Tied Goods and Consumer Switching Costs

References

• Arie G, Grieco PLE (2014) Who pays for switching costs? Quant. Marketing Econom. 12(4):379–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlton DW, Waldman M (2012) Upgrades, switching costs and the leverage theory of tying. Econom. J. 122(561):675–706.Google Scholar
• Chintagunta PK, Qin MS, Vitorino MA (2018) Licensing and price competition in tied-goods markets: An application to the single-serve coffee system industry. Marketing Sci. 37(6):883–911.Link, Google Scholar
• Derdenger T (2014) Technological tying and the intensity of price competition: An empirical analysis of the video game industry. Quant. Marketing Econom. 12(2):127–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Derdenger T, Kumar V (2019) Estimating dynamic discrete choice models with aggregate data: Properties of the inclusive value approximation. Quant. Marketing Econom. 17(4):359–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubé J-P, Hitsch GJ, Rossi PE (2009) Do switching costs make markets less competitive? J. Marketing Res. 46(4):435–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubé J-P, Hitsch GJ, Rossi PE (2010) State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia. RAND J. Econom. 41(3):417–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992).Google Scholar
• Economides N (1989) Desirability of compatibility in the absence of network externalities. Amer. Econom. Rev. 79(5):1165–1181.Google Scholar
• Ericson R, Pakes A (1995) Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. Rev. Econom. Stud. 62(1):53–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J, Klemperer P (2007) Coordination and lock-in: Competition with switching costs and network effects. Armstrong M, Porter R, eds. Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 3, 1967–2072.Crossref, Google Scholar
• F.T.C. v. QUALCOMM INC., 411 F.Supp.3d 658 (2019).Google Scholar
• Gowrisankaran G, Rysman M (2012) Dynamics of consumer demand for new durable goods. J. Political Econom. 120(6):1173–1219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Handel BR (2013) Adverse selection and inertia in health insurance markets: When nudging hurts. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(7):2643–2682.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartmann WR, Nair HS (2010) Retail competition and the dynamics of demand for tied goods. Marketing Sci. 29(2):366–386.Link, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (1981) Heterogeneity and state dependence. Rosen S, ed. Studies in Labor Markets. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 91–140.Google Scholar
• Hendel I, Nevo A (2006) Measuring the implications of sales and consumer inventory behavior. Econometrica 74(6):1637–1673.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Honka E (2014) Quantifying search and switching costs in the us auto insurance industry. RAND J. Econom. 45(4):847–884.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang Y (2019) Learning by doing and the demand for advanced products. Marketing Sci. 38(1):107–128.Link, Google Scholar
• Hurkens S, Jeon D-S, Menicucci D (2019) Dominance and competitive bundling. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 11(3):1–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamakura WA, Russell G (1989) A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Marketing Res. 26:379–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1994) Systems competition and network effects. J. Econom. Perspective 8(2):93–115.Google Scholar
• Klemperer P (1987) Markets with consumer switching costs. Quart. J. Econom. 102(2):375–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee RS (2012) Home videogame platforms. Peitz M, Waldfogel J, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy, 83–107. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-digital-economy-9780195397840?cc=us&lang=en&#.Google Scholar
• Lee RS (2013) Vertical integration and exclusivity in platform and two-sided markets. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(7):2960–3000.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li H (2019a) Intertemporal price discrimination with complementary products: E-books and e-readers. Management Sci. 65(6):2665–2694.Link, Google Scholar
• Li J (2019b) Compatibility and investment in the US electric vehicle market. Working paper. http://www.mit.edu/~lijing/.Google Scholar
• Liu X, Derdenger T, Sun B (2018) An empirical analysis of consumer purchase behavior of base products and add-ons given compatibility constraints. Marketing Sci. 37(4):569–591.Link, Google Scholar
• Magnac T, Thesmar D (2002) Identifying dynamic discrete decision processes. Econometrica 70(2):801–816.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marinoso BG (2001) Technological incompatibility, endogenous switching costs and lock-in. J. Indust. Econom. 49(3):281–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matutes C, Regibeau P (1988) “Mix and match”: product compatibility without network externalities. RAND J. Econom. 19(2):221–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Melnikov O (2013) Demand for differentiated durable products: The case of the US computer printer market. Econom. Inquiry 51(2):1277–1298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nair H (2007) Intertemporal price discrimination with forward-looking consumers: Application to the US market for console video-games. Quant. Marketing Econom. 5(3):239–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nair H, Chintagunta P, Dubé J-P (2004) Empirical analysis of indirect network effects in the market for personal digital assistants. Quant. Marketing Econom. 2(1):23–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavlidis P, Ellickson PB (2017) Implications of parent brand inertia for multiproduct pricing. Quant. Marketing Econom. 15(4):369–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petrin A (2002) Quantifying the benefits of new products: The case of the minivan. J. Political Econom. 110(4):705–729.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rhodes A (2014) Re-examining the effects of switching costs. Econom. Theory 57(1):161–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rust J (1987) Optimal replacement of GMC bus engines: An empirical model of Harold Zurcher. Econometrica 55(5):999–1033.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rust J (1994) Structural estimation of Markov decision processes. Engle RF, McFadden DL, eds. Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 4, 3081–3143.Google Scholar
• Shcherbakov O (2016) Measuring consumer switching costs in the television industry. RAND J. Econom. 47(2):366–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shy O (2001) The Economics of Network Industries (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Song I, Chintagunta PK (2003) A micromodel of new product adoption with heterogeneous and forward-looking consumers: Application to the digital camera category. Quant. Marketing Econom. 1(4):371–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (2001).Google Scholar
• Whinston MD (1990) Tying, foreclosure, and exclusion. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(4):837–859.Google Scholar
• Whinston MD (2001) Exclusivity and tying in US v. Microsoft: What we know, and don’t know. J. Econom. Perspect. 15(2):63–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhou J (2017) Competitive bundling. Econometrica 85(1):145–172.Crossref, Google Scholar