IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01833568.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Platform Overthrow: uncovering the critical role of functional extension and generic technology
[Allier extension fonctionnelle et généricité technique pour renverser une plateforme]

Author

Listed:
  • Maxime Thomas

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Pascal Le Masson

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Legrand Julien

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Benoit Weil

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Can a platform leader be challenged and loose its architectural control over its innovation ecosystem? The question seems absurd since theoretical works on modularity and multi-sided markets depict platform competitive landscapes as controlled by a hegemonic platform leader. However, platform history chronicles several cases of leadership shifts for the benefit of firms formerly providing complementary innovations. We coined these situations " platform overthrows ". To bridge the gap between classical optimization models and empirical evidences of platform overthrow, we rely on a design-theory-based model (Legrand et al. 2017) of platform dynamics to generate testable hypothesis. We then test them with a sample of 22 empirical cases of attempts of platform overthrow. Our results indicate that platform overthrows are always built by a challenger that introduces a new functional range in the ecosystem. However, the efforts of the challenger can be ruined if the technology of the platform leader is easily adaptable to the new functional range. Otherwise, the challenger can overthrow its platform leader if it succeeds in designing a technology that can address both the former and the new functions. We conclude by highlighting how studying both technological and functional evolutions can provide a thorough understanding of platform ecosystem dynamics.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01833568
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01833568v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01833568v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    2. Olga Kokshagina & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Patrick Cogez, 2012. "Platform emergence in double unknown: Common challenge strategy," Post-Print hal-00734111, HAL.
    3. David S. Evans & Andrei Hagiu & Richard Schmalensee, 2008. "Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550687, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    6. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & David P. McIntyre & Arati Srinivasan, 2017. "Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 141-160, January.
    7. Annabelle Gawer & Rebecca Henderson, 2007. "Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 1-34, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Martin Kenney & Bryan Pon, 2011. "Structuring the Smartphone Industry: Is the Mobile Internet OS Platform the Key?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 239-261, September.
    10. Perrons, Robert K., 2009. "The open kimono: How Intel balances trust and power to maintain platform leadership," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1300-1312, October.
    11. Evans David S. & Schmalensee Richard, 2010. "Failure to Launch: Critical Mass in Platform Businesses," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28, December.
    12. Kenney, Martin & Pon, Bryan, 2011. "Structuring the Smartphone Industry. Is the Mobile Internet OS Platform the Key?," Discussion Papers 1238, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    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. Xing Wan & Javier Cenamor & Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2017. "Unraveling Platform Strategies: A Review from an Organizational Ambidexterity Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Mucha, Tomasz & Seppälä, Timo, 2020. "Artificial Intelligence Platforms – A New Research Agenda for Digital Platform Economy," ETLA Working Papers 76, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    3. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    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. Fabian Schueler & Dimitri Petrik, 2022. "Objectives of platform research: A co-citation and systematic literature review analysis," Papers 2202.08822, arXiv.org.
    6. Gyesik Oh & Yoo S. Hong, 2018. "The impact of platform update interval on platform diffusion in a cooperative mobile ecosystem," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 549-558, March.
    7. Jørgen Veisdal, 2020. "The dynamics of entry for digital platforms in two-sided markets: a multi-case study," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(3), pages 539-556, September.
    8. Cenamor, Javier & Frishammar, Johan, 2021. "Openness in platform ecosystems: Innovation strategies for complementary products," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    9. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & David P. McIntyre & Arati Srinivasan, 2017. "Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 141-160, January.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. Joan Enric Ricart & Yuliya Snihur & Carlos Carrasco-Farré & Pascual Berrone, 2020. "Grassroots Resistance to Digital Platforms and Relational Business Model Design to Overcome It: A Conceptual Framework," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 271-291, September.
    13. Benedict Bender, 2020. "The Impact of Integration on Application Success and Customer Satisfaction in Mobile Device Platforms," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(6), pages 515-533, December.
    14. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    15. Spaniol, Matthew J. & Rowland, Nicholas J., 2022. "Business ecosystems and the view from the future: The use of corporate foresight by stakeholders of the Ro-Ro shipping ecosystem in the Baltic Sea Region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    16. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    17. Julien Legrand & Pascal Le Masson & Maxime Thomas & Benoît Weil, 2017. "Rise And Fall Of Platforms: Systematic Analysis Of Platform Dynamics Thanks To Axiomatic Design," Post-Print hal-01630672, HAL.
    18. Uzunca, Bilgehan & Sharapov, Dmitry & Tee, Richard, 2022. "Governance rigidity, industry evolution, and value capture in platform ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    19. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    20. Minhyuk Sur & Deok-Joo Lee & Kyung-Taek Kim, 2019. "Optimal revenue sharing in platform markets: a Stackelberg model," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(4), pages 317-331, August.

    More about this item

    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:hal:journl:hal-01833568. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.