Essays on Structure in the Mobile Phone Industry Assignment

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Structure in the Mobile Phone Industry" is a good example of an assignment on business. The Structure Conduct Performance approach is employed in analyzing the connection between the structure of the industry along with the performance of firms in the industry through their conduct. Structure deals with the amount and distribution of firms in the industry, entry barriers, and advertising. Conduct covers pricing by the firms, output decision and attitude towards rivals and performance will be indicated by efficiency, profitability, and market growth. Structure in the Mobile Phone Industry Since there are many buyers of mobile phones in the UK market who individually have very limited purchase power,   the number and size distribution of mobile phones is a one-structure variable.

The price power of mobile phones is strongly controlled by manufacturers who also play the real seller roles (Gee, 2013). The biggest mobile phone manufacturers in the United Kingdom include Apple, Inc. , Samsung, Nokia and. The rest, HTC, Motorola, LG, and Sony fall behind. It is obvious from figure 1 that the UK mobile phone market was dominated by the 3 biggest firms which are Apple, Samsung, and Nokia which occupied 65% market share in the sum in 2013.

It is significant also to note that even though Nokia has been placed among the biggest brand, its popularity has been declining in the past few years since it was number one on the list but recently overtaken by Apple, Inc. , and Samsung (Gee, 2014). From the figure below, we can see that the concentration ratio of the 3 biggest firms has been constantly increasing regardless of the slight fall in 2011, mostly because the significant market share of Nokia fell from 26% to 21%.   As revealed in the previous paragraph, Nokia lost its position because of its slow response to manufacturing smartphones (Gee, 2011).

Samsung and Apple, on the other hand, took advantage of this and even occupied more than Nokia lost. Their growth was 17% from 2010 to 2013 compared to the market share loss of 10% for Nokia.


Gee, S, 2014, Mobile PhonesExecutive Summary, Mintel report (online), Available from

Gee, S, 2013, Mobile PhonesExecutive Summary, Mintel report (online), Available from

Liao, C, 2012,Mobile PhonesExecutive Summary, Mintel report (online), Available from

Business Today, 2013, Nokia to launch 5 new devices in Lumia, Asha range (online), Available from,

Lipczynski J; Wilson J; Goddard J (2005), ‘Industrial Organization: Competition, Strategy and Policy’, 2nd Edition, Pearson Education: Harlow

Rothschild. R (1992),‘A SIMPLE PROOF OF SWEEZY'S 'KINKED-DEMAND' CONJECTURE’,Scottish Journal of Political Economy. Feb92, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p69-75. 7p.

Narumon.S (2014), ‘Design Patent War: Apple versus Samsung’,South Asian Journal of Business & Management Cases. Dec2014, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p221-228. 8p (online), Available from

Bijl, P &Peitz M, 2003,Regulation and entry into telecommunications markets, Cambridge University, Cambridge.

Brock, G 2013, Toward a competitive telecommunication industry: selected papers from the 1994 telecommunication policy research conference, Routledge, London.

Buigues, P & Rey, P 2004, The Economics of antitrust and regulation in telecommunications: perceptives for the new European regulatory framework, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

Canning, L 2006,'Rethinking market connections: mobile phone recovery, reuse and recycling in the UK,' Journal of Business & Industrial Marketingvol. 21, no. 5, pp. 320-329.

Clarke, R 1991, Industrial economics, Wiley, New Jersey.

Ferguson, P 1994, Industrial economic: issues and perspectives, NYU press, New York.

Fjeldstad, Ø D, Becerra, M, & Narayanan, S 2004,'Strategic action in network industries: an empirical analysis of the European mobile phone industry,'Scandinavian Journal of Management vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 173-196.

Gentzoglanis, A &Henten, A 2010, Regulation and the evolution of the global telecommunications industry, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

Gruber, H 2005, The economics of mobile telecommunications,Cambridge University, Cambridge.

Lee, J &Feick, L 2001,'The impact of switching costs on the customer satisfaction-loyalty link: mobile phone service in UK,'Journal of Services Marketing vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 35-48.

Lemstra, W & Melody, W 2014, The dynamics of broadband markets in Europe: realizing the 2020 digital agenda, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Stilgoe, J 2007,'The (co-) production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks,'Public Understanding of Sciencevol. 16, no. 1, pp. 45-61.Time (2014),

Time 2014, ‘Apple’s $649 iPhone 6 Reportedly Costs $200 to Make’ (online), Available from:

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