Essays on The Landscape of the IT Industry - Google Assignment

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "The Landscape of the IT Industry - Google " is an outstanding example of a finance and accounting assignment. The landscape of the IT industry has changed dramatically in recent years. Gone are the days of Goliaths of the industry like Microsoft dominating the industry with little scope for other companies to challenge its position? Microsoft enjoyed the number one position virtually unchallenged for a long time. The stranglehold it had on all aspects of the IT software market, be it for desktop applications or internet browsers, was so strong that a string of lawsuits was slapped on it for alleged anti-trust practices.

It was contemplated that Microsoft would be broken up into smaller units a la Bell and Baby Bells. (Egan, 2008, p. 14) It is in this context that the rise of Google as a serious competitor to Microsoft with the potential to challenge the latter’ s supremacy has to be viewed. Google started off on the web search front and slowly started foraying into desktop applications that could be integrated with the web applications unlike Microsoft that insisted on proprietary and standalone desktop software.

Google went farther and started giving away its desktop application software for free as compared to Microsoft that charged a price for its Office suite of applications. The fact that Google has found a ready audience for its applications are as much a reflection of Google’ s savvy business strategy as they are about changing customer preferences and tastes. The point about changing customer preferences and consequent shift in the demand patterns is something that would be discussed throughout this case study. (Bodell, 2008, p. 145) The key point about the case is that Microsoft that has long enjoyed unprecedented and virtually unchallenged success as the top software maker of choice is now faced with an existential dilemma that threatens to not only to dethrone it from its position but also lead to a much worrisome (for Microsoft Management that is) decline in profits and revenues.

There are many reasons for this seemingly precipitous fall from its position. Primary among them is the fact that Microsoft may not have paid heed to the market conditions and changing customer preferences in the same way it did for over a decade.


1. Bodell, L. & Earle, C. (2008). `The yin and yang of marketing measurement: Four principles of innovation'. Interactive Marketing 6(2):130+.

2. C. J. Hoofnagle (2009). `Beyond Google and evil: How policy makers, journalists and consumers should talk differently about Google and privacy'. First Monday 14(4).

3. Constantinides, E. (2006). `The Marketing Mix Revisited: Towards the 21st Century Marketing'. Journal of Marketing Management 22(3):407-438.

4. Cusumano, M & Gawer, A. (Spring 2002). ‘The Elements of Platform Leadership’. Sloan Management Review, pp.51-58.

5. D. Giustini (2005). `How Google is changing medicine'. BMJ 331(7531):1487-1488.

6. D. M. Chance (2009). `Liquidity and employee options: An empirical examination of the Microsoft experience☆'. Journal of Corporate Finance 15(4):469-487.

7. D. Vise & M. Malseed (2005). The Google Story. Delacorte Press.

8. Dent, E. (1999). ‘Complexity Science: A Worldview Shift’. Emergence 1(4), 5-19

9. Duncan, T. & Moriarty, S. E. (2008). `A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships'. Journal of Marketing 62(2):1-13.

10. Egan & John (2008). `A century of marketing'. The Marketing Review 8(1):3-23.

11. Harreld, J et al. (Summer 2007). ‘Dynamic Capabilities at IBM’. California Management Review. 49(4), pp. 21-43.

12. Hassan, S. S. & Submission, H. C. (2003). `GLOBAL MARKETING REVIEWS'. Journal of Global Marketing 6(3):139-142.

13. Hax, A & Wilde, D. (Winter, 1999). ‘The Delta Model: Adaptive Management for a Changing World’. Sloan Management Review. pp. 11- 28

14. J. Battelle (2005). The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. Portfolio Hardcover.

15. J. Jarvis (2009). What Would Google Do? HarperBusiness

16. Kalyanam, K. & Mcintyre, S. (2002). `The e-marketing mix: A contribution of the e-tailing wars'. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30(4):487-499.

17. Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2007). Principles of Marketing (12th Edition) (Principles of Marketing). Prentice Hall.

18. Kotler, P. et al. (2004). Marketing. Prentice Hall.

19. L. Hamlin (2007). `I'll Google That.'. AORN J 86(6):933-935.

20. Losekoot, E et al. (2008). ‘How Change does not Happen: The Impact of Culture on a Submarine Base’. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(4), pp. 255-64

21. M. Cusumano (2009). `The legacy of Bill Gates'. Commun. ACM 52(1):25-26.

22. M. G. Sim, et al. (2008). `Does general practice Google?’ Australian family physician 37(6):471-474.

23. Malcolm, W. (2010). `E-mail marketing: How to do it lawfully'. Interactive Marketing 6(2):179+.

24. Malone, M. (2009) The Future Arrived Yesterday. New York: Crown Press.

25. Mangold, G. W. & Faulds, D. J. (2009). `Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix'. Business Horizons.

26. Merlo, O. Et al. (2004). `Power and marketing'. Journal of Strategic Marketing 12(4):207+.

27. N. Carr (2008). The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google. W. W. Norton & Company.

28. O'Malley, L. et al. (2008). `Death of a metaphor: reviewing the `marketing as relationships' frame'. Marketing Theory 8(2):167-187.

29. Peattie, K. (2001). `Towards Sustainability: The Third Age of Green Marketing'. The Marketing Review pp. 129-146.

30. Porter, M. (Jan 2008). ‘The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Corporate Strategy’. Harvard Business Review, pp.79- 93

31. R. J. Gilbert & M. L. Katz (2004). `An Economist's Guide to U.S. v Microsoft'. Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series.

32. S. Subramanian (2010). `The Microsoft decision: a setback to IP rights in Europe?’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice 5(4):245-259.

33. Stewart, C. (1990). Modern Organizations. Organization Studies in the Postmodern World. New York: Sage Publications.

34. Sultan, F. et al. (2009). `Factors Influencing Consumer Acceptance of Mobile Marketing: A Two-Country Study of Youth Markets'. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23(4):308-320.

35. Svensson, G. (2005). `Ethnocentricity in top marketing journals'. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23(5):422-434

36. T. L. Griffiths, et al. (2007). `Google and the Mind'. Psychological Science 18(12):1069-1076.

37. Toffler, A. (1993) Powershift. New York: Bantam Books.

38. Toffler, A. (1973) Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books.

39. V. A. Scott (2008). Google. Greenwood Press.

40. Weber, L. (2007). Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business. Wiley.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us