Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control

References

• Almirall E., Casadesus-Masanell R. Open vs. integrated innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Acad. Management Rev. (2010) 35(1):27–47Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A., Bokhari F. Open versus closed firms and the dynamics of industry evolution. J. Indust. Econom. (2007) 55(3):499–527Crossref, Google Scholar
• Augereau A., Greenstein S., Rysman M. Coordination versus differentiation in a standards war: The adoption of 56K modems. RAND J. Econom. (2006) 37(4):887–909Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C., Clark K.The Power of Modularity (2000) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C., Woodard J., Gawer A. The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Platforms, Markets and Innovation (2009) (Edward Elgar, London) 19–44Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becchetti L., Paganetto L. The determinants of suboptimal technological development in the system company-component producers relationship. Inter. J. Indust. Organ. (2001) 19(9):1407–1421Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besen S., Farrell J. Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in standardization. J. Econom. Perspect. (1994) 8(2):117–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau K. How open should an open system be? Empirical essays on mobile computing. (2006) . Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Boudreau K. Does opening a platform stimulate innovation? The effect on systemic and modular innovations. (2007) . MIT Sloan Research Paper 4611-06, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. http://ssrn.com/abstract=913402Google Scholar
• Boudreau K., Hagiu A., Gawer A. Platform rules: Multi-sided platforms as regulators. Platforms, Markets and Innovation (2009) (Edward Elgar, London) 163–191Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau K., Lakhani K. How to manage outside innovation: Competitive markets or collaborative communities? Sloan Management Rev. (2009) 50(4):69–76Google Scholar
• Bresnahan T., Greenstein S. Technological competition and the structure of the computer industry. J. Indust. Econom. (1999) 47(1):1–40Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butters A., Pogue D.Piloting Palm: The Inside Story of Palm, Handspring. And the Birth of the Billion Dollar Handheld Industry (2002) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Cameron C., Trivedi P.Regression Analysis of Count Data (1998) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R., Ghemawat P. Dynamic mixed duopoly: A model motivated by Linux vs. Windows. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):1072–1084Link, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R., Boudreau K., Mitchell J. Palm (A): The debate on licensing palm's OS. (2008) . HBS Case 708-514, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Chesbrough H.Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (2003) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H., Vanhaverbeke W., West J.Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (2006) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
• Choi J., Lee G., Stefanadis C. The effects of integration on R&D incentives in systems markets. Netnomics (2003) 5(1):21–32Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen C., Verlinden M., Westerman G. Disruption, disintegration and the dissipation of differentiability. Indust. Corporate Change (2002) 11(5):955–993Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chwelos P., Berndt E., Cockburn I. Faster, smaller, cheaper: An hedonic price analysis of PDAs. (2004) . NBER Working Paper 10746, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W., Nelson R., Walsh J. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). (2000) . NBER Working Paper 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Cusumano M., Selby R.Microsoft Secrets: How the World's Most Powerful Software Company Creates Technology, Shapes Markets and Manages People (1995) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Cusumano M., Mylonadis Y., Rosenbloom R. Strategic maneuvering and mass-market dynamics: The triumph of VHS over Beta. Bus. Hist. Rev. (1992) 66(1):51–94Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis S., Murphy K. A competitive perspective on Internet Explorer. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2000) 90(2):184–187Crossref, Google Scholar
• Economides N. Network externalities, complementarities and invitations to enter. Eur. J. Political Econom. (1996) 12(2):211–233Crossref, Google Scholar
• Economides N., Katsamakas E. Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):1057–1071Link, Google Scholar
• Eisenmann T., Parker G., Van Alstyne M. Platform envelopment. (2009) . Working Paper 07-104, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Eisenmann T., Parker G., Van Alstyne M., Gawer A. Opening platforms: How, when and why? Platforms, Markets and Innovation (2010) (Edward Elgar, London) 131–162Google Scholar
• Evans D. S., Hagiu A., Schmalensee R. A survey of the economic role of software platforms in computer-based industries. CESifo Econom. Stud. (2005) 51(2–3):189–224Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J., Greenstein S., Stango V. Should competition policy favor compatibility? Standards and Public Policy (2007) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 372–388Google Scholar
• Farrell J., Gallini N. Second-sourcing as a commitment: Monopoly incentives to attract competition. Quart. J. Econom. (1988) 103(4):673–69Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J., Katz M. Innovation, rent extraction and integration in system markets. J. Indust. Econom. (2000) 48(4):413–432Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farrell J., Weiser P. Modularity, vertical integration and open access policies towards a convergence of antitrust and regulation in the Internet age. Harvard J. Law Tech. (2003) 17(1):83–134Google Scholar
• Farrell J., Monroe H., Saloner G. The vertical organization of industry: Systems competition versus component competition. J. Econom. Management Strategy (1998) 7(2):143–182Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feller J., Fitzgerald B., Hissam S., Lakhani K.Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software (2005) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Fixson S., Park J. The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Res. Policy (2008) 37:1296–1316Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franke N., von Hippel E. Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Res. Policy (2003) 32(7):1199–1215Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R., Kumaraswamy A. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management J. (1995) 16:93–109Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A., Cusumano M.Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation (2002) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Gawer A., Henderson R. Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2007) 16(1):1–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenstein S., Noam E., Nishuilleabhain A. Invisible hands versus invisible advisors: Coordination mechanisms in economic networks. Public Networks, Public Objectives (1996) (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam) 538–549Google Scholar
• Greenstein S., Gawer A. Open platform development and the commercial Internet. Platforms, Markets and Innovation (2009) (Edward Elgar, London) 219–248Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hagiu A. Proprietary vs. open two-sided platforms and social efficiency. (2009) . Working Paper 09-113, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Heeb R. Innovation and vertical integration in complementary markets. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2003) 12(3):387–417Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang P., Ceccagnoli M., Forman C., Wu D. Participation in a platform ecosystem: Appropriability, competition, and access to the installed base. (2009) . Working Paper 09-14, NET Institute,Google Scholar
• Iansiti M., Levien R.The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability (2004) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Jacobides M., Knudsen T., Augier M. Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Res. Policy (2006) 35(8):1200–1221Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan J.Startup: A Silicon Valley Adventure (1996) (Penguin Books, New York) Google Scholar
• Katz M., Shapiro C. Technological adoption in the presence of network externalities. J. Political Econom. (1986) 94(4):822–841Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz M., Shapiro C. Systems competition and network effects. J. Econom. Perspect. (1994) 8(2):93–115Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kende M. Profitability under an open versus a closed system. J. Econom. Management Strategy (1998) 7(2):307–326Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim D.-J., Kogut B. Technological platforms and diversification. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(3):283–301Link, Google Scholar
• Kuan J. Open source software as lead user's make or buy decision: A study of open and closed source quality. (2002) . Working paper, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
• Langlois R. External economies and economic progress: The case of the microcomputer industry. Bus. Hist. Rev. (1992) 66(1):1–50Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langlois R., Greenstein S., Stango V. Competition through institutional form: The case of cluster tool standards. Standards and Public Policy (2007) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 60–86Google Scholar
• Laursen K., Salter A. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management J. (2006) 27(2):131–150Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J., Tirole J. Some simple economics of open source. J. Indust. Econom. (2002) 52(2):197–234Crossref, Google Scholar
• Macher J. Technological development and the boundaries of the firm: A knowledge-based examination in semiconductor manufacturing. Management Sci. (2006) 52(6):826–843Link, Google Scholar
• Marschak T. A. Strategy and organization in a system development project. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (1962) (National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) 509–548Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin A., Orlando M. Barriers to network-specific investment. Rev. Econom. Dynam (2007) 10(4):705–728Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matutes C., Regibeau P. Mix and match: Product compatibility without network externalities. RAND J. Econom. (1988) 19(2):219–234Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGahan A., Vadasz L., Yoffie D., Yoffie D. Creating value and setting standards: The lessons of consumer electronics for personal digital assistants. Competing in the Age of Digital Convergence (1997) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) 227–264Google Scholar
• Merges R. IP rights and technological platforms. (2008) . Working paper, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, University of California, BerkeleyCrossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer M., Lehnerd A.The Power of Product Platforms (1997) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Meyer M., Utterback J. The product family and the dynamics of core capability. Sloan Management Rev. (1993) 34(3):29–47Google Scholar
• Morris C., Ferguson C. How architecture wins technology wars. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1993) 71(2):86–96Google Scholar
• Murray F., Aghion P., Dewatripont M., Kolev J., Stern S. Of mice and academics: Examining the effect of openness on innovation. (2009) . NBER Working Paper 14819, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Nahm J. Open architecture and R&D incentives. J. Indust. Econom. (2004) 52(4):547–568Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nair H., Chintagunta P., Dubé J. Empirical analysis of indirect network effects in the market for personal digital assistants. Quant. Marketing Econom. (2004) 2(1):23–58Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niedermayer A. On platforms, incomplete contracts and open source software. (2007) . Discussion Paper dp0707, University of Bern, Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
• Nocke V., Peitz M., Stahl K. Platform ownership. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. (2007) 5(6):1130–1160Crossref, Google Scholar
• Novak S., Eppinger S. Sourcing by design: Product complexity and the supply chain. Management Sci. (2001) 47(1):189–204Link, Google Scholar
• O'Mahony S., Ferraro F. The emergence of governance in an open source community. Acad. Management J. (2007) 50(5):1079–1106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parker G., Van Alstyne M. Innovation, openness and platform control. (2008) . Working paper, Tulane University, New Orleans. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1079712Google Scholar
• Perrons R. The open Kimono: How Intel balances trust and power to maintain platform leadership. Res. Policy (2009) 38(8):1300–1312Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pierce L. Big losses in ecosystem niches: How core firm decisions drive complementary product shakeouts. Strategic Management J. (2009) 30(2):323–347Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rey P., Salant D. Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property. (2008) . MPRA Paper 9454, University Library of Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
• Roberts J. A., Hann I.-H., Slaughter S. A. Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):984–999Link, Google Scholar
• Robertson D., Ulrich K. Planning for product platforms. Sloan Management Rev. (1998) 39(4):19–31Google Scholar
• Rochet J.-C., Tirole J. Two-sided markets: An overview. (2004) . Working paper, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
• Rysman M. The economics of two-sided markets. J. Econom. Perspect. (2009) 23(3):125–144Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling M., Gawer A. To protect or to diffuse? Tradeoffs in appropriability, network externalities and architectural control. Platforms, Markets and Innovation (2009) (Edward Elgar, London) 192–218Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C., Varian H.Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (1998) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
• Simpson T., Siddique Z., Jiao R.Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications (2006) (Springer Science, Berlin, Germany) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spulber D. Unlocking technology: Antitrust and innovation. J. Competition Law Econom. (2008) 4(4):915–966Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strahilovetz L. Information asymmetries and the rights to exclude. Michigan Law Rev. (2006) 104(8):1834–1898Google Scholar
• Tåg J. Open versus closed platforms. (2008) . Working Paper 747, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, StockholmGoogle Scholar
• Teece D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15(6):285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1996) 31(2):193–224Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tucker C., Zhang J. Growing two-sided networks by advertising the user base: A field experiment. Marketing Sci. (2010) 29(5):805–814Link, Google Scholar
• Valloppillil V. Halloween documents. (1998) . Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WAGoogle Scholar
• Venkatraman N., Lee C. Preferential linkage and network evolution: A conceptual model and empirical test in the U.S. video game sector. Acad. Management J. (2004) 47(6):876–892Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Burg U.The Triumph of Ethernet: Technological Communities and the Battle for the LAN Standard (2001) (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA) Google Scholar
• von Hippel E.Democratizing Innovation (2005) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Krogh G., Spaeth S., Lakhani K. Community, joining and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study. Res. Policy (2003) 32(7):1217–1241Crossref, Google Scholar
• West J. How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Res. Policy (2003) 32(7):1259–1285Crossref, Google Scholar
• West J., Greenstein S., Stango V. The economic realities of open standards: Black, white and many shades of gray. Standards and Public Policy (2007) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 87–122Google Scholar
• Wheelwright S., Clark K.Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality (1992) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Wolter C., Veloso F. The effects of innovation on vertical structure: Perspectives on transaction costs and competences. Acad. Management Rev. (2008) 33(3):586–605Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge J. Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models. J. Econometrics (1999) 90(1):77–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yoffie D., Yin P., Darwall C. (2004) . PalmSource, Inc., HBS Case 704-473, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar