IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v104y2014i5p255-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entrepreneurial Innovation: Killer Apps in the iPhone Ecosystem

Author

Listed:
  • Pai-Ling Yin
  • Jason P. Davis
  • Yulia Muzyrya

Abstract

The mobile applications (apps) industry has exhibited rapid entry and growth in the midst of a recession. Using unique data from the iPhone application ecosystem, we examine how the development of "killer apps" (apps appearing in the top grossing rank) varies by market and app characteristics. We find that previous app experience and no updating increase the likelihood of becoming a killer game app, while more updates increase the likelihood of becoming a non-game killer app. Development opportunities, level of competition, and demand preferences are possible drivers of the opposing innovation process results in game and non-game markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Pai-Ling Yin & Jason P. Davis & Yulia Muzyrya, 2014. "Entrepreneurial Innovation: Killer Apps in the iPhone Ecosystem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 255-259, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:104:y:2014:i:5:p:255-59
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/aer.104.5.255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.104.5.255
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data/10405/P2014_1175_data.zip
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/ds/10405/P2014_1175_ds.zip
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    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. Jens Foerderer & Thomas Kude & Sunil Mithas & Armin Heinzl, 2018. "Does Platform Owner’s Entry Crowd Out Innovation? Evidence from Google Photos," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 444-460, June.
    2. Michael Kummer & Patrick Schulte, 2019. "When Private Information Settles the Bill: Money and Privacy in Google’s Market for Smartphone Applications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3470-3494, August.
    3. Jianlong Wu & Zhongji Yang & Xiaobo Hu & Hongqi Wang & Jing Huang, 2018. "Exploring Driving Forces of Sustainable Development of China’s New Energy Vehicle Industry: An Analysis from the Perspective of an Innovation Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-24, December.
    4. Abraham K. Song, 2019. "The Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem—a critique and reconfiguration," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 569-590, October.
    5. Han Yuan, 2020. "Competing for Time: A Study of Mobile Applications," 2020 Papers pyu309, Job Market Papers.
    6. Meng, Huixing & Liu, Xuan & Xing, Jinduo & Zio, Enrico, 2022. "A method for economic evaluation of predictive maintenance technologies by integrating system dynamics and evolutionary game modelling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    7. Milan Miric & Lars Bo Jeppesen, 2020. "Does piracy lead to product abandonment or stimulate new product development?: Evidence from mobile platform‐based developer firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2155-2184, December.
    8. Jean-Michel Sahut & Luca Iandoli & Frédéric Teulon, 2021. "The age of digital entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1159-1169, February.
    9. Jan Frederic Nerbel & Markus Kreutzer, 2023. "Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Erdem Dogukan Yilmaz & Tim Meyer & Milan Miric, 2023. "Preventing Others from Commercializing Your Innovation: Evidence from Creative Commons Licenses," Papers 2309.00536, arXiv.org.
    11. Miric, Milan & Jeppesen, Lars Bo, 2023. "How does competition influence innovative effort within a platform-based ecosystem? Contrasting paid and unpaid contributors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    12. Kang, Hye Young, 2022. "Technological engagement of women entrepreneurs on online digital platforms: Evidence from the Apple iOS App Store," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    13. Jing Huang & Hongqi Wang & Jianlong Wu & Zhongji Yang & Xiaobo Hu & Mengmeng Bao, 2020. "Exploring the Key Driving Forces of the Sustainable Intergenerational Evolution of the Industrial Alliance Innovation Ecosystem: Evidence from a Case Study of China’s TDIA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-31, February.
    14. Gene Moo Lee & Shu He & Joowon Lee & Andrew B. Whinston, 2020. "Matching Mobile Applications for Cross-Promotion," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 865-891, September.
    15. Saori Chiba & Chien-Yuan Sher & Min-Hsueh Tsai, 2021. "Can a lengthy application title make an application successful? A perspective of information theory," KIER Working Papers 1058, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    16. Miric, Milan & Boudreau, Kevin J. & Jeppesen, Lars Bo, 2019. "Protecting their digital assets: The use of formal & informal appropriability strategies by App developers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    17. Ron Tidhar & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2020. "Get rich or die trying… finding revenue model fit using machine learning and multiple cases," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1245-1273, July.
    18. Stefano Comino & Fabio M. Manenti & Franco Mariuzzo, 2015. "Updates Management in Mobile Applications. iTunes vs Google Play," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2015-04v3, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. Jason P. Davis & Yulia Muzyrya & Pai-Ling Yin, 2014. "Experimentation Strategies and Entrepreneurial Innovation: Inherited Market Differences in the iPhone Ecosystem," Discussion Papers 13-029, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    20. Joost Rietveld & J. P. Eggers, 2018. "Demand Heterogeneity in Platform Markets: Implications for Complementors," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 304-322, April.
    21. Stefano Comino & Fabio M. Manenti & Franco Mariuzzo, 2019. "Updates management in mobile applications: iTunes versus Google Play," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 392-419, June.
    22. Joost Rietveld & Joe N. Ploog, 2022. "On top of the game? The double‐edged sword of incorporating social features into freemium products," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(6), pages 1182-1207, June.
    23. Mi Hyun Lee & Sang Pil Han & Sungho Park & Wonseok Oh, 2023. "Positive Demand Spillover of Popular App Adoption: Implications for Platform Owners’ Management of Complements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 961-995, September.
    24. Joost Rietveld & Melissa A. Schilling & Cristiano Bellavitis, 2019. "Platform Strategy: Managing Ecosystem Value Through Selective Promotion of Complements," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1232-1251, November.
    25. Kesler, Reinhold & Kummer, Michael E. & Schulte, Patrick, 2017. "Mobile applications and access to private data: The supply side of the Android ecosystem," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-075, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    2. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    3. Braguinsky, Serguey & Honjo, Yuji & 本庄, 裕司 & Nagaoka, Sadao & 長岡, 貞男 & Nakamura, Kenta & 中村, 健太, 2010. "Science-Based Business : Knowledge Capital or Entrepreneurial Ability? : Theory and Evidence from a Survey of Biotechnology Start-ups," IIR Working Paper 10-05, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    4. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Patent Thickets and the Market for Innovation: Evidence from Settlement of Patent Disputes," CEP Discussion Papers dp0889, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars & Svensson, Roger, 2017. "Verifying High Quality: Entry for Sale," Working Paper Series 1186, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    6. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    7. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster & Hielke Buddelmeyer, 2008. "Innovation, Technological Conditions and New Firm Survival," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(267), pages 434-448, December.
    8. H. T. Tran & E. Santarelli, 2013. "Determinants and Effects of Innovative Activities in Vietnam. A Firm-level Analysis," Working Papers wp909, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    9. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    10. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    11. Colombo, Massimo G. & D’Adda, Diego & Pirelli, Lorenzo H., 2016. "The participation of new technology-based firms in EU-funded R&D partnerships: The role of venture capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 361-375.
    12. Joshua S. Gans & Lars Persson, 2013. "Entrepreneurial commercialization choices and the interaction between IPR and competition policy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 131-151, February.
    13. Kaya, Mehmet Caglar & Persson, Lars, 2019. "A theory of gazelle growth: Competition, venture capital finance and policy," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    14. Haeussler, Carolin & Harhoff, Dietmar & Mueller, Elisabeth, 2009. "To Be Financed or Not … - The Role of Patents for Venture Capital Financing," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 8970, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
    15. Jean Gabszewicz & Ornella Tarola, 2012. "Product innovation and firms’ ownership," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 323-343, April.
    16. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2021. "Enabling Entrepreneurial Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5510-5524, September.
    17. Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2003. "When does funding research by smaller firms bear fruit?: Evidence from the SBIR program," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 361-384.
    18. Mella-Barral, P. & Sabourian, H., 2023. "Repeated Innovations and Excessive Spin-Offs," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2347, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    19. Uwe Dulleck & Paul Frijters & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2006. "Reducing Start-up Costs for New Firms: The Double Dividend on the Labor Market," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 108(2), pages 317-337, July.
    20. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship
    • L63 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Microelectronics; Computers; Communications Equipment
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:aea:aecrev:v:104:y:2014:i:5:p:255-59. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    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.