In addition to Google, LLC (Google) facing multiple litigations around the globe, India’s antitrust watchdog, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), had recently launched its own investigation into the company. This was not the first occasion of an antitrust probe being initiated against Google in international markets. The company had already paid an astonishing US$ 9 billion in fines for abusing Android’s dominant position in the smartphone market to boost its dominance in other areas, such as web searching, browsing, and mobile apps. In 2019, Google was in trouble in India, again, for similar reasons. The CCI alleged that Google forced smartphone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser on their devices, thus misusing its dominant position by stopping smartphone manufacturers from opting for alternative versions of its mobile operating system (OS). However, Google strongly denied these allegations, arguing that it had not indulged in anti-competitive practices; rather, it claimed it had promoted relevant market competition.<br><br> Which marketing practices of Google invited the antitrust probe and allegations of abuse of their dominant position in India? Why were competition watchdogs concerned about the growing dominance of Google in the Indian mobile operating software (OS) market? In an oligopolistic market comprising multiple players, why did the CCI consider Google to be a dominant player in the Indian mobile OS market? Could Google do something to avoid antitrust lawsuits and allegations of abuse of dominance in the future?
This case deals with an exporting challenge faced by Ferro Industries, a small enterprise within the steel industry in India. The company’s manufacturing facility was located in the National Capital Region of Delhi. Ferro’s main products were roll-forming machines, cut-to-length lines, and slitting lines; the company was one of only three firms in the Indian sub-continent catering to the market for such products. This case raises two basic questions in relation to Ferro’s role as an exporter. Firstly, at what stage should an importer have to pay an exporter? Secondly, should the exporter release consignment to the importer before receiving payment? The case illustrates the challenges of exporting and international entrepreneurship for a small firm, taking into account payment risk, product pricing, deal-making strategies, promotional strategy, and client-management strategies. It also addresses the complexities involved in the decision-making process while exporting, as well as outlining various conflict-resolution techniques for closing a deal effectively while considering the appropriateness of taking risks.
This case deals with the challenges faced at L’Oseraie, a nursing home located in the northeast of France. The director of L’Oseraie had to meet her new boss and brief him on the organization’s challenges while offering suggestions. A key obstacle involved employee motivation and engagement, particularly after a recent absenteeism episode. Furthermore, the lack of health care staff in France meant that employees might need to be sourced from abroad, perhaps from Eastern Europe or the French-speaking countries of North Africa. How could the director implement a strategy that would alleviate the day-to-day problems of the nursing home?