Link to this bio Mitchell Baker co-founded the Mozilla Project to support the open, innovative web and ensure it continues offering opportunities for everyone.
Obviously, Apple are doing very well as is. Nor the motivation, probably, as it is not a very ego-boosting business either. And maybe train new praetorians divas? Kizedek Yeah, that is perhaps exactly what they did.
You raise an interesting point: Perhaps we can look at not only org structure from functional vs divisional perspective, but also products from those perspectives as well.
But what you apparently see as a disadvantage or weakness, may just as well be a strength. I think this is how other companies naturally look at their products — along their own org divisional lines. And this is why they have crises and have to make major adjustments when the markets change.
So, lack of bandwidth may have something to do with it; conversely, that means Apple has focus. It may simply be the case that Apple long ago recognized what others are discovering: As opposed to trying to cover a whole broad market, Enterprise, and all its myriad requirements.
Like, not making a device that is supposed to be both a mobile touch device for consumers and an enterprise device yes, I am thinking of the Surface, a product that is no good for either market. Therefore, I think what Apple has done makes good sense: Yes, surely, this is largely related to their being more functional oriented as a organization as well.
Surely, that is an advantage or a strength? Then, high-profile and head-line grabbing or not, Apple does enjoy large sales to certain functional segments of the market: The iPad, which is consumer-facing but highly functional and flexibleis doing very well in enterprise.
You think Apple is big now? At the very least a larger screen iPad. This shift is sneaking up on most people.
Not to mention Corporate email, calendaring and Intranet browsing via Good for Enterprise. Spike McLarty Reading this comment two years later — looking pretty smart already, Space Gorilla.
M Based on what Ballmer said. Looks like he has been reading Horace and wants Microsft to be more like Apple. Good luck with that.For example, how Nokia organized its organization structure, features, strategic issues, and key challenges. What business functions, processes, cores are Nokia concentrate more in.
How the goals and strategy has been accomplished. Apr 30, · Nokia’s revenue fell 15 percent, to € billion, over the same period, primarily because of reduced sales and asset divestments from the company’s telecom infrastructure unit, according to.
Microsoft organizational structure can be classified as divisional. In June , the senior management announced a change in Microsoft organizational structure to align to its strategic direction as a productivity and platform company.
A new leadership team and organizational structure with a clear focus on speed, results and accountability Nokia plans to form a "strategic partnership with Microsoft to build a global mobile ecosystem based on highly complementary assets". The following chart shows Nokia's organizational structure: Nokia India Private Limited first started operations in India in , and presently operates out of offices in Gurgaon, New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, covering the whole of .
Nokia's Evolving Organizational Structure "" " 2" " Abstract Departmentalization is very significant and plays a very important role in determining.