Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel
This paper draws on a detailed history of Intel's strategy with respect to the complementary markets for microprocessors to explore the usefulness of the current theoretical literature for explaining behavior. We find that as the literature predicts, Intel invests heavily in these markets, both through direct entry and through subsidy. We also find, again consistent with the literature, that the firm's entry decisions are shaped by the belief that it does not have either the capabilities or the resources to enter all possible markets, and thus that it believes it is critical to encourage widespread entry. As several authors have pointed out, this imperative places the firm in a difficult strategic position, since it needs to attempt to commit to potential entrants that it will not engage in an ex-post "squeeze", despite the fact that ex post it has very strong incentives to do so. We find that the fact that the complementary markets in which Intel competes are complex, dynamic and multilayered considerably sharpens this dilemma. We explore the ways in which Intel attempts to solve it, highlighting in particular the organizational structure and processes through which they attempt to commit to making money in the markets which they choose to enter while also committing not to making too much. Our results have implications for both our understanding of the dynamics of competition in complements and of the role of organizational structures and processes in shaping competition.
|Date of creation:||Dec 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as Gawer, Annabelle and Rebecca Henderson. "Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel." Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 16, 1 (spring 2007): 1-34.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Joseph Farrell & Michael L. Katz, 2001.
"Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets,"
- Farrell, Joseph & Katz, Michael L, 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 413-32, December.
- Farrell, Joseph & Katz, Michael, 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt1441h2tj, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Joseph Farrell & Michael L. Katz, 2003. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Development and Comp Systems 0303005, EconWPA.
- Joseph Farrell and Michael L. Katz., 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Economics Working Papers E00-286, University of California at Berkeley.
- Farrell, Joseph & Katz, Michael, 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt15k4v7xb, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Timothy F. Bresnahan & Shane Greenstein, 1997.
"Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry,"
97028, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Bresnahan, Timothy F & Greenstein, Shane, 1999. "Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 1-40, March.
- Becchetti, Leonardo & Paganetto, Luigi, 2001. "The determinants of suboptimal technological development in the system company-component producers relationship," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(9), pages 1407-1421, November.
- Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Triole, 2002.
"Platform Competition in Two Sided Markets,"
FMG Discussion Papers
dp409, Financial Markets Group.
- Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2014. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 10.
- Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, 06.
- Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Triole, 2002. "Platform competition in two sided markets," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 24929, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Rochet, Jean-Charles & Tirole, Jean, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," IDEI Working Papers 152, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- Whinston, Michael D, 1990.
"Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-59, September.
- Panzar, John C., 1989. "Technological determinants of firm and industry structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 3-59 Elsevier.
- Choi, Jay Pil & Stefanadis, Christodoulos, 2001. "Tying, Investment, and the Dynamic Leverage Theory," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 52-71, Spring.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:11852. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.