IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/econom/v167y2012i2p494-503.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lock-in and unobserved preferences in server operating systems: A case of Linux vs. Windows

Author

Listed:
  • Hong, Seung-Hyun
  • Rezende, Leonardo

Abstract

This paper investigates to what extent the persistence of Microsoft Windows in the market for server operating systems is due to lock-in or unobserved preferences. While the hypothesis of lock-in plays an important role in the antitrust policy debate for the operating systems market, it has not been extensively documented empirically. To account for unobserved preferences, we use a panel data identification approach based on time-variant group fixed effects, and estimate the dynamic discrete choice panel data model developed by Arellano and Carrasco (2003). Using detailed establishment-level data, we find that once we account for unobserved preferences, the estimated magnitudes of lock-in are considerably smaller than those from the conventional approaches, suggesting that unobserved preferences play a major role in the persistence of Windows. Further robustness checks are consistent with our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Hong, Seung-Hyun & Rezende, Leonardo, 2012. "Lock-in and unobserved preferences in server operating systems: A case of Linux vs. Windows," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 167(2), pages 494-503.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:167:y:2012:i:2:p:494-503
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.09.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407611002120
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.09.031?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. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2002. "Information Technology, Workplace Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 339-376.
    2. Bo E. Honoré & Elie Tamer, 2006. "Bounds on Parameters in Panel Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 611-629, May.
    3. Matthew Osborne, 2007. "Consumer Learning, Switching Costs, and Heterogeneity: A Structural Examination," EAG Discussions Papers 200710, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    4. Keane, Michael P, 1997. "Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(3), pages 310-327, July.
    5. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    6. Arellano, Manuel & Carrasco, Raquel, 2003. "Binary choice panel data models with predetermined variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 125-157, July.
    7. Timothy Bresnahan & Shane Greenstein, 1996. "Technical Progress and Co-invention in Computing and in the Uses of Computers," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 27(1996 Micr), pages 1-83.
    8. Matthew Shum, 2004. "Does Advertising Overcome Brand Loyalty? Evidence from the Breakfast‐Cereals Market," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 241-272, June.
    9. Arellano, Manuel, 2003. "Panel Data Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245291.
    10. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    11. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    12. P. B. Seetharaman, 2004. "Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 263-271, April.
    13. Bo E. Honoré & Ekaterini Kyriazidou, 2000. "Panel Data Discrete Choice Models with Lagged Dependent Variables," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 839-874, July.
    14. Avi Goldfarb, 2006. "State Dependence at Internet Portals," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 317-352, June.
    15. James J. Heckman, 1981. "Heterogeneity and State Dependence," NBER Chapters, in: Studies in Labor Markets, pages 91-140, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Victor Aguirregabiria & Jesus Carro, 2021. "Identification of Average Marginal Effects in Fixed Effects Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," Working Papers tecipa-701, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    2. Staus, Alexander, 2011. "Which household attitudes determine the store type choice for meat?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 224-234.
    3. Francesco Bartolucci & Claudia Pigini, 2017. "Granger causality in dynamic binary short panel data models," Working Papers 421, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    4. Pigini, Claudia & Bartolucci, Francesco, 2022. "Conditional inference for binary panel data models with predetermined covariates," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 83-104.
    5. Gayle, Wayne-Roy, 2013. "Identification and N-consistent estimation of a nonlinear panel data model with correlated unobserved effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(2), pages 71-83.
    6. Ribeiro, Ricardo, 2010. "Consumer demand for variety: intertemporal effects of consumption, product switching and pricing policies," MPRA Paper 25812, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    8. Gábor Kézdi & Gergely Csorba, 2013. "Estimating Consumer Lock-In Effects from Firm-Level Data," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 431-452, September.
    9. David Granlund, 2021. "A New Approach to Estimating State Dependence in Consumers’ Brand Choices Applied to 762 Pharmaceutical Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 443-483, June.
    10. Olga Novikova & Dmitriy B. Potapov, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Consumer Purchase Behavior: Interaction between State Dependence and Sensitivity to Marketing-Mix Variables," HSE Working papers WP BRP 48/MAN/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    11. Stéphane Bonhomme & Kevin Dano & Bryan S. Graham, 2023. "Identification in a binary choice panel data model with a predetermined covariate," CeMMAP working papers 17/23, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. Manuel Arellano, 2003. "Discrete choices with panel data," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 27(3), pages 423-458, September.
    13. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    14. Seung-Hyun Hong & Leonardo Rezende, 2007. "“Lock-In and Unobserved Preferences in Server Operating System Adoption: A Case of Linux vs. Windows"," Working Papers 07-05, NET Institute.
    15. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 39-54, January.
    16. Fernández-Val, Iván & Vella, Francis, 2011. "Bias corrections for two-step fixed effects panel data estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 144-162, August.
    17. Fu Ouyang & Thomas Tao Yang, 2020. "Semiparametric Estimation of Dynamic Binary Choice Panel Data Models," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2020-671, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    18. Fernández-Val, Iván, 2009. "Fixed effects estimation of structural parameters and marginal effects in panel probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 150(1), pages 71-85, May.
    19. Pigini, Claudia & Presbitero, Andrea F. & Zazzaro, Alberto, 2016. "State dependence in access to credit," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 17-34.
    20. Siebert, Ralph & von Graevenitz, Georg, 2006. "How Licensing Resolves Hold-Up: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Data Model with Unobserved Heterogeneity," CEPR Discussion Papers 5436, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Lock-in; Unobserved preference; Panel data; Discrete choice; Fixed effects; Random effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • L17 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Open Source Products and Markets
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software

    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:eee:econom:v:167:y:2012:i:2:p:494-503. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeconom .

    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.