Comparison of User Perceived Value: Apple TV Vs. Google TV

817 views
699 views

Published on

This presentation was developed as a team assignment for MSCI 602 course in the Management Science Department, University of Waterloo.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
817
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Comparison of User Perceived Value: Apple TV Vs. Google TV

  1. 1. 1
  2. 2. Comparison ofUser Perceived Value:Apple TV Vs. Google TV28th February 2012Business IntelligenceTechnology Evaluation (BITE) Team 8A: Ahmed Ali Asad Umer Shaheen Malik Syed Sohail Javaad
  3. 3. Our Objective• To perform a head-to-head comparison of Google TV vs Apple TV with a focus on user- perceived value• Methodology for planning, gathering and summarizing the end-user evidence• Analysis 3
  4. 4. Google TV 4
  5. 5. Google TV• Available as a stand alone device and integrated with major TV brands like SONY• Supports up to 1080p resolution• Wi-Fi, Ethernet, HDMI and Blu-ray player• Picture-in-Picture (PIP)• Wireless controller – QWERTY based keyboard – Android devices and IPhones• Android based (open source) platform• 5.1 and 7.1 audio supported to give a real surround sound experience• Supports One Touch DVR recording• Browser with full HTML and flash support• Costs around USD 400 5
  6. 6. Apple TV• Launched in March 2006; 2nd Generation introduced in 2010• No hard drive; but cloud based storage available• AIRPLAY and Mirroring technology• Wi-Fi, Ethernet, HDMI port and “stylish” wireless controller• Smaller size with iPhone as remote control• Ad-free HD 720p movies and TV shows from iTunes – Rental from ITunes: For an HD movie from iTunes - 4.99 USD and a TV show 0.99 USD• Music and Pictures can be accessed through icloud or other iOS devices• Apps for YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr• Apple TV does not support Flash• Cost: USD 100 6
  7. 7. Apple TV 7
  8. 8. User Perceived Value• “consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of what is received and what is given.” (Zeithaml, V. A. 1988) – Implies: “Quality” and “Price”• “superior value to the buyer in terms of product quality, special features, or after-sale service.” (Porter, M. E. (1990)) – Implies: User perception is much more than quality and price• A four-dimensional conceptualization of user value is adapted from other studies (Sweeney Jillian C, S. G. (2001); Wang Yonggui, L. H.-P. (2004); Zeithaml, V. A. 1988); and applied to internet TV 8
  9. 9. User Perceived Value: Dimensions Functional The utility a market offering provides through its expected performance and perceived quality 9
  10. 10. User Perceived Value: Dimensions Economic The utility an offering provides in proportion to the overall costs 10
  11. 11. User Perceived Value: Dimensions Emotional The utility an offering creates through feelings or affective states 11
  12. 12. User Perceived Value: Dimensions Social The utility a market offering provides through its ability to enhance the individual’s social self-concept 12
  13. 13. Methodology• Approach used by Sweeny and Soutar (2001) – Focus groups for variable identification for measuring User Perceived Value – Survey administration – Use of statistical techniques (Principal Component Analysis) for identifying four dimensions for measuring perceived value: • Functional • Emotional • Economical • Social 13
  14. 14. Our Methodology – Step 1Variable selection:• Used Internet Research for identifying variables• Examined about 3000 comments from: – Selected YouTube videos of Apple and Google TV – Selected blogs from websites like wired.com, pcmag.com• From these comments, identified about 40 different aspects that the users valued• Converted these 40 aspects into 17 variables 14
  15. 15. VariablesVar 1 Overall this product is value for my moneyVar 2 The content on this product is going to be very expensiveVar 3 This device is expensiveVar 4 Superior designVar 5 Overall content being offered is greatVar 6 Faced/likely to face technical problemsVar 7 I will buy this product because I like this companyVar 8 Portability - Seamless Integration with other home devicesVar 9 Adequate live TV programming is availableVar 10 Open source / Software portabilityVar 11 Better quality and performanceVar 12 This product is more like a real TVVar 13 This product is more like a computer; I can do anything that I want to doVar 14 This product is easy to useVar 15 This device has more featuresVar 16 It is cool to own this productVar 17 I want this product because this company is a leader and an innovator 15
  16. 16. Methodology – Step 2: Survey• Questionnaire: – Likert Scale (1-5): 1 strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree – Respondents were asked: • To rate their preferences for Apple TV and Google TV • To identify their intent of purchase – Apple TV, Google TV or Other Product – No personal information was collected 16
  17. 17. Methodology – Step 2: Survey• Survey Administration: – In store: selected randomly across Ontario – Respondents who showed their interest in either Apple TV or Google TV were approached before they left – 200 responses were gathered 17
  18. 18. Methodology – Step 3: Analysis• Data Analysis – Basic Statistics – Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify underlying factors • PCA is a an statistical technique that identifies underlying dimensions based on correlations within variables • First PCA was done using SPSS software to identify and verify dimensions related to user perceived value; separately for Google and Apple TV • Then PCA was performed on combined responses to identify product-related trends 18
  19. 19. Results: Basic Statistics for Apple TV I want this product because this company is a leader and an innovator It is cool to own this product This device has more features This product is easy to useThis product is more like a computer; I can do anything that I want to do This product is more like a real TV Better quality and performance Open source / Software portability Live TV programming is available Portability - Seamless Integration with other home devices I will buy this product because I like this company Faced/likely to face technical problems Overall content being offered is great Superior design This device is expensive The content on this product is going to be very expensive Overall this product is value for my money 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 19
  20. 20. Results: Basic Statistics for Google TV I want this product because this company is a leader and an innovator It is cool to own this product This device has more features This product is easy to useThis product is more like a computer; I can do anything that I want to do This product is more like a real TV Better quality and performance Open source / Software portability Live TV programming is available Portability - Seamless Integration with other home devices I will buy this product because I like this company Faced/likely to face technical problems Overall content being offered is great Superior design This device is expensive The content on this product is going to be very expensive Overall this product is value for my money 10 20 30 40 50 60 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 20
  21. 21. Results: Intent to Purchase Apple TV Other 29% 16% Will not buy any thing 15% Google TV 40% Almost 16% said that they will buy other devices like Xbox, Wii, PS, Boxee etc 21
  22. 22. Results: PCA for Apple TV Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component % of Cumulative Total Variance % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.694 23.089 23.089 3.694 23.089 23.089 3.566 22.288 22.288 2 2.590 16.188 39.277 2.590 16.188 39.277 2.641 16.504 38.791 3 1.868 11.673 50.950 1.868 11.673 50.950 1.814 11.335 50.127 4 1.795 11.216 62.166 1.795 11.216 62.166 1.730 10.814 60.941 5 1.378 8.610 70.776 1.378 8.610 70.776 1.574 9.835 70.776 6 .800 5.000 75.776 7 .721 4.507 80.283 8 .565 3.529 83.812 9 .548 3.422 87.234 10 .495 3.096 90.330 11 .376 2.349 92.678 12 .342 2.136 94.814 13 .256 1.599 96.413 14 .234 1.462 97.875 15 .212 1.325 99.200 16 .128 .800 100.000Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 22
  23. 23. Results: PCA for Apple TV Variance Variable Component ExplainedOverall this product is value for my moneyThe content on this product is going to be very expensive Economic 11.6%This device is expensiveSuperior designOverall content being offered is great Emotional 16%Faced/likely to face technical problemsI will buy this product because I like this companyPortability - Seamless Integration with other home devicesAdequate live TV programming is availableOpen source / Software portability Functional 23%Better quality and performanceThis product is more like a computer; I can do anything that I want to doThis product is more like a real TV Personal 11.2%This product is easy to useIt is cool to own this product Social 8.6%I want this product because this company is a leader and an innovator 23
  24. 24. Perception: Apple TV• Functionality is most important• Has an emotional attachment with apple• Attaches equal importance to personal and economic reasons• Economic reasons are at a lower level 24
  25. 25. Results: PCA for Google TV Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared LoadingsComponent Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 5.605 32.971 32.971 5.605 32.971 32.971 5.505 32.383 32.383 2 2.796 16.450 49.420 2.796 16.450 49.420 2.748 16.165 48.548 3 2.248 13.221 62.642 2.248 13.221 62.642 2.380 14.000 62.548 4 1.576 9.269 71.911 1.576 9.269 71.911 1.592 9.363 71.911 5 .859 5.055 76.966 6 .713 4.197 81.163 7 .593 3.488 84.651 8 .566 3.329 87.980 9 .425 2.502 90.482 10 .404 2.375 92.857 11 .336 1.979 94.837 12 .270 1.591 96.428 13 .186 1.091 97.519 14 .156 .918 98.437 15 .121 .710 99.147 16 .078 .460 99.607 17 .067 .393 100.000Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 25
  26. 26. Results: PCA for Google TV Variable Component Variance ExplainedOverall this product is value for my moneyThe content on this product is going to be very expensive Economic 14%This device is expensiveSuperior designOverall content being offered is great Emotional 16.2%Faced/likely to face technical problemsI will buy this product because I like this companyPortability - Seamless Integration with other home devicesAdequate live TV programming is availableOpen source / Software portabilityBetter quality and performance Functional 33%This product is more like a real TVThis product is more like a computer; I can do anything that I want to doThis product is easy to useThis device has more featuresIt is cool to own this product Social 9.4%I want this product because this company is a leader and an innovator 26
  27. 27. Perception: Google TV• Functionality is most important• Showed an emotional attachment with Google• Attached more importance to economic reasons as compared to Apple users• Social reasons are at a lower level 27
  28. 28. Results: Comparison* Google TV Apple TV Variable Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree Overall this product is value for my money 65 34 - 5 31 64Economic The content on this product is going to be very expensive 64 35 - 4 35 62 This device is expensive 7 32 60 78 18 5 Superior design 69 30 - - 35 66 Overall content being offered is great - 18 82 34 33 34Emotional Faced/likely to face technical problems 16 36 47 70 30 - I will buy this product because I like this company 38 33 28 - 13 87 Portability - Seamless Integration with other home devices 100 - - - 39 62 Live TV programming is available - 47 53 63 38 - Open source / Software portability - - 100 82 18 - Better quality and performance 48 40 11 - 36 64Functional This product is more like a real TV 78 21 - 12 15 74 This product is more like a computer; I can do anything that I want to do - 39 60 77 23 - This product is easy to use - 38 62 6 45 50 This device has more features - 33 67 43 26 32 It is cool to own this product 31 39 29 - 28 72 Social I want this product because this company is a leader and an 68 32 - - 14 87 innovator*1-5 scale transformed to 1-3 scale for better comparison; comparison based onPrincipal Component Analysis of combined cases 28
  29. 29. Perception about Apple TV• Functionality is most important: – Quality and performance of Apple TV is better – It integrates well with other (Apple) home devices (probably Airplay) – While the device has less features, it is more closer to TV and is easier to use – Adequate live programming is not available• Has an emotional attachment with apple • Apple TV has superior design and they are less likely to face technical problems • And they will buy this product because they like Apple brand!• Economic reasons are at a lower level but think that: – Apple TV is value for money! – While the device is not expensive the content is!• It is socially cool to own this device• Want Apple TV because the company is a leader and innovator! 29
  30. 30. Perception about Google TV• Functionality is most important – The device is like a computer with more features – It is easier to use – Software is open source and more live TV content can be accessed (probably because of HTML and Flash) – But the device may not be superior in quality and performance – The device is not portable with other home entertainment devices• Showed an emotional attachment with Google – Content is better than Apple… – …but design is not great and they are more likely to face technical issues – Brand “Google” is less likely to play a significant role in purchase decision• Attached more importance to economic reasons as compared to Apple users – More people thought that the device is very expensive but the content is not!! – However, two-third think that the device is not value for money (and one third remained neutral)• Social reasons are at a lower level 30
  31. 31. Apple TV Vs Google TV• Apple is a stronger “brand” than Google• Apple TV is more likely to perform better than Google TV• Apple TV is more like a TV but Google is more like a computer (strategic intent!!)• The cost of content (software, movies, TV shows etc) on Apple TV is more than Google TV (probably Google will be free!!) 31
  32. 32. What Google is doing?• Released Improved version 2.01• Updating its TV Software2• Will shortly release its new app for You Tube3• Partnering with more TV manufaturers4• There are even “rumors” that Google is introducing new hardware changes (Tungsten) that would serve as a hub for integrating all Android devices5 1. http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/03/google-tv-v2-review-its-getting-closer/ 2. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-12/google-readies-next-version- of-tv-software-for-2012-release.html 3. http://googletv.blogspot.com/ 4. http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2012/01/10/lg-on-google-tv- beating-samsung-and-sales-targets-for-oled-tv/ 5. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400159,00.asp 32
  33. 33. Recommendation – 1:• Steps in the right direction• But Google need to spread the word better!!• Improve availability of in-store device information• Improve brand image• Reduce cost and improve perceived economic value!! 33
  34. 34. Recommendation – 2:• TV live (and time-recorded) content will be the most important factor in the war of IP-TVs• because… 34
  35. 35. Market Analysis: TV Viewing USSource: http://www.slideshare.net/genarobardy/nielsen-crossplatform-report-q1-2011 35
  36. 36. Market Analysis: US Source: http://www.slideshare.net/genarobardy/nielsen-crossplatform-report-q1-2011 36
  37. 37. A Threat and a Weakness: • Huge opportunity for Google in TV Market but…. • Only about 50% of the respondents think that adequate live TV programs are available on Google TV as compared to Apple TV • Worse: About ¾ of respondents think that Apple is more like a TV as compared to Google 37
  38. 38. Recommendation - 2 • Content is the KEY!!!1 • Google TV just can’t rely only on You Tube • It has to enter into strategic partnerships with (major) studios for live content including sports • But it might not be an easy task2 • More importantly it has to use its core competency (aka “AdSense”) and provide ad- free content to consumers at even lesser cost than Cable TV or (or even Apple TV) 1. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364068,00.asp 2: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/cable-google-tv-revolution/ 38
  39. 39. Recommendation - 3 • Remember: Almost 15% of respondents think that they will buy other devices (Xbox, Wii, Play Station) • Gaming is important too!! • Consider strategic partnerships with gaming companies too • Provide Gaming hardware too but only as an add-on option 39
  40. 40. Work CitedPorter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: MacMillanPress.Sweeney Jillian C, S. G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of amultiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.Wang Yonggui, L. H.-P. (2004). An Integrated Framework for Service Quality, CustomerValue, Satisfaction: Evidence from Chinas Telecommunication Industry. InformationSystems Frontiers, 6(4), 325-340.Zeithaml, V. A. (1988, July). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: AMeans-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22. 40
  41. 41. That’s all from us… Questions are Welcome!! 41

×