google, and powering the G1, it is by 2008, a viable contender for
the mobile OS of choice for the new breed of smartphones competing on
technical specs(and not on style) and which support apps by independent
developers.
 Distribution • Open Source vs Proprietary

• Easier to code as opposed to Symbian systems which needed experts.

Developer Base • Developer Challenge Contests to foster active participation to have more
apps as opposed to previously when apps were limited intentionally.

• Previously revenue generated from licensing apps and from app usage, now
Revenue Stream Google ensures profitability of the Android division, by using phones to
drive customers to use Google more

Network • Changed stakeholders from Handset manufacturers and NW Providers to

App developers and Users (multi layered two sided network)
• Google’s revenue stream is from AdWords & AdSense which is basically advertising
• Google realizes that the future of advertisement is in mobile advertisement because customers spend more time with
their phones and thus has huge potential for advertisement
• To increase the penetration of mobile advertisement, google needs a good value proposition to the users. This can be
in the form of better experience to customers through better mobile services
• Since the presence of multiple operating system makes the development of apps costlier and also complex (Also in-
compatibility is an issue) , a single platform can solve this issue
• Making Android an open source platform is a first step in this regard since all the handset manufacturers (in the OHA)
can now use this platform free of cost for their handsets
• Also this will enable developers to make creative apps freely and easily with the available source codes
• Investing more in android will make the services offered through it better in terms of quality and thus would lead to
higher revenues from AdSense & AdWords as more customers will use phones with android platform

Summary

Revenue source: Reduce cost of Handset Improve quality

Future in mobile Better mobile
AdWords & app manufacturers of android by
Ads experience
AdSense development will adopt investing
• High market share in the OS market
• High quality service (through better applications)
• Finally it will be successful if the revenues through advertisement is higher though
the apps (or through mobile phones)
• If android is successful, app developers will be motivated to develop better
quality and creative apps in Android (which they can sell to users) and their by
google can earn its share through it. If this happens it also means Android is
successful
Stakeholder Positives Negatives Verdict
Network providers • Increase in the number of users and ARPU would • Subscriber database would be unavailable Neutral
go drastically high if heavy traffic is registered. • They no longer could dictate terms to mobile
manufacturers
• Google could became a threat in the future
Application developer • Easy app development with no cost • It become easy for others to steal their idea on other Positive
• Could reach large customer base hassle free platforms & subsequent loss of revenue
• Quick to monetize
• Services like GPS would be available
Users • Would get variety of apps from the developer • Uncertainty about acceptance of android based Positive
• May not have to pay high prices for the apps phones in the market
Chip manufacturers • With increasing data usage better chips can be • Market consolidation will result in less number of Positive
sold at higher prices. players to sell to
• Would provide reference platform to test
Handset • Change from feature phones to smartphone would • Positioning change to functionality would increase Positive
Manufacturers be a positive side their efforts on the handset utility
• They will have more freedom in choosing
specifications and designing
Non OHA networks • Easy to imitate ideas • If android succeeds ARPU might heavily go down Negative
 Although carriers were concerned about Google’s strategic intent , they still had an
attractive aspect of earning revenue from data driven services
 In such a scenario the network effects would be strong as it would increase with
increasing number of Android based phones in the market
 The participating members tend to gain more earnings on a single platform
although they lose significant control over the products as per the traditional way
 Thus, OHA would sustain in the long run and collectively gather a greater market
share as the barriers to network mobilization are low
 NO, They are not a threat to Android
iPhone Nokia
 Uses iOS which is not an  Nokia delayed the process to
open source platform make Symbian open-source
and a license fee is platform following Android
charged for app  Considered as a development
development environment only for experts
 First mover to change the by the industry participants
US consumers’  Nokia relied on its in-house
expectations of mobile talent of more than 10,000
Internet experience engineers who were only
 Targeted the premium expert on the Symbian
segment platform
 Symbian was world wise
market leader with around
60% market but less in USA
Android
 First mover in launching an open
source platform with 34 partners
 Free download of software
development kit (SDK) and
Application Developer Interfaces
(API’s) which would enhance
innovation
 Even average software developer
could test simple applications
Parameters Application developers Users Carrier provider (Can It is a WTA with
be handset
manufacturer) Scenario 1 being played
Multi-Homing High Upfront and High Upfront cost - A High Upfront cost–
Costs ongoing cost - Different single handset will Different specification Content providers if 3 sided
apps need to be support only 1 OS hence for handset, chipset Application
developed for different multiple devices to be manufacturer and Advertisers (2 sided - Yatra or 3 Users
platforms bought software provider sided - Youtube)
Network Effects Same side – Primarily Same side – No effect Same side – Negative
Negative (Positive for Application
complementing apps eg Developers
online service and
online payment)
Android
Cross side: Cross side: Cross side: with the
Users - High App Developer - High Users - High device
Carrier – High Carrier – High App Developer - High (handset)
Carrier provider (In Users
Need for product Low – A single platform Low – If multiple apps are Low – Need for a single
differentiation can help them launch on Android, users will have OS (pg 14, Vodafone some case handset
various apps diverse preferences met CEO statement) manufacturer)