从目标营销、研究和产品设计来看，苹果公司比三星公司更注重组织性。Proctor(2014)认为，苹果在设计和集成方面是成功的，风险程度也不小。In is指出，整个苹果营收的四分之三来自iPhone的销售。另一方面，外包硬件组件生产的研发成本与三星不同。值得注意的是，苹果公司的市场份额由三星主导(Alden and Nariswari, 2017)。这种市场份额被三星夺走的局面，将迫使领导者们改善目前的竞争地位。
Before making the comparison with Apple Inc. it can be mentioned that Samsung also competed with the Japanese technology organisations in the year of 1980 and 1990. This organisation spends a fortune on the capital expenditures and also on the research and development. Therefore, this pay offs would run in lower end and the mid end markets, whereas the higher end products would run into juggernaut such as Apple. In the points of Chaston (2014), Samsung focused on the vertical integrity as their competitive advantage. Apple imports billions of dollars’ cost from the opponent every session, whereas Samsung is obliged to nobody.
From the point of target marketing, research and the design of the products, Apple Inc. is highly focused organisation than Samsung. According to Proctor (2014), Apple is successful in the designing and integration and no smaller degree of risk. In is noted that the three-quarters of the entire Apple revenue is coming from the sale of iPhone. On the other hand, the Research and development cost by the production of outsourcing hardware component is different from Samsung. It is noted that the market share of Apple Inc. is dominated by Samsung (Alden and Nariswari, 2017). This loss of the market share to Samsung would be forced to the leaders to improve their current competitive position.