Can Lyft take it all against uber?

22

October

2017

No ratings yet.

On October 19 Lyft announced in a blog that it received a $1 billion investment from Alphabet inc., Google’s parent company. In January 2014 it very much looked like Uber was going to be the single, dominant platform, as it was sitting at a 91% market share in the US compared to the 8% market share of Lyft.(marketrealist.com). As of August 2017 however, Uber’s US market share seems to have declined to 74.3%, while Lyft’s market share increased to 23.4%. (marketrealist.com) It looks like the momentum lies with Lyft for now, but will the emerging competitor ever be able to take the lead?

 

First of all, let us look at the market for transportation apps and determine whether or not the conditions for a winner takes all market as defined by Eisenmann et al. apply.

Strong positive cross-side network effects are definitely present. More available drivers will mean that consumers are able to more quickly find a ride, while more available customers will mean that drivers endure less idle time.

 

It is unlikely that differentiated platforms will emerge, as differentiation opportunities are virtually nonexistent. Passengers want speed and quality and the only thing drivers care about is making as much money as possible. Currently Lyft and Uber are very similar applications, and I do not see this changing in the future.

 

The only argument against a winner takes all market is the fact that multi-homing costs are not high in this market. It is easy to drive for both Lyft and Uber, and maintaining two mobile applications instead of one does not take much effort. Personally I am of the opinion that this fact is not too relevant, as great monopolies have arisen in the past despite of low multi-homing costs e.g. EBay.

 

I personally think Lyft is more than capable of completely taking over the market, mainly because of how strong network effects are in this market. Lyft definitely has the momentum right now, mainly because of the managerial scandals that are plaguing Uber. Lyft can learn from the mistakes Uber made by professionalizing at an earlier stage, and is doing so. Alongside the investment, David Lawee will be joining Lyft’s board of directors, a man with a lot of corporate experience from working at google. (blog.lyft.com)

 

 

References and sources:

Eisenmann, T., Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2006). Strategies for Two- Sided Markets. Harvard Business Review, October, pp.8-9.

Alphabet’s CapitalG Leads $1 Billion Round in Lyft. (2017). [Blog] Lyft Blog. Available at: https://blog.lyft.com/posts/alphabet-capitalg-leads-1-billion-round-in-lyft [Accessed 22 Oct. 2017].

marketrealist.com. (2017). Why Uber’s Market Share Has Tanked. [online] Available at: http://marketrealist.com/2017/09/why-ubers-market-share-has-tanked/ [Accessed 22 Oct. 2017].

Please rate this

Mobile operating systems, is Microsoft throwing in the towel?

9

October

2017

No ratings yet.

It is no secret that IOS and Android are running the show in the mobile OS market. With a market share of 86.1% and 13.7% for Android and IOS in the first quarter of 2017 respectively, other plaforms seem hopeless in their attempts to penetrate this duopoly. (statista.com, 2017)

 

Last Sunday Joe Belfiore, Vice president in the windows 10 operating system group at Microsoft, released a series of tweets. He announced on twitter that Microsoft will continue to support the mobile windows 10 platform via bug fixes and updates, but that developing new apps is not their main focus. In a following tweet Belfiore additionally stated that Microsoft tried very hard to incentivize developers to develop features for the platform, even going as far as offering money and writing apps for external developers, but that external companies were not willing to invest in developing apps for the platform due to its low user volume.

Blog 1 afb2

It seems evident that both IOS and Android have managed to create a powerful duopoly, fending off any form of competition. Apparently these two platforms have managed to leverage their cross-sided network effects to such an extent that even a company as powerful and resourceful as Microsoft fails to gain any meaningful form of market share, failing to even break the one percent market share barrier. (statista.com) Microsoft is no stranger to leveraging network effects in order to create a powerful platform, its windows desktop OS stands at a staggering 87.46% market share. (statista.com, 2017) With all the financial resources and undeniable technical know-how Microsoft has made a genuine effort opening up their platform and incentivizing external developers, but could not get their snowball rolling.

 

Microsoft is not the only large company who attempted to break the duopoly. Samsung Electronics released their Bada OS in April 2010 in an attempt to create their own proprietary platform, much like Apple. Blackberry Limited found a reasonable amount of success with their Blackberry OS, or RIM as it is often referred to. Reaching a market share as high as 20.7% in 2009, before dropping down to under 1% in 2013. (Statista.com, 2017) With Microsoft now more or less officially stating it fails to effectively compete, it begs the question who can.

 

Sources

 

Statista. (2017). Global mobile OS market share in sales to end users from 1st quarter 2009 to 1st quarter 2017. [online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2017].

 

Statista. (2017). Global operating systems market share for desktop PCs, from January 2013 to July 2016. [online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/218089/global-market-share-of-windows-7/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2017].

Please rate this

Technology of the Week – The disruption of the hotel industry

6

October

2017

No ratings yet.

The hotel industry used to be a one-sided market where bookings were mostly arranged by travel agencies. This changed due to the introduction of the internet and the rise of platforms. On these platforms, demand and supply interactions are facilitated in order to create value.

 

A great example is Airbnb, which created a consumer-to-consumer platform to solve the problem of traveler accommodation. With Airbnb, people can both book and offer a place to stay. More rooms available on Airbnb, means more renters and more renters will lead to more rooms. This effect is referred to as a positive cross-side network effect.

 

Industry Disruption

Due to platforms like Airbnb the whole industry structure is disrupted. This can be explained by looking at porter’s five forces, operational activities and the value chain.

The emergence of platforms has reduced the barriers to entry. All that is required to enter the hotel industry is an available room. This also caused a decrease in the bargaining power of suppliers. Some of this bargaining power shifts to the end consumer, since more information is available online. Also, the rivalry among the competitors has gotten fiercer with the introduction of platforms. Airbnb can reach long-tail consumers, and by doing so, they have effectively expanded the market.

 

Looking at the operational activities it can be seen that, contrary to traditional businesses, platforms control very few recourses. Additionally, Platforms are less concerned with optimizing internal processes, as there simply are fewer compared to traditional businesses. Lastly, Platforms do not deal directly with customer, and therefore for do not focus on creating customer value. Instead, their focus is on managing the amount of interactions.

 

There is also a change in value chains. A traditional value chain consists of independent companies each trying to add value individually. The value chain of a platform combines the value of all members by funneling both consumers and producers into one financial chokepoint. This newly created ecosystem can make use of demand side economies of scale, resulting in stronger network effects, which increases the size of the ecosystem.

 

Future prediction

Below we will summarize the characteristics of the platform based hotel industry and look at how the platform structure is expected to develop based on these characteristics.

 

The first characteristic is the “Strength of Network effects”. The supply-side encounters negative same-side effects, as an increased competition will scare of new suppliers.  However, the positive cross-side network effects will overcome this effect. In addition, positive same-side effects occur for the demand-side, as a larger amount of end-users will add value through reviews and by sharing experiences.

 

A second characteristic is that ‘Multi-Homing Costs’ are relatively low. Both the demand and supply do not face high switching costs.

 

The last characteristic of the industry is that there is a ‘High Demand for Differentiated Features’.

 

Based on this information we can predict that there is no potential for a ‘Winner-takes-all-market. The industry is rather looking at a Multi-homing industry, with multiple platforms offering similar services.

Please rate this