Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks

References

• Armstrong M (2006) Competition in two-sided markets. RAND J. Econom. 37(3):668–691.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Woodard CJ (2008) The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Woodard CJ (2009) The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Gawer A, ed. Platforms, Markets and Innovation (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK) 19–44.Google Scholar
• Barnett JM (2011) The host’s dilemma: Strategic forfeiture in platform markets for informational goods. Harvard Law Rev. 124(8):1863–1938.Google Scholar
• Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Management 17(1):99–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quart. 24(1):169–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau K (2010) Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Sci. 56(10):1849–1872.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ (2011) Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1409–1427.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Jeppesen LB (2015) Unpaid crowd complementors: The platform network effect mirage. Strategic Management J. 36(12):1761–1777.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bryant A, Charmaz K (2007) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (SAGE, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cennamo C, Santalo J (2013) Platform competition: Strategic trade-offs in platform markets. Strategic Management J. 34(11):1331–1350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, Gann DM (2010) How open is innovation? Res. Policy 39(6):699–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Reuver M, Sørensen C, Basole RC (2017) The digital platform: A research agenda. J. Inform. Tech., https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 23(4):660–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eaton B, Elauf-Calderwood S, Sørenson C, Yoo Y (2015) Distributed tuning of boundary resources: The case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Quart. 39(1):217–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenmann T, Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2011) Platform envelopment. Strategic Management J. 32(12):1270–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenmann T, Parker G, Van Alstyne MW (2006) Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84(10):92–101.Google Scholar
• Eisenmann TR, Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2008) Opening platforms: How, when and why? Working paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Saloner G (1992) Converters, compatibility, and the control of interfaces. J. Indust. Econom. 40(1):9–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Waguespack DM (2007) Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organ. Sci. 18(2):165–180.Link, Google Scholar
• Gamalielsson J, Lundell B (2014) Sustainability of open source software communities beyond a fork: How and why has the Libre Office project evolved? J. Systems Software 89:128–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A, Henderson R (2007) Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. J. Econom. Management Strategy 16(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghazawneh A, Henfridsson O (2013) Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: The boundary resources model. Inform. Systems J. 23(2):173–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karhu K, Tang T, Hämäläinen M (2014) Analyzing competitive and collaborative differences among mobile ecosystems using abstracted strategy networks. Telematics Informatics 31(2):319–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koch T, Windsperger J (2017) Seeing through the network: Competitive advantage in the digital economy. J. Organ. Design 6(1):6.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavie D (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):638–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Reese RA (2003) Reducing digital copyright infringement without restricting innovation. Stan L. Rev. 56:1345.Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Tirole J (2002) Some simple economics of open source. J. Indust. Econom. 50(2):197–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Menell PS (2016) API copyrightability bleak house: Unraveling and repairing the Oracle v. Google jurisdictional mess. Berkeley Tech. Law J. 31(3):1515–1595.Google Scholar
• Nalebuff BJ, Brandenburger AM (1996) Co-Opetition (HarperCollins, London).Google Scholar
• Nyman L, Lindman J (2013) Code forking, governance, and sustainability in open source software. Tech. Innovation Management Rev. 3(1):7–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nyman L, Mikkonen T, Lindman J, Fougère M (2012) Perspectives on code forking and sustainability in open source software. Hammouda I, Lundell B, Mikkonen T, Scacchi W, eds. Open Source Systems: Long-Term Sustainability, IFIP Adv. Inform. Comm. Tech., Vol. 378 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg), 274–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2009) Six challenges in platform licensing and open innovation. Working paper, Tulane University, New Orleans.Google Scholar
• Parker GG, Van Alstyne MW (2005) Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Sci. 51(10):1494–1504.Link, Google Scholar
• Pon B, Seppälä T, Kenney M (2014) Android and the demise of operating system-based power: Firm strategy and platform control in the post-PC world. Telecomm. Policy 38(11):979–991.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robles G, González-Barahona JM (2012) A comprehensive study of software forks: Dates, reasons and outcomes. Hammouda I, Lundell B, Mikkonen T, Scacchi W, eds. Open Source Systems: Long-Term Sustainability, IFIP Adv. Inform. Comm. Tech., Vol. 378 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg), 1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rochet JC, Tirole J (2003) Platform competition in two-sided markets. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 1(4):990–1029.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rumelt RP (1984) Toward a strategic theory of the firm. Lamb R, ed. Competitive Strategic Management (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), 556–570.Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (2000) Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad. Management Rev. 25(2):312–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schreieck M, Wiesche M, Krcmar H (2016) Design and governance of platform ecosystems-key concepts and issues for future research. Working paper, Technical University of Munich, Munich.Google Scholar
• Simcoe T, Watson J (2016) Forking, fragmentation and splintering. Working paper, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Sun M, Tse E (2009) The resource-based view of competitive advantage in two-sided markets. J. Management. Stud. 46(1):45–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Sørensen C (2010) Research commentary–Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):748–759.Link, Google Scholar
• Tilson D, Sørensen C, Lyytinen K (2012) Change and control paradoxes in mobile infrastructure innovation: The Android and iOS mobile operating systems cases. Proc. 45th Hawaii Internat. Conf. Systems Sci. (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA),1324–1333.Google Scholar
• Tiwana A (2013) Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy (Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham, MA).Google Scholar
• Tiwana A, Konsynski B, Bush AA (2010) Research commentary–Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):675–687.Link, Google Scholar
• Vesa M, Vaara E (2014) Strategic ethnography 2.0: Four methods for advancing strategy process and practice research. Strategic Organ. 12(4):288–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vetter GR (2016) Opportunistic free and open source software development pathways. Harvard J. Law Tech. 30(1):S167.Google Scholar
• Viseur R (2012) Forks impacts and motivations in free and open source projects. Internat. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 3(2):117–122.Google Scholar
• von Krogh G, von Hippel E (2006) The promise of research on open source software. Management Sci. 52(7):975–983.Link, Google Scholar
• Wade M, Hulland J (2004) Review: The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quart. 28(1):107–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wareham J, Fox PB, Cano Giner JL (2014) Technology ecosystem governance. Organ. Sci. 25(4):1195–1215.Link, Google Scholar
• West J (2003) How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Res. Policy 32(7):1259–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• West J, Bogers M (2014) Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. J. Prod. Innovation Management 31(4):814–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• West J, Gallagher S (2006) Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. RD Management 36(3):319–331.Google Scholar
• West J, O’Mahony S (2008) The role of participation architecture in growing sponsored open source communities. Indust. Innovation 15(2):145–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wheeler D (2015) Why open source software/free software (OSS/FS, FOSS, or FLOSS)? Look at the Numbers!, https://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#forking.Google Scholar
• Williamson PJ, Meyer AD (2012) Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully harness the power of partners. California Management Rev. 55(1):24–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Yoo CS (2016) Open source, modular platforms, and the challenge of fragmentation. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Henfridsson O, Lyytinen K (2010) Research commentary–The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):724–735.Link, Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1398–1408.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhu F, Iansiti M (2012) Entry into platform-based markets. Strategic Management J. 33(1):88–106.Crossref, Google Scholar