Finance Paper Assignment | Homework Help Websites

Read posting and response it. 2-3 sentences.

Discuss question:Time to market is generally important, butbeing first to market does not necessarily ensure success.  What do you think?

My opinion: Being first to market does not necessarily ensures success.

Order instruction:

Read below those two students posting and write responses. Your responses must be substantive and add value to the original post by your colleagues.

—–First posting:

I agree with this viewpoint that being first to market does not necessarily ensure success. The reasons are as follows.

For a start, first to market does not mean first to catch the chance. The first one who just walk into the new area may not read the chance very well. The area, or the market, is totally to every entrepreneur, and the profit point of the market is unclear and need to be figured  out. The first entrepreneur may invest a lot of money and resources in the wrong direction, and when the market matures, he has no resources to invest. For instance, Apple, the first company to enter the PC market in the 1970s, literally earned a success at this market. However, ten years after dominating the market, its market share was completely defeated by Microsoft’s Windows system forever. It’s also Apple. After learning the lessons, when Nokia opened up and dominated the smart phone market until 2007, Apple launched the cross-era iphone, and seized the entire smartphone market at one stroke.

Meanwhile, first to market means invest more. The first one to the market means he need to open up the market and tap the profit points without any foundation, which means in short, need more invest. For example, Atari, an old game company in the United States, as a company that entered the game market very early, it really spent a lot of resources to exploit the video game market, including putting in TV advertisements and let people know the new game machines. However, due to lack of understanding of the players and eagerness to make quick profits, Adali’s company has failed completely in the competition with the new developing company Nintendo.And then, unable to get up again.

There is no denying that first to market is bad, but the essencial chance in the market can be easily be taken away by time to market challengers, and at that time the first entrepreneur may even lose the strength to resist to it.

—–Second posting:

Going public earlier is a good thing but it’s no longer a springboard for success. Of course, being first to market could get much more opportunities than other enterprises, especially marketing. Also, being first to market could help enterprises to get more market shares and foster much more loyal customers. In other words, being first to market could help the enterprise to success but not make sure success.

However, being first to market just only a part of success, it does not necessarily ensure success. If the company wants to succeed, there are a lot of complex processes. Only the enterprise continues to improve competitive power and creative power after going public, it can be survival for a long time. For example, Nokia, famous mobile brand, goes to market earlier than Apple. The reason why Apple is still survival and replace Nokia is that Apple upgrades and innovates their products constantly, such as facial recognition of the newest iPhone. Therefore, if the enterprise does not have long-term development strategies and innovation capability, failure is doomed, no matter the enterprise is first to market or not.

Besides, the enterprise should make sure the quality, design and function of products before going public. A host of companies only consider being first to market so they ignore details and qualities of products. Even though enterprises are first to markets, customers still will choose other products due to their products lace competitiveness. Therefore, enterprises will lose the best moment to develop.