DOCSLIB.ORG

Google Vs Apple: the Battle for Mobile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Google Vs Apple: the Battle for Mobile GOOGLE VS APPLE: THE BATTLE FOR MOBILE Kyle Khasigian Let’s Get Ready to Rumble! Jobs: “Folks who want to buy porn can buy an Android phone.” 2 More than jjpust competition Once close friends, the feud between Apple and Google has become highly emotional “The biggest eg o battle in history .(pg 38) ” Based on Google’s violation of an understood alliance between the companies Built phones by stealing the ideas behind the iPhone Results speak for themselves Schmidt resigns from Apple board due to competition Apple sues HTC over p atent infring ement Google apps blocked/Apple enters new domains 3 Less than 2% of overall web ads Total Internet Advertising = $60 Billion $2 Billion Other Web-Based Advertising Mobile Advertising $58 Billion Why fight over such a small piece of the pie? 4 Source: Gartner Potential for mobile is substantial iPhone + iTouch vs Netscape vs NTT docomo imode vs AOL : First 20 months after Launch 100 Mobile Internet iPhone + iTouch 80 Launched 6/07 DkDesktop Internet Netscape Launched 12/94 60 Mobile Internet 40 NTT docomo i-mode Launched 12/94 20 Desktop Internet AOL v2.0 Launched 9/94 0 Q1 Q3 Q5 Q7 Q9 Q11 Q13 Q15 Q17 Q19 iPhone + iTouch Netscape NTT docomo i-mode AOL 5 Source: Mary Meeker, Internet Trends, Morgan Stanley, April 12, 2010. Mobile bigger than Desktop in 5 y rs Global Mobile vs. Desktop Internet User Projection, 2007 – 2015E 2,000 1,600 1,200 rs (MM) ee 800 Mobile Internet Users Internet Us DktDesktop ItInterne t Users 400 0 2007E 2008E 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 6 Source: Mary Meeker, Internet Trends, Morgan Stanley, April 12, 2010. Market turned into an arms race Acqqpquisitions have heated up, both to acquire technology and to keep tech out of the rival’s hands Apple Google Quattro Wireless, Inc. AdMob, Inc. (Mobile Advertising) (Mobile Ad Network) Siri, Inc. Corduro, Inc. (Personal Assistant – Search) (Mobile Payments) Intrinsity, Inc. Agnilux, Inc. (Semiconductors) (Semiconductors) La La Media, Inc. Bump Technologies, Inc. (Music) (3-D Technology) Imagination Technologies Group Gizmo5 Technologies, Inc. (Graphics – Chips) (Communication) * 9+ acquisition in last 12 months involving mobile 7 Mobile usaggye is the key… Global Smartphone Share (in %) 60% 54% 51% HTML Mobile Page View Share (Net Applications, 50% 12/09) 44% Mobile Internet + App Usage Share (AdMob, 12/09) 40% Global Unit Shipment Share (Gartner, CQ4:09) 30% 27% 20% 19% 20% 20% 16% 10% 7% 8%8% 8% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%1% 0% iPhone Symbian Android RIM Windows Palm Other 8 Source: Mary Meeker, Internet Trends, Morgan Stanley, April 12, 2010. …Apple and Goog le have won US Mobile Internet Usage by Smartphone Operating System 100% 3% 7% 12% 20% 80% 8% 14% 6% 42% 32% 23% 4% 17% 13% 60% 31% 19% 12% 2% 7% 27% 40% 60% 59% 55% 46% 51% 31% 44% 20% 29% 6% 8% 0% 4/08 6/08 8/08 10/08 12/08 2/09 4/09 6/09 8/09 10/09 12/09 2/10 Symbian iPhone RIM Windows Palm Hiptop Android 9 Source: Mary Meeker, Internet Trends, Morgan Stanley, April 12, 2010. Business models contrast pppyhilosophy Apple Profit = Development of integrated products sold to the public Sale of pp,,roduct bundle: software, hardware, and service iPhone, OS, and App Store Google profits from indirect content and usage, i.e. the sale of information and opportunity Advertising – Adwords Sales data gathered from search engine 10 Founded on different ppprinciples CLOSED vs. OPEN Others: Sony-Ericsson Dell Huawei Lenovo Archos Acer Apple HTC Motorola Samsung LG 11 Monetization of apps #1 concern Android has struggled monetizing apps and showing developers the money Google ’s typica l ad- %%p of users that purchase at least 1 paid app per month based advertising not 60% 50% as effective on mobile 50% platform 40% 35% 30% 24% 21% Higher Apple paid 20% downloads and higher 10% user base delivering 0% iPhone iPod Android webOS Touc h value over Android. Source: AdMob 12 Apple: “mobile advertising sucks” CtCurrent MbilMobile Adverti si ng Platf orm Browser-Based Application-Based GlGoogle Adword s bdbased Banner adsor itinterrup tion ads Redirect necessary (problematic Low effectiveness of search results w/o multitasking) Consumer wants more focused Poor content results Low monetization rate (click Poor user interface throughs) Not sufficient to support free app Low Monetization rate development 13 Apple to save the day th On April 8 , 2010, Apple launched iAd as a solution for mobile advertising Mobile Advertising Features Ads fully integrated inside apps No redirect outside of app Interactive ad content Improved user experience Revenue split between Apple and developer . 60% developer / 40% Apple Apple both sells and hosts ads 14 And it onlyyg gets worse for Goog le 15 What ViP means for Google Direct competition for AdMob Competitive advantage for Apple Gathers information valuable to clients Means Google is not acquiring that information and reducing value of Google’s ad product iPhone is largest market, which Appl e will control Potential lock out of other analytics platforms and ad networks Ads don’t exist without analytics – what do you bill clients? Better monetization drive developers to Apple More free apps means more customers 16 Apple currently in control, but… Android quickly catching up FTC looking into anti-competitive practice of Apple’s “control-freak” policy on app development Banning Flash and other programming languages Funneling advertisers through its own network iAd risk of failure Super high development cost per ad Questionable value gained even with added click through Apple has turned into the evil emp ire Charges against Gizmodo for iPhone 4.0 fiasco 17 Googgygle not laying down AdMob is the largest mobile network in the market Advertiser not yet willing to leave a large network for the unproven technology of iAd Apple’s purchase of Quattro Wireless has eased concerns over AdMob anti-trust case Proves Google has competition in the market Massive investment in new mobile technology Mobile still on the “emerging” part of adoption curve New technology continually changing playing field 18 And the winner is: ANDROID!!! “Open or Perish” Open source platform will continue to draw developers to it Ex. Windows domination As Android continues to win manufacturer approval, more devices will carry the operating system Android is only realistic competitor to iPhone OS Gartner predicts that Android will ship more units than the iPhone by 2012 Android: 94.5M units vs. Apple: 71.5M units 19.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On-Premise Vs. Cloud
    WHITEPAPER Content Management for Mobile Devices: Smartphones, Use Cases and Best Practices in a Mobile-Centric World JULY 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Mobile-Delivered Content Is Growing Globally 3 Start with Smartphones 4 Challenges and Opportunities 5 Use Cases Drive Mobile Content Strategy 6 Overcoming Barriers To Implementation 7 Best Practices: Build For Success 8 Conclusions 9 About CrownPeak 10 2 Executive Summary In an environment where mobile web traffic tripled last year and mobile data users are expected to outpace desktop users by next year, the need for mobile-optimized content management is clear. Yet implementing content management systems has traditionally been a slow and resource-intensive process. One emerging strategy for successfully deploying mobile content is to focus on optimizing for smartphones, which offer both the largest and most stable mobile development platform. This approach has already proven successful in a number of market sectors and offers the advantages of simplicity, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. A second strategy has been to leverage the new generation of Web Content Management systems. These systems combine breakthroughs in productivity with the ability to natively optimize content for mobile delivery, they work seamlessly with legacy systems, and typically do not require IT resources. The result is a significantly lower implementation and operation costs when compared to traditional content management solutions. Web Content Management (WCM) systems have traditionally been both time- and cost-intensive, requiring significant resources from expert developers and in- house IT. This paper recommends adoption of such a smartphone-centric strategy with a next-generation WCM to create a flexible, scalable, interoperable mobile content management solution, without impacting legacy systems or compromising data integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Economy 25 Years After .Com
    THE INTERNET ECONOMY 25 YEARS AFTER .COM TRANSFORMING COMMERCE & LIFE March 2010 25Robert D. Atkinson, Stephen J. Ezell, Scott M. Andes, Daniel D. Castro, and Richard Bennett THE INTERNET ECONOMY 25 YEARS AFTER .COM TRANSFORMING COMMERCE & LIFE March 2010 Robert D. Atkinson, Stephen J. Ezell, Scott M. Andes, Daniel D. Castro, and Richard Bennett The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation I Ac KNOW L EDGEMEN T S The authors would like to thank the following individuals for providing input to the report: Monique Martineau, Lisa Mendelow, and Stephen Norton. Any errors or omissions are the authors’ alone. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Robert D. Atkinson is President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Stephen J. Ezell is a Senior Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Scott M. Andes is a Research Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Daniel D. Castro is a Senior Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Richard Bennett is a Research Fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. ABOUT THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is a Washington, DC-based think tank at the cutting edge of designing innovation policies and exploring how advances in technology will create new economic opportunities to improve the quality of life. Non-profit, and non-partisan, we offer pragmatic ideas that break free of economic philosophies born in eras long before the first punch card computer and well before the rise of modern China and pervasive globalization. ITIF, founded in 2006, is dedicated to conceiving and promoting the new ways of thinking about technology-driven productivity, competitiveness, and globalization that the 21st century demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Global / China Internet Trends
    Global / China Internet Trends Shantou University / Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business / Hong Kong University November 7, 2005 [email protected] [email protected] 1 Outline • Attributes of Winning Companies • Global Internet • China Internet • Your Questions 2 Attributes of Winning Companies 3 Attributes of Winning Companies… 1. Large market opportunities - it is better to have 10%, and rising, market share of a $1 billion market than 100% of a $100M market 2. Good technology/service that offers a significant value/service proposition to its customers 3. Simple, direct mission and strong culture 4. Missionary (not mercenary), passionate, maniacally-focused founder(s) 5. Technology magnets (never underestimate the power of great engineers) 6. Great management team / board of directors / committed partners 7. Ability to lead change and embrace chaos 8. Leading/sustainable market position with first-mover advantage 9. Brand leadership, leading reach and market share 10.Global presence 4 …Attributes of Winning Companies 11. Insane customer focus and rapidly growing customer base 12. Stickiness and customer loyalty 13. Extensible product line(s) with focus on constant improvement and regeneration 14. Clear, broad distribution plans 15. Opportunity to increase customer “touch points” 16. Strong business and milestone momentum 17. Annuity-like business with sustainable operating leverage assisted by barriers-to-entry 18. High gross margins 19. Path to improving operating margins 20. Low-cost infrastructure and development efforts 5 Global Internet 6 Internet Data Points: Global… Global N. America = 23% of Internet users in 2005; was 66% in 1995 S. Korea Broadband penetration of 70%+ - No. 1 in world China More Internet users < age of 30 than anywhere 7 …Internet Data Points: Communications… Broadband 179MM global subscribers (+45% Y/Y, CQ2); 57MM in Asia; 45MM in N.
    [Show full text]
  • ARM Против Intel: Успешная Стратегия Для RISC Или Выгода Для CISC?
    ARM против INTEL: успешная стратегия для RISC или выгода для CISC? Брайан Дайперт (BRIAN DIPERT), старший технический редактор, EDN Корпорация ARM и владельцы лицензии на ее продукты намерены расши- рить присутствие на рынке и занять ниши, традиционно занимаемые процессорами Intel x86. В ответ Intel решила потеснить корпорацию ARM в сегменте рынка электронных устройств. корпорации ARM и Intel окончатель- пустили при переходе с ARM11. ядро повышенную защиту. второй тип про- но вступили в открытую конкуренцию. Cortex-A8 обеспечивает поддержку цессоров ориентирован больше на первая активно продвигает технологию попарно запускаемых суперскалярных беспроводную передачу данных и под- RISC, в то время как Intel делает упор инструкций и имеет более глубокий держивает большой набор протоколов на процессоры с набором команд CISC. конвейер в каждом ядре, содержащий передачи данных и голоса. еще три года назад, когда Intel представ- 13 уровней вместо 8. Блок вычислений с ляла свой первый процессор семейства плавающей запятой в отличие от ARM11 NVIDIA — ставка на мультимеДиа Atom, компания ясно дала понять, что является обязательным. кроме того, компания Nvidia стала обладатель- нацелена не только на настольные ком- для Cortex-A8 требуется 64-разрядный ницей лицензии на ARM после несколь- пьютеры среднего уровня и ноутбуки, SIMD-вычислитель Neon. ких приобретений: компании MediaQ но и на портативные устройства, в кото- в Cortex-A9 разработчик сам решает, в 2003 г. и PortalPlayer в 2006 г. первая рых исторически пальма первенства реализовывать ли Neon и блок опера- снк Nvidia, Tegra, содержала процессор принадлежит ARM. в ответ ARM пред- ций с плавающей запятой. оба они не ARM11. она не получила широкого при- ставила ядро Cortex-A15, область при- являются обязательными.
    [Show full text]
  • Amazon.Com, Inc. Securities Litigation 01-CV-00358-Consolidated
    Case 2:01-cv-00358-RSL Document 30 Filed 10/05/01 Page 1 of 215 1 THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK 2 3 4 5 6 vi 7 øA1.S Al OUT 8 9 UNITE STAThS15iSTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 AT SEATTLE 11 MAXiNE MARCUS, et al., On Behalf of Master File No. C-01-0358-L Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, CLASS ACTION 12 Plaintiffs, CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT FOR 13 VS. VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES 14 EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AMAZON COM, INC., JEFFREY P. BEZOS, 15 WARREN C. JENSON, JOSEPH GALLI, JR., THOMAS A. ALBERG, L. JOHN DOERR, 16 MARK J BRITTO, JOEL R. SPIEGEL, SCOTT D. COOK, JOY D. COVEY, 17 'RICHARD L. DALZELL, JOHN D. RISHER, KAVITARK R. SHRIRAM, PATRICIA Q. 18 STONESIFER, JIMMY WRIGHT, ICELYN J. BRANNON, MARY E. ENGSTROM, 19 KLEJNER PERKINS CAUF1ELD & BYERS, MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER, 20 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON, MARY MEEKER, JAMIE KIGGEN and USE BUYER, 21 Defendants. 22 In re AMAZON.COM, INC. SECURITIES 23 LITIGATION 24 This Document Relates To: 25 ALL ACTIONS 26 11111111 II 1111111111 11111 III III liii 1111111111111 111111 Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Le955 600 West Broadway, Suite 18 0 111111 11111 11111 liii III III 11111 11111111 San Diego, CA 92191 CV 01-00358 #00000030 TeIephone 619/231-058 Fax: 619/2j.23 Case 2:01-cv-00358-RSL Document 30 Filed 10/05/01 Page 2 of 215 TA L TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 4 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW I 5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE .............................36 6 THE PARTIES ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • R&D and the Market for Acquisitions
    R&D and the Market for Acquisitions Gordon PhillipsW and Alexei Zhdanov** COMMENTS WELCOME: First version January 10, 2010. This Version: February 20, 2011 We provide a new theory and empirical tests showing how an active acquisition market posi- tively aects rm incentives to innovate and conduct R&D. Our model shows how the incentives of small rms to conduct R&D in order to innovate increase with competition, demand and the probability that they are taken over. In contrast, we show that large rms optimally may decide to purchase smaller innovative rms and conduct less R&D themselves. Empirically, we document that the R&D of small rms responds more than the R&D of larger rms to demand shocks and the probability of being an acquisition target. The results also show that rm R&D increases with product-market competition and with industry acquisition liquidity and that these eects are stronger for smaller rms. WUniversity of Maryland and NBER, **University of Lausanne and Swiss FinanceInstitute. Phillipscanbereachedat [email protected], Zhdanov can be reached at [email protected]. We would like to thank Denis Gromb, Urs Peyer and seminar participants at Insead for helpful comments and discussion. R&D and the Market for Acquisitions ABSTRACT We provide a new theory and empirical tests showing how an active acquisition market posi- tively aects rm incentives to innovate and conduct R&D. Our model shows how the incentives of small rms to conduct R&D in order to innovate increase with competition, demand and the probability that they are taken over.
    [Show full text]
  • MARK S. THOMSON, on Behalf of Himself: No
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___________________________________ MARK S. THOMSON, on behalf of himself: No. ___________________ and all others similarly situated, : : CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, : FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE : FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS v. : : MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER : & CO. and MARY MEEKER, : : Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ___________________________________ : Plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, individually and on behalf of the Class described below, upon actual knowledge with respect to the allegations related to plaintiff’s purchase of the common stock of Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon” or the “Company”), and upon information and belief with respect to the remaining allegations, based upon, inter alia, the investigation of plaintiff’s counsel, which included, among other things, a review of public statements made by defendants and their employees, Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, and press releases and media reports, brings this Complaint (the “Complaint”) against defendants named herein, and alleges as follows: SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 1. In October 1999, Fortune named defendant Mary Meeker (“Meeker) the third most powerful woman in business, commenting, “[h]er brave bets – AOL in ‘93, Netscape in ‘95, e-commerce in ‘97, business to business in ‘99 – have earned her eight “ten-baggers”, stocks that have risen tenfold. Morgan Stanley’s “We’ve got Mary” pitch to clients has been key to its prominence in Internet financing. Her power is awesome: If she ever says “Hold Amazon.com”, Internet investors will lose billions.” 2. Fortune almost got it right. Investors did lose billions, but not because Meeker said “Hold Amazon.com”. Rather, investors were damaged by Meeker’s false and misleading statements encouraging investors to continue buying shares of Amazon.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Soc and Smartphone Industries
    Vertical Structure and Innovation: A Study of the SoC and Smartphone Industries Chenyu Yang∗ Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park December 19, 2019 Abstract This article studies how vertical integration and upstream R&D subsidy affect innovation and welfare in vertically separated industries. I formulate a dynamic structural model of a dominant upstream firm and oligopolistic downstream firms that invest in complementary innovations. I estimate the model using data on the System-on-Chip (SoC) and smartphone industries. The results suggest that a vertical merger can increase innovation and welfare, mainly driven by the investment coordination of the merged firms. I also find that subsidizing the upstream innovation increases overall private investment, innovation and welfare. 1 Introduction In vertical industries, upstream and downstream innovations are often complementary. Upstream firms upgrade the core technology essential to performance enhancement, and downstream firms combine the technology with innovative designs in new consumer products. Examples of com- plementary innovations include traction batteries (upstream) and electric vehicles (downstream), CPUs (upstream) and personal computers (downstream) and System-on-Chips (SoCs, upstream) ∗Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park; [email protected]. I would like to acknowl- edge the generous financial support provided by Rackham Graduate School and Michigan Institute for Teaching and Research in Economics (MITRE) at the University of Michigan. I am grateful for the guidance and support from my advisers Jeremy Fox, Daniel Ackerberg, Ying Fan and Srinivasaraghavan Sriram. I benefited greatly from the comments of many seminar participants, two anonymous referees and the editor Marc Rysman. All errors are mine.
    [Show full text]
  • 0-9, and Symbols A
    Index Note : Online information is listed by print page number and a period followed by “e” with online page number (54.e1). Page references preceded by a single letter with hyphen refer to appendices. Page references followed by “f ,” “ t ,” and “ b ” refer to fi gures, tables, and boxes, respectively. 0-9, and symbols ID (ASID) , 436 VAX fl oating-point formats , D-29 inadequate , 497.e5–497.e6 ALU control , 249–251 . See also 1-bit ALU , A-26–A-29 . See also shared , 507–508 Arithmetic logic unit (ALU) Arithmetic logic unit (ALU) single physical , 507 , 507–508 bits , 250–251 , 250 f adder , A-27 f virtual , 436 logic , C-6–C-7 CarryOut , A-28 Address translation mapping to gates , C-4–C-7 for most signifi cant bit , A-33 f for ARM cortex-A53 , 458 f truth tables , C-5f , C-5 f illustrated , A-29f defi ned , 418–419 ALU control block , 253 logical unit for AND/OR , A-27 f fast , 428–430 defi ned , C-4–C-6 performing AND, OR, and addition , for Intel core i7 , 458 f generating ALU control bits , C-6 f A-31 , A-33 f TLB for , 428–430 ALUOp , 250 , C-6 b –C-7 b 64-bit ALU , A-29–A-31 . See also Address-control lines , C-26f bits , 250 , 251 Arithmetic logic unit (ALU) Addresses control signal , 253 from 63 copies of 1-bit ALU , A-34 f b a s e , 6 9 Amazon Web Services (AWS) , 415b with 64 1-bit ALUs , A-30f byte , 70 AMD Opteron X4 (Barcelona) , 533 , 534f defi ning in Verilog , A-36–A-37 defi ned , 68 AMD64 , 148 , 148 , 215 , 173.e5 illustrated , A-35f m e m o r y , 7 8 b Amdahl’s law , 391 , 493–494 ripple carry adder , A-29 virtual
    [Show full text]
  • Securities Analysts: Why These Gatekeepers Abandoned Their Post
    Securities Analysts: Why These Gatekeepers Abandoned Their Post DAVID J. LABHART* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1037 I. WHAT CAUSED SELL-SIDE ANALYSTS TO MISS ENRON? ................. .. ... .. .. .. .. 1040 A. The Absence of Deterrencefrom Third Party Liability ........................... 1041 B. Confl icts of Interest ................................................................................. 1043 1. Investment Banking Conflicts .......................................................... 1044 2. Informational Conflicts ..................................................................... 1046 3. Lack of Incentive .............................................................................. 104 7 II. CURRENT REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON ANALYST INCENTIVES ......... 1051 A . Regulation FD ......................................................................................... 1052 B. Regulation A C ......................................................................................... 1054 C. Self-Regulatory Organizationsand the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ................... 1055 D . The Global Settlem ent ............................................................................. 1057 III. SUGGESTED REGULATIONS ............................................................................. 1058 C ONCLUSION ........................................................................................................1061 INTRODUCTION In
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Trends 2008
    Internet Trends 2008 Mary Meeker November 5 @ Web 2.0 Summit Technology / Internet Trends November 5, 2008 Web 2.0 Summit – San Francisco [email protected] / www.morganstanley.com/institutional/techresearch Morgan Stanley does and seeks to do business with companies covered in Morgan Stanley Research. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of Morgan Stanley Research. Investors should consider Morgan Stanley Research as only a single factor in making their investment decision. Customers of Morgan Stanley in the US can receive independent, third-party research on companies covered in Morgan Stanley Research, at no cost to them, where such research is available. Customers can access this independent research at www.morganstanley.com/equityresearch or can call 1-800-624-2063 to request a copy of this research. For analyst certification and other important disclosures, refer to the Disclosure Section, located at the end of this report. Outline • Economy 1. Recession – a long time coming, how long will it last? 2. Technology & Advertising Spending – closely tied to GDP growth • Technology / Internet 1. Digital Consumer – Undermonetized social networks / video / VoIP driving powerful usage growth 2. Mobile – Innovation in wireless products / services accelerating 3. Emerging Markets – Pacing next wave of technology adoption • Closing Thoughts 1. Companies with cogent business models that provide consumer value should survive / thrive – consumers need value more than they have needed it in a long time… 2 Economy 1) Recession – a long time coming, how long will it last? 1 year? 5 years? 3 Roots of Economic Challenge? 10+ Years of Rising Home Ownership + Declining Interest / Savings Rates U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Trends 2019
    Internet Trends 201 Mary Meeker June 11 @ Code 2019 INTERNET TRENDS 2019 Mary Meeker June 11 @ Code 2019 bondcap.com/report/it19 Internet Trends 2019 1) Users 2) E-Commerce + Advertising 3) Usage… 4) Freemium Business Models 5) Data Growth 6) …Usage 7) Work 8) Education 9) Immigration + USA Inc. 10) Healthcare 11) China (Provided by Hillhouse Capital) 2 Internet Trends 2019 Thanks Bond Partners Michael Brogan & Ansel Parikh helped steer ideas & did a lot of heavy lifting. Noah Knauf, Collin Ebert, Jesse Ellingworth, Everett Randle, Nancy Xiao, Daegwon Chae, Paul Vronsky & Juliet de Baubigny also dug in & were more than on call with help. Hillhouse Capital Liang Wu & colleagues’ contribution of the China section provides an overview of the world’s largest market of Internet users. Participants in Evolution of Internet Connectivity From creators to consumers who keep us on our toes 24x7 & the people who directly help us prepare the report. And, Kara & team, thanks for continuing to do what you do so well. 3 Internet Trends 2019 Context… We use data to tell stories of business-related trends we focus on. We hope others take the ideas, build on them & make them better. At 3.8B, the number of Internet users comprises more than half the world’s population. When markets reach mainstream, new growth is harder to find as evinced by declining new smartphone shipments in 2018. While E-Commerce continues to gain share vs. physical retail, growth rates are slowing. While Internet advertising growth is solid & innovation is healthy, there are areas where customer acquisition costs may be rising to unsustainable levels.
    [Show full text]