Which companies have collapsed most rapidly in the last 10 years? Depending on the perspective you see, you will think of several companies.
However, there are companies that are difficult to ignore no matter what standard they use.
It is Nokia.
Nokia, which once reigned as the absolute powerhouse in cell phones, was caught in an âiPhone blastâ and was kicked out of the garden in the blink of an eye.
Nokia is looking for a new leap forward by focusing on communication equipment.
However, when it comes to the mobile phone market, which used to be a yolk, the expression’fall’ is not awkward.
This is because it rolled from the top to the bottom in a short period of time.
In fact, Nokia’s prestige in 2007, when the iPhone was released, was great.
The mobile phone market share exceeded 40%.
Around that time, Nokia was responsible for 20% of Finland’s exports and 23% of corporate taxes.
Nokia sold about 29 million mobile phones in 2006 alone.
Considering that Apple, which introduced the iPhone in 2007, exceeded its cumulative sales of 30 million units only in 2010, it is possible to guess how prestigious Nokia was at the time.
Nokia didn’t know so sharply after the iPhone appeared.
In 2012, it gave Samsung Electronics the No.
1 position in the mobile phone market, which had been held for 14 consecutive years.
The smartphone market performance was poorer.
According to IDC, Nokia’s smartphone market share in the first quarter of 2012 was 8.
2%.
On the other hand, Samsung and Apple competed with a market share of about 25%.
Nokia eventually sold its mobile phone business and patent rights to Microsoft (MS) in September 2013.
At the time, the sale price was 5.
4 billion euros (about 7.
31 trillion won).
This is why Nokia is regarded as one of the representative companies that collapsed while ignoring innovation.
It is being evaluated that it overlooked the power of smartphones and then collapsed without help.
But Nokia wasn’t unaware of the new trend.
I knew the market trend better than anyone else.
Smartphones were released before anyone else.
In 1996, the world’s first smartphone, the Nokia 9000, was released.
In the late 1990s, tablets with touch screens were already developed.
It turned to new innovations more than 10 years earlier than Apple, which launched the iPad in 2010.
But why did it fail? It was analyzed that Nokia’s failure was’due to vested interests in the existing market.
‘ At that time, he was focusing on the feature phone, which was the core business, so he could not properly innovate boldly.
It is an analysis that he did not execute even though he knew it.
âNokia prioritizes the existing business even when the existing business and potential business compete.
For example, more resources and excellent manpower have been put into the feature phone business, which has a larger sales volume than the smartphone business.
In addition, we have invested more in Symbian, our existing business, than Maemo, a Linux-based OS that has only recognized its potential.
â
The price for failing to make a drastic transformation was severe.
In the end, Nokia was forced to admit the dire reality of âstanding on a burning platformâ in 2011.
When Stephen Elop was the CEO of Nokia, he said it was a burning platform.
Samsung Electronics was different.
At that time, Samsung Electronics, which was second in the mobile phone market, chose a different path than Nokia.
Samsung introduced the Omnia 2 in February 2009, when the iPhone was released in Korea, but was ignored.
Because of its poor performance, it was criticized for being a âpatterned smartphoneâ.
It was the same crisis situation as Nokia.
It was the same crisis, but the coping was different.
I boldly chose to get on the Android platform.
There were also many voices raising concerns about âplatform dependency.
â However, thanks to the bold decision of late Chairman Lee Kun-hee, the best talents were put into the âGalaxy Phoneâ.
As a result, Samsung has maintained the No.
1 position in the smartphone market for several years.
Apple, a leader in mobile innovation, showed a strong innovation.
Thanks to its excellent manufacturing and innovation capabilities and strong vertical integration, it is playing the best longevity role in leading the Android Corps.
Concerns about âplatform dependenceâ were also overcome with skill.
Of course, it’s hard to think of a Galaxy phone without Android.
However, the reverse also holds.
The Android camp where Samsung is missing is nothing but a mischief.
Samsung is the only success story among Android phones.
Thanks to this, Samsung has become the only company among smartphone terminal manufacturers that can sit at the negotiating table on par with platform operators.
After boldly jumping into the platform, he became the dominant of the platform.
Another question posed by Tesla and Apple to the auto market
Recently, as Tesla caused a sensation and the Apple car became a hot topic, âplatform selectionâ again rose to the cutting board.
There is a hot war as IT powers such as Apple and Google jump in one after another.
It reminds me of the time when the smartphone market was just opening.
Of course, cars and smartphones are different.
There is no comparison in terms of required manufacturing capabilities or parts ecosystem.
It may be a bit unreasonable to compare horizontally between then and now.
Nevertheless, there are many overlapping parts.
From the standpoint of the existing automobile giants, they have to worry fiercely over the existing automobiles centered on the’internal combustion engine’ and the new platforms of eco-friendly electric vehicles and smart automobiles.
Will’innovation within the system’, led by existing automakers focusing on internal combustion engines, remain the trend? Or will the âdisruptive innovationâ of external forces with strengths in IT and platforms change the market? As we watch the market’s hot interest in Tesla and Apple cars, we ask these questions.
