IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/trf/wpaper/523.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does a Platform Monopolist Want Competition?

Author

Listed:
  • Niedermayer, Andreas

Abstract

We consider a software vendor first selling a monopoly platform and then an application running on this platform. He may face competition by an entrant in the applications market. The platform monopolist can benefit from competition for three reasons. First, his profits from the platform increase. Second, competition serves as a credible commitment to lower prices for applications. Third, higher expected product variety may lead to higher demand for his application. Results carry over to non-software platforms and, partially, to upstream and downstream firms. The model also explains why Microsoft Office is priced significantly higher than Microsoft’s operating system.

Suggested Citation

  • Niedermayer, Andreas, 2015. "Does a Platform Monopolist Want Competition?," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 523, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    • Handle: RePEc:trf:wpaper:523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/25322/1/523SFB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hart, Oliver & Moore, John, 1990. "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1119-1158, December.
    2. Nicholas Economides & Brian Viard, 2003. "Pricing of Complementary Goods and Network Effects," Working Papers 03-12, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    3. Muthers Johannes & Wismer Sebastian, 2022. "Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 83-110, August.
    4. Norbert Schulz & Konrad Stahl, 1996. "Do Consumers Search for the Highest Price? Oligopoly Equilibrium and Monopoly Optimum in Differentiated Products Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(3), pages 542-562, Autumn.
    5. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. "Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    6. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Konrad Stahl, 1982. "Location and Spatial Pricing Theory with Nonconvex Transportation Cost Schedules," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 575-582, Autumn.
    9. David S. Evans & Andrei Hagiu & Richard Schmalensee, 2005. "A Survey of the Economic Role of Software Platforms in Computer-based Industries," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 51(2-3), pages 189-224.
    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, June.
    11. Niedermayer, Andras, 2013. "On platforms, incomplete contracts, and open source software," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 714-722.
    12. Andras Niedermayer, 2007. "On Platforms, Incomplete Contracts, and Open Source Software," Diskussionsschriften dp0707, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    13. Economides, Nicholas, 1996. "Network externalities, complementarities, and invitations to enter," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 211-233, September.
    14. Bernard Reddy & David Evans & Albert Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2001. "A Monopolist Would Still Charge More for Windows: A Comment on Werden," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(3), pages 263-268, May.
    15. Beggs, Alan W, 1994. "Mergers and Malls," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 419-428, December.
    16. Farrell, Joseph & Gallini, Nancy T., 1986. "Second-sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8zs1p5cc, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    17. Simon Loertscher & Yves Schneider, 2011. "Chain Stores, Consumer Mobility, and Market Structure," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(2), pages 236-246, June.
    18. Geoffrey G. Parker & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, 2000. "Information Complements, Substitutes, and Strategic Product Design," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 299, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    19. Mark Armstrong Author-Email: mark.armstrong@ucl.ac.uk Author-Workplace-Name: University College of London, 2006. "Competition in Two-Sided Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, Autumn.
    20. 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.
    21. Farrell, Joseph & Gallini, Nancy T., 1987. "Second-sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4zr9b9dr, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Niedermayer Andras, 2015. "Does a Platform Monopolist Want Competition?," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-44, March.
    2. Andras Niedermayer, 2006. "Does a Platform Monopolist Want Competition?," Diskussionsschriften dp0604, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    3. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    4. Andras Niedermayer, 2005. "Does a Platform Owning Monopolist Want Competition?," Diskussionsschriften dp0517, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    5. Oke Chr. Beckmann & Susanne Royer, 2016. "Business Models and the Impact of Different Market Contexts: Towards an analytical framework for researchers and practitioners," Danish-German Working Papers 005, Europa-Universität Flensburg, International Institute of Management (IIM);University of Southern Denmark, Department of Border Region Studies (IFG).
    6. Joshua S. Gans, 2022. "The Specialness of Zero," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(1), pages 157-176.
    7. Matutes, Carmen & Regibeau, Pierre, 1996. "A selective review of the economics of standardization. Entry deterrence, technological progress and international competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 183-209, September.
    8. Beccherle, Julien & Tirole, Jean, 2011. "Regional initiatives and the cost of delaying binding climate change agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1339-1348.
    9. Choi, Jay Pil & Jeon, Doh-Shin, 2016. "A Leverage Theory of Tying in Two-Sided Markets," TSE Working Papers 16-689, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Oct 2019.
    10. Helmut Dietl, 2010. "Erfolgsstrategien im Plattformwettbewerb," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 62(62), pages 63-83, January.
    11. Kevin Boudreau, 2005. "The Boundaries of the Platform: Vertical Integration and Economic Incentives in Mobile Computing," Working Papers hal-00597767, HAL.
    12. Gherardo Girardi, 2013. "Second Sourcing with Capacity Constrained Firms and Locked-In Buyers," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 83-95, February.
    13. Ewald Scherm & Christian Maaß, 2006. "Zum Stellenwert der Netzwerkökonomik in der Strategie-/Marketingforschung —Eine Analyse empirischer Untersuchungen," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 27-46, March.
    14. Rachel E. Kranton & Deborah F. Minehart, 2001. "A Theory of Buyer-Seller Networks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 485-508, June.
    15. Du, Julan & Lu, Yi & Tao, Zhigang, 2009. "Bi-sourcing in the global economy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 215-222, April.
    16. Oliver Budzinski & Annika Stöhr, 2019. "Competition policy reform in Europe and Germany – institutional change in the light of digitization," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 15-54, January.
    17. Halonen-Akatwijuka, Maija & Pafilis, Evagelos, 2020. "Common ownership of public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 555-578.
    18. Michal Grajek, 2003. "Estimating Network Effects and Compatibility in Mobile Telecommunications," CIG Working Papers SP II 2003-26, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    19. Namhoon Kwon, 2007. "Entry Invitations in a Market with Network Effects," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 49-59.
    20. Fabio Manenti & Ernesto Somma, 2008. "One-Way Compatibility, Two-Way Compatibility and Entry in Network Industries," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 301-322.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D41 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Perfect Competition
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:trf:wpaper:523. 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: Tamilla Benkelberg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.