IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v48-49y2016ip4-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Platform control during battles for market dominance: The case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry

Author

Listed:
  • den Hartigh, Erik
  • Ortt, J. Roland
  • van de Kaa, Geerten
  • Stolwijk, Claire C.M.

Abstract

We conduct a case study of the battle for market dominance between the industry platforms led by Apple and by IBM in the early personal computer industry (1977–1986). Platform leaders such as Apple or IBM need to consider many technological, strategic, and network factors in managing their industry platforms. We explore how platform leaders deploy these factors and their interactions during a battle for market dominance. We find that platform leaders choose various control modes to do so, ranging from central control to distributed control. The adoption of these control modes is dependent on the choice of being first entrant with a technological discontinuity (central control) or follower (distributed control). Within a control mode, technological, strategic, and network factors are managed in a coherent way.

Suggested Citation

  • den Hartigh, Erik & Ortt, J. Roland & van de Kaa, Geerten & Stolwijk, Claire C.M., 2016. "Platform control during battles for market dominance: The case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 4-12.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:48-49:y:2016:i::p:4-12
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2015.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497215000917
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.12.001?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. Antonio Capaldo, 2007. "Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 585-608, June.
    2. Rosenkopf, Lori & Tushman, Michael L, 1998. "The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(2), pages 311-346, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Amrit Tiwana & Benn Konsynski & Ashley A. Bush, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 675-687, December.
    5. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    6. Knut Blind & Stephan Gauch, 2009. "Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 320-342, June.
    7. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    8. Sillanpää, Antti & Laamanen, Tomi, 2009. "Positive and negative feedback effects in competition for dominance of network business systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 871-884, June.
    9. Pek‐Hooi Soh, 2010. "Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 438-461, April.
    10. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    11. Langlois, Richard N. & Robertson, Paul L., 1992. "Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 297-313, August.
    12. Cusumano, Michael A. & Mylonadis, Yiorgos & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1992. "Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 51-94, April.
    13. David, Paul A. & Bunn, Julie Ann, 1988. "The economics of gateway technologies and network evolution: Lessons from electricity supply history," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 165-202.
    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. Cenamor, Javier & Frishammar, Johan, 2021. "Openness in platform ecosystems: Innovation strategies for complementary products," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    2. Tian, Jiamian & Coreynen, Wim & Matthyssens, Paul & Shen, Lei, 2022. "Platform-based servitization and business model adaptation by established manufacturers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Ben Zhang & Xin Liu, 2024. "Technology Proximity Mechanism and Collaborative Innovation Orientation: How to Coordinate Multiple Subsidiaries’ Innovation Strategies?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 706-731, March.
    6. Xing Wan & Javier Cenamor & Jing Chen, 2017. "Exploring Performance Determinants of China’s Cable Operators and OTT Service Providers in the Era of Digital Convergence—From the Perspective of an Industry Platform," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    7. Maxime Thomas & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Julien Legrand, 2021. "The future of digital platforms: Conditions of platform overthrow," Post-Print hal-03094851, HAL.
    8. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    9. Essen, Anna & Frishammar, Johan & Cenamor, Javier, 2023. "Entering non-platformized sectors: The Co-evolution of legitimacy debates and platform business models in digital health care," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    10. Iizuka, Michiko & Ikeda, Yoko, 2019. "Regulation and innovation under Industry 4.0: Case of medical/healthcare robot, HAL by Cyberdyne," MERIT Working Papers 2019-038, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    11. G. Kaa & M. J. Greeven, 2017. "Mobile telecommunication standardization in Japan, China, the United States, and Europe: a comparison of regulatory and industrial regimes," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 181-192, May.
    12. Kapoor, Kawaljeet & Bigdeli, Ali Ziaee & Schroeder, Andreas & Baines, Tim, 2022. "A platform ecosystem view of servitization in manufacturing," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Iizuka, Michiko & Ikeda, Yoko, 2021. "Regulation and innovation under the 4th industrial revolution: The case of a healthcare robot, HAL by Cyberdyne," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    14. Habib, Tufail & Kristiansen, Jimmi Normann & Rana, Mohammad Bakhtiar & Ritala, Paavo, 2020. "Revisiting the role of modular innovation in technological radicalness and architectural change of products: The case of Tesla X and Roomba," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    15. Maxime Thomas & Pascal Le Masson & Legrand Julien & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Platform Overthrow: uncovering the critical role of functional extension and generic technology [Allier extension fonctionnelle et généricité technique pour renverser une plateforme]," Post-Print hal-01833568, HAL.
    16. Kurtmollaiev, Seidali & Lervik-Olsen, Line & Andreassen, Tor W., 2022. "Competing through innovation: Let the customer judge!," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 87-101.
    17. Michelle D. Haurand & Christian Stummer, 2018. "Stakes or garlic? Studying the emergence of dominant designs through an agent-based model of a vampire economy," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(2), pages 373-394, June.

    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. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    2. Susan K. Cohen & Sean T. Hsu & Kristina B. Dahlin, 2016. "With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 846-872, August.
    3. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    4. Markard, Jochen & Erlinghagen, Sabine, 2017. "Technology users and standardization: Game changing strategies in the field of smart meter technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 226-235.
    5. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    6. Papachristos, George, 2017. "Diversity in technology competition: The link between platforms and sociotechnical transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 291-306.
    7. Saeed Khanagha & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari & Sotirios Paroutis & Luciano Oviedo, 2022. "Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: A study of Cisco and fog computing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 476-506, March.
    8. Dai, Haiwen & Qualls, William J. & Zhu, You, 2024. "Win, lose, or draw? Forecasting the outcome of a race toward a dominant formal standard with machine learning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    9. Tianxu Chen & Lihong Qian & Vadake Narayanan, 2017. "Battle on the Wrong Field? Entrant Type, Dominant Designs, and Technology Exit," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(13), pages 2579-2598, December.
    10. Gary Dushnitsky & Evila Piva & Cristina Rossi‐Lamastra, 2022. "Investigating the mix of strategic choices and performance of transaction platforms: Evidence from the crowdfunding setting," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 563-598, March.
    11. Blind, Knut & Kenney, Martin & Leiponen, Aija & Simcoe, Timothy, 2023. "Standards and innovation: A review and introduction to the special issue," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    12. Pinar Ozcan & Filipe M. Santos, 2015. "The market that never was: Turf wars and failed alliances in mobile payments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1486-1512, October.
    13. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    14. Kim, Dong-hyu & Lee, Heejin & Kwak, Jooyoung, 2017. "Standards as a driving force that influences emerging technological trajectories in the converging world of the Internet and things: An investigation of the M2M/IoT patent network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1234-1254.
    15. van de Kaa, Geerten & Papachristos, George & de Bruijn, Hans, 2019. "The governance of platform development processes: A metaphor and a simulation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 190-203.
    16. Siobhan O'Mahony & Rebecca Karp, 2022. "From proprietary to collective governance: How do platform participation strategies evolve?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 530-562, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Silke van der Burg & Maarten F. M. Jurg & Flore M. Tadema & Linda M. Kamp & Geerten van de Kaa, 2022. "Dominant Designs for Wings of Airborne Wind Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-11, October.
    19. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    20. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.

    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:techno:v:48-49:y:2016:i::p:4-12. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    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.