Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 62

Competition between Apple and Samsung

in the smartphone market


introduction into some key concepts
in managerial economics
Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter
Collge des Ingnieurs
Stuttgart, June 21, 2013

SNORKELING VS. DOING THE DEEP DIVE

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

GLOBAL SMARTPHONE MARKET


Smartphones are on
the rise
Apple and Samsung,
by now and
increasingly, dominate
the market for
smartphones capturing
more than 50% of the
global market (with
regional variations)

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG PROFITS


But: they do not only
take 50% plus of the
market Apple and
Samsung also capture
100% of the industry
profits, all firms making
zero or negative profit

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG: KEY ISSUES

Key issues in
understanding
Apple vs.
Samsung

Where do profits come from ? What is a profit function?


Which strategies are possible? What is Apples and Samsungs respective strategy?
How can Apple and Samsung derive the best strategy using game theory?
How does strategic behavior affect market shares, profitability and prices?

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

OBJECTIVES AND FOCUS FOR TODAY

gain some basic understanding why economics can prove quite


helpful for managers assessing situations of strategic competition

today, you will

get some idea how to analyze the battle between Apple and Samsung in
the smartphone market using game theory (of course, there are other
perspectives )

(hopefully) become curious in learning more about


real-life applications in managerial economics

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

AGENDA

What is managerial economics?

Where do profits come from?

Deriving optimum competitive behavior using game theory

Application to the Apple vs. Samsung case

Key learnings & discussion

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

WHAT IS ECONOMICS, WHAT IS MANAGEMENT?

economics

management

Economics is a social science that analyzes the


production, distribution, and consumption of
goods and services a focus of the subject is
how economic agents behave or interact and
how economies work.

Management encompasses all business and


organizational activities that coordinate the
efforts of people to accomplish desired goals
and objectives using available resources
efficiently and effectively.

Microeconomics examines the behavior of


basic elements in the economy, including
individual agents (such as households and firms
or as buyers and sellers) and markets, and their
interactions.

Management comprises planning, organizing,


staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an
organization or effort for the purpose of
accomplishing a goal. Resourcing
encompasses the deployment and
manipulation of human resources, financial
resources, technological resources, and natural
resources.

Macroeconomics analyzes the entire economy


and issues affecting it, including
unemployment, inflation, economic growth,
and monetary and fiscal policy.

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

WHAT IS MANAGERIAL ECONOMICS?


economics

management

Managerial economics is concerned with application of economic concepts and


economic analysis to the typical problems in managerial decision making
applies mainly microeconomic analysis to decision problems trying to optimize business
decisions given the firm's objectives and given constraints imposed by scarcity, for
example through the use of differential calculus, mathematical programming and game
theory for strategic decisions, most commonly applied to:
managerial
economics

production analysis microeconomic techniques are used to analyze optimum output


and production, costs,
pricing analysis microeconomic techniques are used to analyze various pricing
decisions including transfer pricing, price discrimination, .
risk analysis various models are used to quantify risk and asymmetric information and
to employ them in decision rules to manage risk
organizational analysis model are used to determine optimum internal structure of
the firm, make-or-buy and outsourcing, governance and internal control, and
incentive schemes

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

AGENDA

What is managerial economics?

Where do profits come from?

Deriving optimum competitive behavior using game theory

Application to the Apple vs. Samsung case

Key learnings & discussion

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG


Apple and Samsung
dominate the market
for smartphones
currently with their
models iPhone and
Galaxy
Both models are
offered as (subsidized)
packages from telcos
as well as unlocked
stand alones
From a consumers
perspective what is
your willingness to pay
for any of these two
alternatives?

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

10

WILLINGNESS TO PAY
The willingness to pay
describes, how much
money an individual
would pay at the
maximum to purchase
some product

maximum
willingness
to pay

Most often, this sum


varies considerably
across individuals

number of
individuals

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

11

PRICE DEMAND SCHEDULE


The willingness to pay
can be translated
easily into a demand
curve also termed
price demand
schedule

price p

quantity q

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

12

PRICE DEMAND SCHEDULE


price p

p = p(q ) = a bq

p A = a A bA q A
pS = aS bS qS

the price demand


curve is the graph
depicting the
relationship between
the price of a certain
commodity and the
amount of it that
consumers are willing
and able to purchase
at that given price
p: price
q: quantity
a: maximum willingness
to pay
1/b: measure for size of
the market

-b

quantity q

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Price demand
schedule can be
identified doing
market research

13

REVENUES

R = R(q ) = pq =

revenues R

(a bq )q = aq bq 2

Revenue is income
that a company
receives from its
normal business
activities, usually from
the sale of goods and
services to customers
Revenue is often
referred to as the "top
line" due to its position
on the income
statement not to be
mixed up with profits,
which is bottom line

-b

quantity q

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

14

COST STRUCTURE
costs C

Costs are the sum of


fixed and variable costs

C = C (q ) = cq + F

marginal cost is the


change in the total cost
that arises when the
quantity produced
changes by one unit
variable costs are
expenses that change in
proportion to the activity
of a business, i.e.,
production

costs C

variable costs cq

fixed costs are business


expenses that are not
dependent on the level
of goods or services
produced by the
business

fixed costs F

quantity q

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Costs can be identified


analyzing P&L statements
and balance sheets

15

PROFITS (1) SINGLE FIRM


profits

revenues R
costs C

= R C =
revenues R

aq bq 2 cq F

costs C

in managerial
economics, profit is just
revenues minus costs
(cash flow
perspective)
in business, there are
lots of other profitconcepts (Earnings
Before Interest, Taxes,
Depreciation, and
Amortization EBITDA,
Earnings Before Interest
and Taxes EBIT, etc.)
mainly for tax and
depreciation issues

= R C
0

quantity q

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

16

STRATEGY, PROFITS, SHAREHOLDER VALUE


the direction and scope of an organization over the long term
strategy

profits

shareholder
value

which achieves competitive advantage for the organization through its configuration
of resources (aka strategic variable) within a changing industry environment to meet
the needs of markets/customers and to fulfill stakeholder expectations

profits as revenues minus costs measure success of an organization and guarantee


survival
for simplicity and tractability, it is assumed that firms strive to maximize profits
(however, there lot of other objectives, )

Shareholders are the owners of a company, hence they own all equity and receive
all profits as dividends
Shareholder value is simply the discounted sum of all future profits and measures the
value of a company

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

17

PROFITS (2) SINGLE FIRM

(2) R = pq

Maximum profits are


derived choosing a
strategy (a strategic
variable), here:
quantity

(3) C = cq + F

FOC and SOC give


optimum profits

(1) p = a bq

(4) = R C = aq bq 2 cq F max!

(5)
= a 2bq c = 0
q
ac
(6) q* =
2b
q *
q *
q *
> 0,
< 0,
< 0.
a
c
b

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Solving for strategic


variable (6) denotes
necessary action to
realize optimum profits
For (6), there is a
straight forward
economic
interpretation: (a-c) is
a measure for
competitiveness, (1/b)
is a measure of market
size

18

MONOPOLY EQUILIBRIUM
Monopoly: one firm in
the market, no
competition

monopoly

Given a, b, c and F,
choose optimum q to
maximize profits

3000
2500

a
b
c
F

100
1
10
500

2000
1500
R

1000

C
500

pi

q*
p*
pi*

45
55
1525

-500

20

40

60

80

100

120

-1000
-1500

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

19

AGENDA

What is managerial economics?

Where do profits come from?

Deriving optimum competitive behavior using game theory

Application to the Apple vs. Samsung case

Key learnings & discussion

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

20

ANALYSIS OF MARKET STRUCTURE

homogenous
products

heterogeneous
products

one firm
(monopoly)

some firms
(oligopoly)

many firms

Market structure
(better: industry
structure) depicts
number and size
distribution of firms and
structure of offered
products

national
football
leagues

transportation,
energy,
railway,
banking,
telco, .

free e-mail
services,
groceries,

most interesting: some


firms, since this is the
most relevant and
frequent case

automobiles,
gadgets,
technical
consumer
products, .

music

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

21

STRATEGY AND COMPETITION

one firm
(monopoly)

homogenous
products

some firms
(oligopoly)

location
entry barriers

many firms

single-product vs.
multi-product strategies

For all market


structures, it is crucial
what is the nature of
competition and what
is the main strategic
variable
At least in the long run
and from a strategic
perspective, this boils
down to quantity
versus price

quantity vs. price competition


degree of product differentiation
heterogenous
products

innovation vs.
imitation

simultaneous vs. sequential


decision making

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

22

QUANTITY VS. PRICE COMPETITION


strategic
characteristic

evidence

Quantity as
strategic
variable

All firms decide on


quantity, price is
determined in the
market (Cournotcompetition)

Strong evidence in all


markets and industries,
where capacity is relevant
and capacity adjustments
are costly or take a long
time

Price as
strategic
variable

All firms decide on


price, quantity is
determined in the
market (Bertrandcompetition)

Some evidence in markets,


where capacity is quickly
adjustable (and low
investments needed)

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

big picture
market structure and results
differ with respect to type of
competition
both from a theoretical and
an empirical perspective,
quantity competition has
more relevance (two stage
game: first stage capacity,
second stage price)
however, asking managers,
most of them think they are
playing price competition
game theory is the key
approach to analyze
competition

23

GAME THEORY BASIC IDEA

Areas and typical situations

Game theory

is a study of strategic
decision making in
conflict and
cooperation
(interactive decision
theory) trying to
identify some optimal
behavior or strategy
given strategies or
options of others

economics, political science, and psychology, as well as logic


and biology, and of course pure math:
war (that is actually one of the origins )
competition (but also auctions, bargaining, mergers
&acquisitions pricing, social network formation, mechanism
and market design, . )
cooperation (formation and stability of cartels, organizations,
coalitions, . )
bargaining in any situation
social and private situations
and of course: games like chess, etc.

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

24

GAME THEORY REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION

from a theoretical perspective

Game
theory

implementation requires some substantial


efforts and information:
(1) an unambiguous and quantifiable
objective function is necessary
(2) rationally acting players have to
recognize the strategic interaction as a
game
information needs to be given concerning
the
(3) number of players
(4) the duration and
(5) structure of the game and
(6) all potential and feasible strategies

from a practical perspective

List of players
List of strategies or actions available
Description of payoffs or profits for each
strategy
Rules of the game

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

25

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (STRATEGIES)

Player 1

strategy A of
player 1

strategy
C of
player 2

1A / 2C

strategy
D of
player 2

1A / 2D

strategy B of
player 1

1B / 2C

Two players: player 1


(called column player)
and player 2 (called
row player)
Two strategies (a
strategy profile) for
each player: A and B
for player 1, C and D
for player 2
Each combination of
strategies is possible,
1A / 2 D, and so on
A description of a
game in a matrix (if
possible) is called
normal form

Player 2

1B / 2D

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

If both players are able


to draw the same
normal form game,
they have symmetric
information

26

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (PAYOFFS)


For each strategy
combination, payoffs
(profits) must be
identified

Player 1

strategy A of
player 1

strategy
C of
player 2

strategy B of
player 1

(1)

(1)

1A/2C

1B/2C

(2)
1A/2C

(2)
1B/2C

These payoffs are


compared to identify
the optimum strategy
for each player
the mode of
comparing different
strategic alternatives is
called solution
concept to a game

Player 2

strategy
D of
player 2

(1)

(1)

1A/2D

1B/2D

(2)

(2)

1A/2D

1B/2D

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

27

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (EXAMPLE 1)


Given the following
payoffs what would
be the best strategy
for player 1, what
would be the best
strategy for player 2?

Player 1

strategy
C of
player 2

strategy A of
player 1

strategy B of
player 1

Player 2

1
strategy
D of
player 2

6
1

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

28

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (EXAMPLE 1)


The best strategy for
player 1 would be B,
for player 2 it would be
C the rule applied is
called maximin
that is find first the
minimum result of
each strategy and
than choose the
maximum of these
minima

Player 1

strategy
C of
player 2

strategy A of
player 1

strategy B of
player 1

Player 2

1
strategy
D of
player 2

6
1

1
3

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

This leads (typically) to


the best-response
strategy given all
strategies of other
players the
combination of all
best-response
strategies is called a
Nash equilibrium (no
player can benefit by
changing strategies)

29

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (EXAMPLE 2)

Player 1

strategy
C of
player 2

strategy A of
player 1

strategy B of
player 1

Given the payoffs in


example 2 what
would be, applying
the maximin rule, the
best strategy for player
1, what would be the
best strategy for player
2?

Player 2

2
strategy
D of
player 2

6
2

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

30

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (EXAMPLE 2)


The best strategy for
player 1 would be B,
for player 2 it would be
D

Player 1

strategy A of
player 1

strategy B of
player 1

4
strategy
C of
player 2

The solution can be


found applying
maximin

3
1

Player 2

2
strategy
D of
player 2

Such a strategy is
called dominant

6
2

But: here, for player 2,


strategy D is always
(independent of what
player 1 does) better
than strategy C

2
3

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

31

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (EXAMPLE 3)


Given the payoffs in
example 3 are there
dominant strategies,
what would be a
solution applying
maximin?

Player 1

strategy
C of
player 2

strategy A of
player 1

strategy B of
player 1

Player 2

2
strategy
D of
player 2

3
8

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

32

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (EXAMPLE 3)


There are no dominant
strategies, and
applying maximin
gives 1 B / 2 C as a
Nash equilibrium

Player 1

strategy
C of
player 2

strategy A of
player 1

strategy B of
player 1

But: what is strange


about this equilibrium
found by maximin?

Player 2

2
strategy
D of
player 2

3
8

3
3

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

33

GAME THEORY A TYPICAL GAME (EXAMPLE 3)


Looking at 1 B / 2 C, it
is obvious, that both
players have an
incentive to deviate

Player 1

strategy
C of
player 2

strategy A of
player 1

strategy B of
player 1

Solution concept here


would be: trigger a
mixed strategy

Player 2

2
strategy
D of
player 2

3
8

Inspection of 1 A / 2 C
and 1 B / 2 D shows,
that these equilibria
are indeed possible
hence: a game can
have more than one
equilibrium, and even
more than one Nashequilibrium

3
3

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

34

GAME THEORY APPLICATION GUIDE

(1) Identify all players


(2) Identify all possible strategies

How to apply game theory


(quick and easy):

(3) Identify payoffs to all strategy combinations


(4) Check, whether there are dominant strategies
(5) Apply a solution concept, preferably maximin
(6) Identify the Nash-equilibrium, check if it is unique

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

35

AGENDA

What is managerial economics?

Where do profits come from?

Deriving optimum competitive behavior using game theory

Application to the Apple vs. Samsung case

Key learnings & discussion

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

36

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG WITH GAME THEORY


Players are easily
identified
Apple

Obviously, they have a


large number of
feasible quantity
strategies

Continuum of quantity
strategies

A
Samsung

Continuum of
quantity
strategies

qS

What we have to do
now is identify the
optimum solutions to
the Apple and
Samsung strategies in
quantities

qA
COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

37

QUANTITY COMPETITION WITH TWO FIRMS

(1) p = a bQ = a b(q1 + q2 )
(2) Ri = pqi , i = 1;2
(3) Ci = cqi + F
(4) 1 = R1 C2 = aq1 b(q1 + q2 )q1 cq1 F max!
1
(5)
= a b(q1 + q2 ) bq1 c = a c 2bq1 bq2 = 0
q1
a c q2
(6) q1* =

2b
2
q1 *
q *
q *
q *
> 0, 1 < 0, 1 < 0, 1 < 0.
a
c
b
q2

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Suppose now two firms


of course now,
competition happens
Firm 1 has to take into
account the action
taken by firm 2 and
vice versa analyzing
these situations is
called game theory
Game theory is the
study of strategic
decision making in
situations of conflict
and cooperation
Again, we maximize
profits by choosing
quantity optimum
quantity now depends
on the quantity of the
competitor

38

OPTIMUM QUANTITY OF FIRM 1 GIVEN QUANTITY OF FIRM 2

1
(5)
= a b(q1 + q2 ) bq1 c =
q1

quantity q2

a c 2bq1 bq2 = 0
a c q2
(6) q1* =

2b
2

For each quantity of


firm 2, we can
determine some
optimum own strategy
In a sense, this a
reaction hence we
call this curve a
reaction curve

Firm 1

q2

2
0

ac
2b

quantity q1

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

39

OPTIMUM QUANTITY OF FIRM 2 GIVEN QUANTITY OF FIRM 1


quantity q2

2
(5' )
= a b(q1 + q2 ) bq2 c =
q2
a c 2bq2 bq1 = 0

ac
2b

Firm 2

(6' ) q2 * =

So: what is the correct


quantity?

a c q1

2b
2

The same is true for firm


2 for every quantity
chosen by firm 1, it
determines some
optimum quantity 2

q1
2
quantity q1

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

40

COURNOT-NASH EQUILIBRIUM FOR HOMOGENOUS FIRMS


Given both reaction
curves, there is an
intersection where
strategies match

quantity q2

ac
2b

This is a Nash
equilibrium: a solution
to a non-cooperative
game in which each
player knows the
equilibrium strategies
of the other players

Firm 1

q2

q2 *

q1 *

ac
2b

q1
2

Firm 2

quantity q1

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

if no player can
benefit by changing
strategies (while the
other players keep
theirs unchanged),
then the current set of
strategy choices and
the corresponding
payoffs constitute a
Nash equilibrium

41

QUANTITY COMPETITION FOR HETEROGENEOUS FIRMS

(1) p1 = a1 b1q1 b q2
p2 = a2 b2 q2 b q1 , b1 , b2 > b
(2) Ri = pi qi , i = 1;2
(3) Ci = ci qi + F
2

(4) 1 = R1 C2 = a1q1 b1q1 b q2 q1 c1q1 F max!


1
(5)
= a1 2b1q1 b q2 c1 = 0
q1
a1 c1 b q2
(6) q1* =

2b1
2b1
a2 c2 b q1
q2 * =

2b2
2b2
COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

If firms are not


symmetric (i.e., they
differ in cost or other
characteristics), we
have to apply some
extensions
b1 and b2: each firm
has now some local
demand / market
b(beta): denotes
relation between
local markets
(b(beta)=0: separate
markets, b(beta)=1:
perfect substitutes)
c1 and c2: firms differ
in variable costs
again, choosing
quantity profits are
maximized

42

COURNOT-NASH EQUILIBRIUM FOR HETEROGENEOUS FIRMS (1)

a1 c1 b q2
(6) q1* =

2b1
2b1

quantity q2
Firm 1

a2 c2 b q1
q2 * =

2b2
2b2

a2 c2
2b2
q2 *

q1 *

b q2

a1 c1
2b1

Resulting strategy pair


is again Nash, however
not symmetric (due to
c1, c2, etc.)
So, firm 2 is larger than
firm 1!

b q1

2b2
Firm 2

2b1
quantity q1

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

43

COURNOT-NASH EQUILIBRIUM FOR HETEROGENEOUS FIRMS (2)


If costs of firm 2
increase, firm 2 shrinks
and firm 1 grows

quantity q2

Firm 1

a 2 c2
2b2
q2 *

c2 c2 '

q2 *'
0

q1 *

q1*'

Firm 2

quantity q1

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

44

COURNOT-NASH EQUILIBRIUM FOR HETEROGENEOUS FIRMS (3)


If willingness to pay for
products of firm 1
increase, firm 1 grows,
firm 2 shrinks

quantity q2

Firm 1

a1 a1 '

q2 *
3

q2 *'
Firm 2

q1 *
2

q1*' a1 c1
2b1

quantity q1

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

45

COURNOT-NASH EQUILIBRIUM FOR HETEROGENEOUS FIRMS (4)


If the market of firm 2
grows (i.e., the
reaction curve of firm 2
is getting steeper) firm
2 grows and firm 1
shrinks

quantity q2
Firm 1

q2 *
2

q2 *

b2 b2 '

b q1

2b2

b q1

2b2 '
Firm 2

quantity q1

q1*'

q1 *
3

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

46

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG KEY DIFFERENCES (1)


Apple and Samsung
differ in their strategies

Apple

Samsung

strategic
characteristic

modeling
approach

Innovator - consumers
love innovativeness
Being innovative
requires R&D thats
high fixed costs

High willingness to pay,


however smaller customer
base
Industry specific fixed costs,
significantly higher marginal
costs

Imitator and follower


In all industries,
Samsung as a cost
leader

Lower willingness to pay,


however larger customer
base
Industry specific fixed costs,
drastically lower marginal
costs

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

We have to depict
these differences in our
model

47

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG KEY DIFFERENCES (2)

Price-demand schedule

Apple

Samsung

a(1) = 1100
b(1) = 0,7
b(beta) = 0,5 (market
specific)

a(2) = 1000
b(2) = 0,6
b(beta) = 0,5 (market
specific)

Cost function
c(1) = 400
F = 10000 (industry
specific)

Suppose we did some


decent market
research and we
analyzed balance
sheets:
Apple customers are
keen on Apple
(higher a), but
customer base is
smaller (larger b)
Samsung customers
are not dedicated, yet
customer base is larger

c(2)= 360
F = 10000 (industry
specific)

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Apple has about 10%


higher marginal costs
than Samsung (c(2) vs.
c(1))

48

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG EQUILIBRIA (1)


(A)

Case (A)

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
0,00
10000,00

Apple q* (1)
Samsung q* (2)
Apple p* (1)
Samsung p* (2)
Apple pi* (1)
Samsung pi* (2)
Apple
R (1)
Samsung
R (2)
Apple C (1)
Samsung C (2)

428,57
428,57
700,00
700,00
118571,43
118571,43
300000,00
300000,00
181428,57
181428,57

Q
average p
Apple market share (1)
Samsung market share (2)
Apple profit share (1)
Samsung profit share (2)
Apple profit margin (1)
Samsung profit margin (2)

857,14
700,00
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
39,52%
39,52%

input

Apple a (1)
Samsung a (2)
Apple c (1)
Samsung c (2)
Apple b (1)
Samsung b (2)
b (beta) (market specific)
F (industry specific)

firm level results

two separate
monopolies

statistics

Apple vs
Samsung

Firms are identical in


demand and costs
(1) p1 = a1 b1q1 b q2
p2 = a2 b2 q2 b q1 , b1 , b2 > b
( 2) Ri = pi qi , i = 1;2
(3) Ci = ci qi + F
2

( 4) 1 = R1 C2 = a1q1 b1q1 b q2 q1 c1q1 F max!


(5)

1
= a1 2b1q1 b q2 c1 = 0
q1

(6) q1* =

a1 c1 b q2

2b1
2b1

q2 * =

a2 c2 b q1

2b2
2b2

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Firms have completely


separate local
markets, i.e., thats two
monopolies
(b(beta) = 0, i.e., no
Apple customer would
ever consider buying
Samsung)
Applying formulas (1)
to (6) gives equilibrium
values

49

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG EQUILIBRIA (2)


(A)

(B)

two separate
monopolies

perfect
substitutes
(b(beta)=1)

input

Apple a (1)
Samsung a (2)
Apple c (1)
Samsung c (2)
Apple b (1)
Samsung b (2)
b (beta) (market specific)
F (industry specific)

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
0,00
10000,00

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
1,00
10000,00

firm level results

Case (B)

Apple q* (1)
Samsung q* (2)
Apple p* (1)
Samsung p* (2)
Apple pi* (1)
Samsung pi* (2)
Apple
R (1)
Samsung
R (2)
Apple C (1)
Samsung C (2)

428,57
428,57
700,00
700,00
118571,43
118571,43
300000,00
300000,00
181428,57
181428,57

250,00
250,00
575,00
575,00
33750,00
33750,00
143750,00
143750,00
110000,00
110000,00

statistics

Apple vs
Samsung

Q
average p
Apple market share (1)
Samsung market share (2)
Apple profit share (1)
Samsung profit share (2)
Apple profit margin (1)
Samsung profit margin (2)

857,14
700,00
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
39,52%
39,52%

500,00
575,00
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
23,48%
23,48%

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Firms are identical in


demand and costs
Firms have no
separate local
markets, i.e., products
are perfect substitutes
(b(beta) = 1,
customers are
completely indifferent
between the two
brands)
Comparing (A) and
(B), firms are smaller,
profits are lower, prices
are lower

50

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG EQUILIBRIA (3)


(B)

(C)

two separate
monopolies

perfect
substitutes
(b(beta)=1)

imperfect
subsititutes

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
0,00
10000,00

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
1,00
10000,00

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
0,50
10000,00

Apple q* (1)
Samsung q* (2)
Apple p* (1)
Samsung p* (2)
Apple pi* (1)
Samsung pi* (2)
Apple
R (1)
Samsung
R (2)
Apple C (1)
Samsung C (2)

428,57
428,57
700,00
700,00
118571,43
118571,43
300000,00
300000,00
181428,57
181428,57

250,00
250,00
575,00
575,00
33750,00
33750,00
143750,00
143750,00
110000,00
110000,00

315,79
315,79
621,05
621,05
59806,09
59806,09
196121,88
196121,88
136315,79
136315,79

Q
average p
Apple market share (1)
Samsung market share (2)
Apple profit share (1)
Samsung profit share (2)
Apple profit margin (1)
Samsung profit margin (2)

857,14
700,00
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
39,52%
39,52%

500,00
575,00
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
23,48%
23,48%

631,58
621,05
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
30,49%
30,49%

input

Apple a (1)
Samsung a (2)
Apple c (1)
Samsung c (2)
Apple b (1)
Samsung b (2)
b (beta) (market specific)
F (industry specific)

firm level results

(A)

statistics

Apple vs
Samsung

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Case (C)
Firms are identical in
demand and costs
b(beta) = 0,5,
customers have a
tendency for one of
the brands
Comparing (A), (B)
and (C), firm size,
profits and prices are
in-between, however
identical across firms

51

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG EQUILIBRIA (4)


(D)

Case (D)

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
360,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

Apple q* (1)
Samsung q* (2)
Apple p* (1)
Samsung p* (2)
Apple pi* (1)
Samsung pi* (2)
Apple
R (1)
Samsung
R (2)
Apple C (1)
Samsung C (2)

363,64
381,82
654,55
589,09
82561,98
77471,07
238016,53
224925,62
155454,55
147454,55

Q
average p
Apple market share (1)
Samsung market share (2)
Apple profit share (1)
Samsung profit share (2)
Apple profit margin (1)
Samsung profit margin (2)

745,45
621,02
48,78%
51,22%
51,59%
48,41%
34,69%
34,44%

input

Apple a (1)
Samsung a (2)
Apple c (1)
Samsung c (2)
Apple b (1)
Samsung b (2)
b (beta) (market specific)
F (industry specific)

firm level results

cost and
demand
differences

statistics

Apple vs
Samsung

Apple

Samsung

strategic
characteristic

modeling
approach

Innovator - consumers love


innovativeness
Being innovative requires R&D
thats high fixed costs

High willingness to pay, however


smaller customer base
Industry specific fixed costs,
significantly higher marginal costs

Imitator and follower


In all industries, Samsung as a
cost leader

Lower willingness to pay, however


larger customer base
Industry specific fixed costs,
drastically lower marginal costs

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Firms are now different:


Apple having higher
willingness to pay,
Samsung lower
marginal costs and a
somewhat larger
market
Differences in inputs
leads to differences in
output: Apple is
smaller, yet having
higher profits than
Samsung due to much
higher equilibrium
prices

52

(D)

(E)

cost and
demand
differences

cost
reduction of
Samsung

input

Apple a (1)
Samsung a (2)
Apple c (1)
Samsung c (2)
Apple b (1)
Samsung b (2)
b (beta) (market specific)
F (industry specific)

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
360,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

firm level results

Apple q* (1)
Samsung q* (2)
Apple p* (1)
Samsung p* (2)
Apple pi* (1)
Samsung pi* (2)
Apple
R (1)
Samsung
R (2)
Apple C (1)
Samsung C (2)

363,64
381,82
654,55
589,09
82561,98
77471,07
238016,53
224925,62
155454,55
147454,55

349,65
420,98
644,76
572,59
75578,76
96334,00
225438,90
241047,29
149860,14
144713,29

statistics

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG EQUILIBRIA (5)

Q
average p
Apple market share (1)
Samsung market share (2)
Apple profit share (1)
Samsung profit share (2)
Apple profit margin (1)
Samsung profit margin (2)

745,45
621,02
48,78%
51,22%
51,59%
48,41%
34,69%
34,44%

770,63
605,33
45,37%
54,63%
43,96%
56,04%
33,53%
39,96%

Apple vs
Samsung

Case (E)

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Suppose due to
pressure by
shareholders
Samsung is realizing
some cost cutting at ~
10 % (decrease of
c(2))
Key results: Samsung is
growing, Apple is
shrinking, and now
Samsung is more
profitable
Following the cost
reduction, Apple has
to reduce prices (in
order to maximize
profits)

53

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG EQUILIBRIA (6)


(D)

(E)

(F)

cost and
demand
differences

cost
reduction of
Samsung

introduction
of iPhone6

Apple a (1)
Samsung a (2)
Apple c (1)
Samsung c (2)
Apple b (1)
Samsung b (2)
b (beta) (market specific)
F (industry specific)

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
360,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1400,00
1000,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

Apple q* (1)
Samsung q* (2)
Apple p* (1)
Samsung p* (2)
Apple pi* (1)
Samsung pi* (2)
Apple
R (1)
Samsung
R (2)
Apple C (1)
Samsung C (2)

363,64
381,82
654,55
589,09
82561,98
77471,07
238016,53
224925,62
155454,55
147454,55

349,65
420,98
644,76
572,59
75578,76
96334,00
225438,90
241047,29
149860,14
144713,29

601,40
316,08
820,98
509,65
243176,19
49945,43
493735,63
161092,28
250559,44
111146,85

Q
average p
Apple market share (1)
Samsung market share (2)
Apple profit share (1)
Samsung profit share (2)
Apple profit margin (1)
Samsung profit margin (2)

745,45
621,02
48,78%
51,22%
51,59%
48,41%
34,69%
34,44%

770,63
605,33
45,37%
54,63%
43,96%
56,04%
33,53%
39,96%

917,48
713,72
65,55%
34,45%
82,96%
17,04%
49,25%
31,00%

statistics

firm level results

input

Apple vs
Samsung

Case (F)

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Suppose Apple is now


releasing a new
iPhone as an answer to
cost cutting of
Samsung (increase of
a(1))
Key results: drastic
increase in quantity
and price for Apple,
Samsung lowering
prices at the same
time and also reducing
quantity
Apple is now
dominating market
share and captures
more than 80 % of
profits

54

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

cost and
demand
differences

cost
reduction of
Samsung

introduction
of iPhone6

catching
with Galaxy
S5

input

Apple a (1)
Samsung a (2)
Apple c (1)
Samsung c (2)
Apple b (1)
Samsung b (2)
b (beta) (market specific)
F (industry specific)

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
360,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1400,00
1000,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1400,00
1200,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

firm level results

Apple q* (1)
Samsung q* (2)
Apple p* (1)
Samsung p* (2)
Apple pi* (1)
Samsung pi* (2)
Apple
R (1)
Samsung
R (2)
Apple C (1)
Samsung C (2)

363,64
381,82
654,55
589,09
82561,98
77471,07
238016,53
224925,62
155454,55
147454,55

349,65
420,98
644,76
572,59
75578,76
96334,00
225438,90
241047,29
149860,14
144713,29

601,40
316,08
820,98
509,65
243176,19
49945,43
493735,63
161092,28
250559,44
111146,85

531,47
511,89
772,03
627,13
187721,16
147217,66
410308,57
321021,86
222587,41
173804,20

statistics

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG EQUILIBRIA (7)

Q
average p
Apple market share (1)
Samsung market share (2)
Apple profit share (1)
Samsung profit share (2)
Apple profit margin (1)
Samsung profit margin (2)

745,45
621,02
48,78%
51,22%
51,59%
48,41%
34,69%
34,44%

770,63
605,33
45,37%
54,63%
43,96%
56,04%
33,53%
39,96%

917,48
713,72
65,55%
34,45%
82,96%
17,04%
49,25%
31,00%

1043,36
700,94
50,94%
49,06%
56,05%
43,95%
45,75%
45,86%

Apple vs
Samsung

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

Case (G)
Suppose Samsung is
catching up, yet not
completely, with a
new version of Galaxy
(increase of a(2))
Key results: Apple still
able to charger higher
prices, but Samsung
drastically growing
Market shares are like
equal with Apple
staying ahead in
profits, especially due
to much higher prices

55

AGENDA

What is managerial economics?

Where do profits come from?

Deriving optimum competitive behavior using game theory

Application to the Apple vs. Samsung case

Key learnings & discussion

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

56

KEY TERMS LEARNED (1)


managerial economics: is concerned with application of economic concepts and
economic analysis to the typical problems in managerial decision making

in managerial economics, profit is just revenues minus costs and firms strive to
maximize profits

the profit function is maximized by choosing a strategy, i.e., a strategic variable (some
evidence that quantity due to investment character is the key variable)

game theory: a study of strategic decision making trying to identify some optimal
behavior or strategy given potential strategies of others

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

57

KEY TERMS LEARNED (2)


a game is described by a) list of players, b) list of strategies or actions available, c)
description of payoffs or profits for each strategy and d) rules of the game

to find a solution to a game, a) check, whether there are dominant strategies, b)


apply a solution concept, preferably maximin, and c) identify the Nash-equilibrium,
check if it is unique

the Cournot-Nash model proves quite flexible and powerful to analyze competition,
see the Apple vs. Samsung case study

key limitations and obstacles are: data, and what if managers do not really maximize
profits

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

58

BACK UP

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

59

FURTHER READING
Fisher, T.C.G., Prentice, D. and Washik, R., Managerial economics: a strategic approach, Milton Park 2010.
Besanko, D., Dranove, D., Schaefer, S. and Shanley, M., Economics of strategy, Boston 2007.
Mansfield, E., Allen, W.B., Doherty, N., and Weigelt, K., Managerial economics: theory, applications, and
cases, New York 2009.

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

60

APPLE VS. SAMSUNG EQUILIBRIA


(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

imperfect
subsititutes

cost and
demand
differences

cost
reduction of
Samsung

introduction
of iPhone6

catching
with Galaxy
S5

input

(B)
perfect
substitutes
(b(beta)=1)

Apple a (1)
Samsung a (2)
Apple c (1)
Samsung c (2)
Apple b (1)
Samsung b (2)
b (beta) (market specific)
F (industry specific)

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
0,00
10000,00

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
1,00
10000,00

1000,00
1000,00
400,00
400,00
0,70
0,70
0,50
10000,00

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
360,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1100,00
1000,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1400,00
1000,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

1400,00
1200,00
400,00
320,00
0,70
0,60
0,50
10000,00

firm level results

(A)
two separate
monopolies

Apple q* (1)
Samsung q* (2)
Apple p* (1)
Samsung p* (2)
Apple pi* (1)
Samsung pi* (2)
Apple
R (1)
Samsung
R (2)
Apple C (1)
Samsung C (2)

428,57
428,57
700,00
700,00
118571,43
118571,43
300000,00
300000,00
181428,57
181428,57

250,00
250,00
575,00
575,00
33750,00
33750,00
143750,00
143750,00
110000,00
110000,00

315,79
315,79
621,05
621,05
59806,09
59806,09
196121,88
196121,88
136315,79
136315,79

363,64
381,82
654,55
589,09
82561,98
77471,07
238016,53
224925,62
155454,55
147454,55

349,65
420,98
644,76
572,59
75578,76
96334,00
225438,90
241047,29
149860,14
144713,29

601,40
316,08
820,98
509,65
243176,19
49945,43
493735,63
161092,28
250559,44
111146,85

531,47
511,89
772,03
627,13
187721,16
147217,66
410308,57
321021,86
222587,41
173804,20

statistics

Apple vs
Samsung

Q
average p
Apple market share (1)
Samsung market share (2)
Apple profit share (1)
Samsung profit share (2)
Apple profit margin (1)
Samsung profit margin (2)

857,14
700,00
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
39,52%
39,52%

500,00
575,00
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
23,48%
23,48%

631,58
621,05
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
50,00%
30,49%
30,49%

745,45
621,02
48,78%
51,22%
51,59%
48,41%
34,69%
34,44%

770,63
605,33
45,37%
54,63%
43,96%
56,04%
33,53%
39,96%

917,48
713,72
65,55%
34,45%
82,96%
17,04%
49,25%
31,00%

1043,36
700,94
50,94%
49,06%
56,05%
43,95%
45,75%
45,86%

COMPETITION BETWEEN APPLE AND SAMSUNG - CASE STUDY / Dr. Markus Thomas Mnter

61

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi