IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v5y2009i1p1-47..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bundles Of Joy: The Ubiquity And Efficiency Of Bundles In New Technology Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Stan J. Liebowitz
  • Stephen E. Margolis

Abstract

This paper examines the economic logic underlying bundles and tie-in sales and uses the lessons learned from that examination to analyze seven specific instances of bundling that have been the subject of antitrust scrutiny or other policy initiatives. Of particular interest are products that are nonrivalrous in consumption, making all-you-can-eat pricing a viable candidate for efficiency. The main economic points are the following: À-la-carte pricing may populate economic models, but most products are bundles. They are bundles because bundles are generally more efficient. Tie-in sales are much less common and often not properly understood in textbook discussions. Market foreclosure, the principal efficiency concern with tying and bundling, is likely to be exceedingly rare. The seven instances of bundling (ties) examined in the paper are: cable television; patent pools; blanket licenses; iPods and iTunes; telephones; music albums and songs; operating systems and component programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Stan J. Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis, 2009. "Bundles Of Joy: The Ubiquity And Efficiency Of Bundles In New Technology Markets," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 1-47.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:5:y:2009:i:1:p:1-47.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhn013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whinston, Michael D, 1990. "Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-859, September.
    2. Yannis Bakos & Erik Brynjolfsson, 1999. "Bundling Information Goods: Pricing, Profits, and Efficiency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1613-1630, December.
    3. Nahata, Babu & Ostaszewski, Krzysztof & Sahoo, Prasanna, 1999. "Buffet Pricing," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(2), pages 215-228, April.
    4. Jerry A. Hausman & J. Gregory Sidak, 2005. "Did Mandatory Unbundling Achieve Its Purpose? Empirical Evidence from Five Countries," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 173-245.
    5. Walter Y. Oi, 1971. "A Disneyland Dilemma: Two-Part Tariffs for a Mickey Mouse Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 85(1), pages 77-96.
    6. Bittlingmayer, George, 1988. "Property Rights, Progress, and the Aircraft Patent Agreement," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 227-248, April.
    7. Liebowitz, S J, 1983. "Tie-In Sales and Price Discrimination," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(3), pages 387-399, July.
    8. Bruce H. Kobayashi, 2005. "Does Economics Provide A Reliable Guide To Regulating Commodity Bundling By Firms? A Survey Of The Economic Literature," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(4), pages 707-746.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivan Pitt, 2010. "Superstar effects on royalty income in a performing rights organization," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 34(3), pages 219-236, August.
    2. Byron B. Carson, 2022. "Individuals and Externalities in Economic Epidemiology: A Tension and Synthesis," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 37(Fall 2022), pages 1-24.
    3. Bronwyn E. Howell & Petrus H. Potgieter, 2018. "Bundles of trouble: Can competition law adapt to digital pricing innovation?," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 19(1-2), pages 3-24, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexei Alexandrov & Özlem Bedre-Defolie, 2014. "The Equivalence of Bundling and Advance Sales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 259-272, March.
    2. Ahn Illtae & Yoon Kiho, 2012. "Competitive Mixed Bundling of Vertically Differentiated Products," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-54, November.
    3. Alessandro Avenali & Anna D’Annunzio & Pierfrancesco Reverberi, 2013. "Bundling, Competition and Quality Investment: A Welfare Analysis," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 43(3), pages 221-241, November.
    4. Sheikhzadeh, Mehdi & Elahi, Ehsan, 2013. "Product bundling: Impacts of product heterogeneity and risk considerations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 209-222.
    5. Vaubourg, Anne-Gael, 2006. "Differentiation and discrimination in a duopoly with two bundles," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 753-762, July.
    6. Tarek Abdallah, 2019. "On the Benefit (Or Cost) of Large‐Scale Bundling," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(4), pages 955-969, April.
    7. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Menicucci, Domenico, 2009. "Bundling and Competition for Slots: On the Portfolio Effects of Bundling," IDEI Working Papers 574, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised Jul 2011.
    8. Ahmadi, Iman & Skiera, Bernd & Lambrecht, Anja & Heubrandner, Florian, 2017. "Time preferences and the pricing of complementary durables and consumables," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 813-828.
    9. Jihui Chen & Qiang Fu, 2017. "Do exclusivity arrangements harm consumers?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 311-339, June.
    10. Koning, Kendall J. & Yankelevich, Aleksandr, 2018. "From internet “Openness” to “Freedom”: How far has the net neutrality pendulum swung?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 37-45.
    11. Stole, Lars A., 2007. "Price Discrimination and Competition," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 34, pages 2221-2299, Elsevier.
    12. Youqiong Ai & Thomas Y. Lu, 2019. "On the Rationality of Bundled Rebate Program in Modem Chip Industry: an Analysis on Qualcomm’s Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 641-660, December.
    13. Heatley, David & Howell, Bronwyn, 2009. "The Brand is the Bundle - Strategies for the Mobile Ecosystem," Working Paper Series 19140, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    14. Mark Armstrong, 2016. "Nonlinear Pricing," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 583-614, October.
    15. Joshua D. Wright, 2010. "The Chicago School, Transaction Cost Economics, and Antitrust," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Lalit Manral, 2010. "Demand competition and investment heterogeneity in industries based on systemic technologies: evidence from the US long-distance telecommunications services industry, 1984–1996," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 765-802, October.
    17. Sang‐Hyun Kim & Jong‐Hee Hahn, 2022. "On the profitability of interfirm bundling in oligopolies," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 657-673, August.
    18. Akifumi Ishihara & Noriyuki Yanagawa, 2013. "Dark Sides of Patent Pools with Compulsory Independent Licensing," CARF F-Series CARF-F-318, Center for Advanced Research in Finance, Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo.
    19. Antino Kim & Rajib L. Saha & Warut Khern-am-nuai, 2021. "Manufacturer’s “1-Up” from Used Games: Insights from the Secondhand Market for Video Games," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1173-1191, December.
    20. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Menicucci, Domenico, 2009. "Bundling and Competition for Slots: Sequential Pricing," TSE Working Papers 09-074, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:5:y:2009:i:1:p:1-47.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.