Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
This case describes some of the largest platform companies in the real-world today and describes their different market positions. As we think about where they startedAmazon with retailing, Google with search, Apple with computers, and Facebook with social networkingthey have moved into new markets and often into each other’s markets. In some cases, the companies have established partnerships to collaborate and fill in the missing parts to their platform portfolios. We use this case to help understand the more complicated nature of digital markets and platforms among some of the largest companies in the world, which just happen to be IT companies!
Instructions
Read the Case Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google (CP), and answer questions- 2 pages
Case write up questions:
1. If you had to characterize each company’s relationship with each other company, what is the most competitive of these relationships? Which one is the most cooperative? Why?
2. Given their positions in the market, which company’s IT strategy is the best positioned to become a winner-take-all? Why?
3. If you had to invest a $1,000 in one of these four companies, which one would it be? Why?
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow |
Analyze the Water Footprint Results