Product Quality and Entering Through Tying: Experimental Evidence

References

• Autor D, Dorn D, Katz L, Patterson C, Van Reenen J (2017) The fall of the labor share and the rise of superstar firms. NBER Working Paper No. 23396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Bresnahan TF (1999) New modes of competition: Implications for the future structure of the computer industry. Eisenach JA, Lenard TM, eds. Competition, Innovation and the Microsoft Monopoly: Antitrust in the Digital Marketplace (Kluwer, Norwell, MA), 155–208.Google Scholar
• Carlton D, Gans J, Waldman M (2010) Why tie a product consumers don’t use? Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 2(3):85–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Loecker J, Eeckhout J (2017) The rise of market power and the macroeconomic implications. NBER Working Paper No. 23687, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Eisenmann TR, Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2011) Platform envelopment. Strategic Management J. 32(12):1270–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellison G, Ellison S (2009) Search, obfuscation, and price elasticities on the internet. Econometrica 77(2):427–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• European Commission (2017). Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service. Press release, June 27, European Commission, Brussels. Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm.Google Scholar
• Evans D, Schmalensee R (2001) Some economic aspects of antitrust analysis in dynamically competitive industries. NBER Working Paper No. 8268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res. Policy 32(2):333–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A, Cusumano MA (2002) Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA).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
• Greene H (2015) Muzzling antitrust: Information products, innovation, and free speech. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 95(1):35–107.Google Scholar
• Hagiu A, Spulber D (2013) First-party content and coordination in two-sided markets. Management Sci. 59(4):933–949.Link, Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Clark K (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1): 9–30.Google Scholar
• Horton J, Rand D, Zeckhauser R (2011) The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experiment. Econom. 14(3):399–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiang B, Jerath K, Srinivasan K (2011) Firm strategies in the “mid tail” of platform-based retailing. Marketing Sci. 30(5):757–775.Link, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(3):424–440.Google Scholar
• Kuziemko I, Norton M, Saez E, Stantcheva S (2015) How elastic are preferences for redistribution: Evidence from randomized survey experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(4):1478–1508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nalebuff B (2004) Bundling as an entry barrier. Quart. J. Econom. 119(1):159–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pallais A (2014) Inefficient hiring in entry-level labor markets. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(11):3565–3599.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rochet J-C, Tirole J (2003) Platform competition in two-sided markets. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 1(4):990–1029.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whinston M (1990) Tying, foreclosure and exclusion. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(4):837–859.Google Scholar
• Wu T, Couvidat S, Frank D, Seltzer W (2015). Does Google content degrade Google search? Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Zhu F, Liu Q (2018) Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com. Strategic Management J. 39(10):2618–2642.Crossref, Google Scholar