Imagine a desert, vast and unforgiving. The world of business has a desert of competition. And in this desert and disruption, your business needs an oasis – a core, highly defensible, and profitable area where you are the undisputed leader, or at least a very, very strong player. This is your “One Oasis” as I postulated in Harvard.

Think of it like this: for Amazon, initially, it was the dominant online bookstore. For Google, it was search. For a local restaurant, it might be their signature dish and the loyal customer base it attracts. This oasis is your wellspring, the source of your strength, your brand recognition, and your consistent revenue. It’s where you’ve built deep moats – be it through network effects, superior technology, exceptional customer service, or a unique value proposition that competitors struggle to replicate. You nurture this oasis, you defend it fiercely, and you ensure it remains vibrant and healthy.

As in a natural desert, the oasis is the source of life. Your business one oasis is the strength of your firm in that desert of competition.

But in today’s dynamic markets, relying solely on one oasis is risky. The desert winds of change can shift, and even the most robust oasis can face unforeseen challenges. This is where the “Double Play Strategy” comes in. It’s about strategically leveraging the strength of your core oasis to explore and cultivate adjacent opportunities. These aren’t wild, unrelated ventures; they are logical extensions of your core competencies and customer base.

Think of Amazon expanding from books to e-commerce, then to cloud computing (AWS). Alibaba and AliPay. Each move built upon their existing infrastructure, customer data, and technological capabilities. Google moved from search to online advertising, then to Android mobile OS – again, leveraging their core strengths in data and user engagement.

The “Double Play” isn’t about chasing every shiny object. It’s about making calculated bets in areas where your oasis provides a significant advantage. It could be serving a new customer segment, offering a complementary product or service, or utilizing your existing technology in a new application. The key is synergy. The double play should not only generate new revenue streams but also strengthen your core oasis in the long run, creating a virtuous cycle of growth and resilience.

So, the “One Oasis and Double Play Strategy” is about focus and expansion. Building an unshakeable foundation in one key area and then intelligently deploying those strengths to conquer new, related territories. It’s about not just surviving the desert, but thriving by having a reliable source of sustenance and strategically exploring for new fertile grounds.

On July 1 2025, Blucera Market market.blucera.com will go live with dozens of The Great Lectures. This course explains the application of One Oasis and Double Play in business, using business cases from familiar firms like Alibaba, Amazon, Dangote Cement, etc.

The Trump Organization’s recently launched Trump Mobile venture, which includes its own branded smartphone—the T1 Phone 8002 (Gold Edition)—is already facing scrutiny, as its most distinctive marketing claim has quietly vanished.

Once boldly touted as “MADE IN THE USA,” that label is no longer anywhere to be found on the official Trump Mobile website, raising fresh concerns about the phone’s authenticity, origin, and the viability of U.S.-based smartphone production.

Previously, the Trump Mobile homepage prominently featured a banner celebrating American manufacturing. Now, that statement has been replaced by carefully worded alternatives like “Proudly American,” “Designed with American values in mind,” and mentions of “American hands behind every device.” But none of these vague reassurances explicitly state where the phone is actually manufactured, designed, or assembled.

The change lends weight to what experts and supply chain analysts have long insisted: it is virtually impossible to manufacture affordable smartphones entirely within the United States, at least at a price point competitive with devices produced in China, Taiwan, or Vietnam.

A Silent U-Turn from a Signature Promise

The T1’s marketing had leaned heavily on nationalist messaging, echoing Donald Trump’s longstanding campaign to “bring manufacturing back to America.” This approach appeared consistent with his public pressure on Apple, where he urged the tech giant to produce iPhones and other consumer hardware in the U.S. That pressure never materialized into large-scale shifts. Apple continued to rely almost exclusively on its Chinese manufacturing partners, especially Foxconn, citing the deep specialization, scale, and cost advantages of Asia’s electronics industry.

The T1 phone’s quiet rebranding now appears to validate Apple’s position—and expose the limits of Trump’s economic messaging when confronted with the realities of globalized manufacturing.

The confusion doesn’t end with origin claims. The phone’s technical specifications have also changed without notice. Originally listed with a 6.78-inch AMOLED screen and 12GB of RAM, the T1’s updated site now shows a 6.25-inch screen, with no mention of RAM at all. This has prompted speculation that Trump Mobile has changed suppliers or downgraded components, though the Trump Organization has offered no clarification.

Shipping dates are similarly in flux. Once slated for September 2025, the only current commitment on the website is a vague “later this year.” Meanwhile, the product images remain unchanged—visibly photoshopped and offering no real look at a functioning prototype.

Made in the USA? A Myth for Phones

Tech analysts argue that the removal of the “Made in the USA” language is not surprising, but rather inevitable. It is believed that the infrastructure doesn’t exist, and the costs would put any device well out of the consumer market.

Companies like Google and Apple, which design their phones in California, still manufacture nearly all of their components abroad, where specialized suppliers offer economies of scale, mature logistics, and a trained labor force that the U.S. currently lacks in electronics assembly.

The Trump Mobile episode thus reinforces what critics have long argued: repatriating smartphone manufacturing may be politically popular but economically unworkable unless Americans are willing to pay several times more for devices already available at far lower cost from Asia.

A Political Product, Not a Real Competitor?

Some tech experts believe the T1 was never meant to compete with mainstream smartphones. Instead, they see it as a symbolic product, marketed toward Trump supporters as a gesture of brand loyalty, national pride, and anti-globalist sentiment. But even symbolic products must be physically delivered—and that now appears in doubt.

As of now, there’s no evidence the T1 is in mass production. No third-party reviewers have received the phone, no samples have been shown publicly, and no retailer or carrier partnerships have been confirmed.

Trump Mobile’s fading promises, shifting details, and growing opacity are only adding to skepticism. Without clear proof of production or delivery, the T1 is beginning to look more like a marketing stunt than a viable entry into the competitive smartphone market.

The Trump Mobile T1 may still ship “later this year.” But for now, it appears to be yet another patriotic promise running up against global economic reality.

As a young Lagos banker, many years ago, from the IT department, I went to the Admin department to understand the workflows and potentially support the development of technologies to make the unit more efficient.

As I spent time in the Admin unit, I saw that courier firms were coming every minute of the day to pick mails and packages. I went to the head of the mail unit and asked him to share his records over the last three months. I noticed many things including that pickups were not optimized. In other words, he could be sending items from the head office to a branch three times the same day; a branch manager could order pencils, head of operations rulers and branch internal controller staplers – and those would be sent separately on the same day. (Purchases were centralized at the head office for bulk discounts).

Using my data, I explained to my amazing big boss, and proposed a policy that would compel branches to plan requests to enable consolidation and cost efficiency. Within months, courier costs dropped by 37%. (My amazing big boss excluded financial instruments from my proposal; so, things like share certificates were not delayed).

Drawing from that experience, I have a question for entry level workers: “what can you do better in that company?” Can you Rethink The Firm for Success? Do you know that you are there to make an impact? By changing a simple process, you can save a firm money and advance the mission. As you have that professional persona, everyone will notice that anywhere you go, things become better, and a great career will be unlocked. Do It!