IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v32y2022i4d10.1007_s12525-022-00590-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Compatibility promotion between platforms: The role of open technology standards and giant platforms

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Spaeth

    (Universität Hamburg)

  • Sven Niederhöfer

    (Universität Hamburg)

Abstract

Most platform literature focuses on single platforms and their governance, e.g. concerning app developers. Yet, platform competition and dynamics are increasingly important as they form connections with each other and build complex networks. More focus on platform-to-platform relationships and the role of standards is warranted. Therefore, the goal of this study is to investigate how platform sponsors select platforms to promote as compatible with their own products, taking open standards and “giant platforms” into account. To address these questions, we construct a unique data set covering 157 platforms in the smart home market. We conduct a network analysis based on an exponential random graph model (ERGM) to incorporate platform features, dyadic characteristics, and structural processes. We find that platform-to-platform compatibility promotion is determined by a careful selection of platforms with dissimilar industry sectors and ecosystem niches. We identify two strategic approaches to select and promote platforms as compatible, based on standard complementarity and the size of the installed base. We find that platforms more often promote other platforms with similar supported standards. The majority of endorsements are directed at giant platforms, allowing platforms to support a smaller number of standards and thus a reduced degree of openness at the technology level. Platforms often integrate several giant platforms at the same time. Our study makes two major contributions to the literature. First, we extend the concept of selective promotion (Rietveld et al. 2019) to include inter-platform compatibility and open technology standards. Second, we demonstrate how platform sponsors compensate for higher accessibility at the technology level with transparency at the marketplace level.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Spaeth & Sven Niederhöfer, 2022. "Compatibility promotion between platforms: The role of open technology standards and giant platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1891-1915, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:32:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s12525-022-00590-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-022-00590-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-022-00590-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12525-022-00590-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ruutu, Sampsa & Casey, Thomas & Kotovirta, Ville, 2017. "Development and competition of digital service platforms: A system dynamics approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 119-130.
    2. Jonathan Wareham & Paul B. Fox & Josep Lluís Cano Giner, 2014. "Technology Ecosystem Governance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1195-1215, August.
    3. Garry Robins & Philippa Pattison & Stanley Wasserman, 1999. "Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: III. Valued relations," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 64(3), pages 371-394, September.
    4. Kimmo Karhu & Robin Gustafsson & Kalle Lyytinen, 2018. "Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 479-497, June.
    5. West, Joel, 2003. "How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1259-1285, July.
    6. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    7. Thomas R. Eisenmann & Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2009. "Opening Platforms: How, When and Why?," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1992. "Converters, Compatibility, and the Control of Interfaces," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 9-35, March.
    9. Joseph Farrell & Nancy T. Gallini, 1988. "Second-Sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(4), pages 673-694.
    10. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective .- (forthcoming)," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 65692, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    11. Jiawei Chen & Ulrich Doraszelski & Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2009. "Avoiding market dominance: product compatibility in markets with network effects," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(3), pages 455-485, September.
    12. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    13. Hunter, David R. & Goodreau, Steven M. & Handcock, Mark S., 2008. "Goodness of Fit of Social Network Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 248-258, March.
    14. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 75001, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    15. Funk, Jeffrey L., 2003. "Standards, dominant designs and preferential acquisition of complementary assets through slight information advantages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1325-1341, September.
    16. Tassey, Gregory, 2000. "Standardization in technology-based markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 587-602, April.
    17. de Reuver, Mark & Sørensen, Carsten & Basole, Rahul C., 2018. "The digital platform: a research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80669, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    19. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1992. "Product Introduction with Network Externalities," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 55-83, March.
    20. Lu Hou & Shaohang Zhao & Xing Li & Periklis Chatzimisios & Kan Zheng, 2017. "Design and implementation of application programming interface for Internet of things cloud," International Journal of Network Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), May.
    21. Handcock, Mark S. & Hunter, David R. & Butts, Carter T. & Goodreau, Steven M. & Morris, Martina, 2008. "statnet: Software Tools for the Representation, Visualization, Analysis and Simulation of Network Data," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 24(i01).
    22. Marcel Papert & Alexander Pflaum, 2017. "Development of an Ecosystem Model for the Realization of Internet of Things (IoT) Services in Supply Chain Management," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 175-189, May.
    23. Glenn Hoetker, 2007. "The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 331-343, April.
    24. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    25. 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.
    26. Geoffrey G. Parker & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, 2005. "Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1494-1504, October.
    27. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    28. Zhuoxin Li & Ashish Agarwal, 2017. "Platform Integration and Demand Spillovers in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Facebook’s Integration of Instagram," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3438-3458, October.
    29. Benlian, Alexander & Hilkert, Daniel & Hess, Thomas, 2015. "How open is this platform? The meaning and measurement of platform openness from the complementors’ perspective," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 65705, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    30. Mosterd, Lars & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Ding, Aaron Yi & de Reuver, Mark, 2021. "Context dependent trade-offs around platform-to-platform openness: The case of the Internet of Things," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    31. Yuki Inoue & Masaharu Tsujimoto, 2018. "Genres Of Complementary Products In Platform-Based Markets: Changes In Evolutionary Mechanisms By Platform Diffusion Strategies," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(01), pages 1-32, January.
    32. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    33. Broekhuizen, T.L.J. & Emrich, O. & Gijsenberg, M.J. & Broekhuis, M. & Donkers, B. & Sloot, L.M., 2021. "Digital platform openness: Drivers, dimensions and outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 902-914.
    34. Kwak, Kiho & Kim, Wonjoon & Park, Kyungbae, 2018. "Complementary multiplatforms in the growing innovation ecosystem: Evidence from 3D printing technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 192-207.
    35. Andrei Hagiu & Robin S. Lee, 2011. "Exclusivity and Control," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 679-708, September.
    36. Jinhong Xie & Marvin Sirbu, 1995. "Price Competition and Compatibility in the Presence of Positive Demand Externalities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 909-926, May.
    37. Stanley Wasserman & Philippa Pattison, 1996. "Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs andp," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 401-425, September.
    38. Youngjin Yoo & Ola Henfridsson & Kalle Lyytinen, 2010. "Research Commentary ---The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 724-735, December.
    39. Shin, Jungwoo & Park, Yuri & Lee, Daeho, 2018. "Who will be smart home users? An analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 246-253.
    40. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    41. Kazan, Erol & Tan, Chee-Wee & Lim, Eric T.K & Sørensen, Carsten & Damsgaard, Jan, 2018. "Disentangling digital platform competition: the case of UK mobile payment platforms," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86345, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    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. Tobias Wulfert, 2023. "Boundary resource management in innovation ecosystems: The case of e-commerce," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Geerten Kaa & Eric Viardot & Ian P. McCarthy, 2022. "Standardization for platform ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 1807-1811, December.
    3. Rikard Lindgren & Fatemeh Saadatmand & Ulrike Schultze, 2023. "Compatibility promotion for standard development within shared platforms: A rising tide does not lift all boats," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-10, December.

    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. Mosterd, Lars & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Ding, Aaron Yi & de Reuver, Mark, 2021. "Context dependent trade-offs around platform-to-platform openness: The case of the Internet of Things," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Fabian Schueler & Dimitri Petrik, 2022. "Objectives of platform research: A co-citation and systematic literature review analysis," Papers 2202.08822, arXiv.org.
    4. Jingtao Yi & Jinqiu He & Lihong Yang, 2019. "Platform heterogeneity, platform governance and complementors’ product performance: an empirical study of the mobile application industry," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Tobias Wulfert, 2023. "Boundary resource management in innovation ecosystems: The case of e-commerce," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Veile, Johannes W. & Schmidt, Marie-Christin & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2022. "Toward a new era of cooperation: How industrial digital platforms transform business models in Industry 4.0," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 387-405.
    7. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    8. Huayong Du & Ying Teng & Zhenzhong Ma & Xuguang Guo, 2022. "Value Creation in Platform Enterprises: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    9. Saadatmand, Fatemeh & Lindgren, Rikard & Schultze, Ulrike, 2019. "Configurations of platform organizations: Implications for complementor engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    10. Miremadi, Iman & Khoshbash, Mostafa & Saeedian, MohammadMahdi, 2023. "Fostering generativity in platform ecosystems: How open innovation and complexity interact to influence platform adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    11. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    12. Kimmo Karhu & Robin Gustafsson & Kalle Lyytinen, 2018. "Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 479-497, June.
    13. Maximilian Julius Krome & Ulrich Pidun, 2023. "Conceptualization of research themes and directions in business ecosystem strategies: a systematic literature review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 873-920, June.
    14. Timothy Simcoe & Jeremy Watson, 2019. "Forking, Fragmentation, and Splintering," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 283-297, December.
    15. Key Pousttchi & Alexander Gleiss, 2019. "Surrounded by middlemen - how multi-sided platforms change the insurance industry," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 609-629, December.
    16. Tavalaei, M. Mahdi, 2020. "Waiting time in two-sided platforms: The case of the airport industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    17. Kapoor, Kawaljeet & Ziaee Bigdeli, Ali & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Schroeder, Andreas & Beltagui, Ahmad & Baines, Tim, 2021. "A socio-technical view of platform ecosystems: Systematic review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 94-108.
    18. Mario Schaarschmidt & Dirk Homscheid & Thomas Kilian, 2019. "Application Developer Engagement In Open Software Platforms: An Empirical Study Of Apple Ios And Google Android Developers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-33, May.
    19. Panos Constantinides & Ola Henfridsson & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2018. "Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 381-400, June.
    20. Lei Huang & Yandong Zhao & Liang Mei & Peiyi Wu & Zhihua Zhao & Yijun Mao, 2019. "Structural Holes in the Multi-Sided Market: A Market Allocation Structure Analysis of China’s Car-Hailing Platform in the Context of Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.

    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:spr:elmark:v:32:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s12525-022-00590-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.