Divide and conquer: Competing with free technology under network effects

Production and Operations Management

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 12-28

  Lee, Deishin ^a   Mendelson, Haim ^b  

^a HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

First mover advantage; Free technology; Market segmentation; Network effects; Open source

Indexed keywords

EID: 41149177571     PISSN: 10591478     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3401/poms.1070.0005     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Armstrong, M. J., M. Levesque. 2002. Timing and quality decisions for entrepreneurial product development. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 141(1) 88-106.
2. Arthur, B. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econom. J. 99(394) 116-131.
3. Besen, S. M., J. Farrell. 1994. Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in standardization. J. Econom. Perspectives 8(2) 117-131.
4. Bessen, J. E. 2005. Open source software: Free provision of complex public goods. SSRN Working Paper Series, http://ssrn.com/abstract=588763.
5. Bitzer, J. 2004. Commercial versus open source software: The role of product heterogeneity in competition. Econom. Systems 28(4) 369-381.
6. Casadesus-Masanell, R., P. Ghemawat. 2006. Dynamic mixed duopoly: A model motivated by Linux vs. Windows. Management Sci. 52(7) 1072-1084.
7. Choi, S. C., W. S. Desarbo, P. T. Harker. 1990. Product positioning under price competition. Management Sci. 36(2) 175-199.
8. Cohen, M. A., J. Eliashbery, T.-H. Ho. 1996. New product development: The performance and time-to-market tradeoff. Management Sci. 42(2) 173-186.
9. Dybvig, P. H., C. S. Spatt. 1983. Adoption externalities as public goods. J. Public Econom. 20(2) 231-247.
10. Economides, N., E. Katsamakas. 2006. Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Management Sci. 52(7) 1057-1071.
11. Farrell, J., P. Klemperer. 2007. Coordination and lock-in: Competition with switching costs and network effects. M. Armstrong, R. Porter, eds. Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 3. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1967-2072.
12. Farrell, J., G. Saloner. 1985. Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. RAND J. Econom. 16(1) 70-83.
13. Farrell, J., G. Saloner. 1992. Converters, compatibility, and the control of interfaces. J. Indust. Econom. 40(1) 9-35.
14. Feller, J., B. Fitzgerald, E. Raymond. 2001. Understanding Open Source Software Development. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, London.
15. First Monday. 1998. Interview with Linus Torvalds: What motivates free software developers? 3(3), http//www.firstmonday.org/issues/ issue3_3/torvalds.
16. Fudenberg, D., J. Tirole. 1991. Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
17. Galli, P. 2004. Loss of focus at Microsoft worries top exec. eWeek (July 6), http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1620399,00.asp.
18. Gandal, N. 2002. Compatibility, standardization, and network effects: Some policy implications. Oxford Rev. Econom. Policy 18(1) 80-91.
19. Gilbert, J. T., P. H. Birnbaum-More. 1996. Innovation timing advantages: From economic theory to strategic application. J. Engrg. Tech. Management 12(4) 245-266.
20. Hagiu, A. 2004. Two-sided platforms: Pricing and social efficiency. SSRN Working Paper Series, http://ssrn.com/abstract=621461.
21. Hayes, R. H. 2002. Challenges posed to operations management in the "new economy." Production Oper. Management 11(1) 21-32.
22. Hertel, G., S. Niedner, S. Herrmann. 2003. Motivation of software developers in open source projects: An internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res. Policy 32(7) 1159-1177.
23. Johnson, J. P. 2002. Open source software: Private provision of a public good. J. Econom. Management Strategy 11(4) 637-662.
24. Katz, M., C. Shapiro. 1986a. Product compatibility choice in a market with technological progress. Oxford Econom. Papers - New Series 38(0) 146-165.
25. Katz, M., C. Shapiro. 1986b. Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J. Political Econom. 94(4) 822-841.
26. Kerin, R. A., P. R. Varadarajan, R. A. Peterson. 1992. First-mover advantage: A synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. J. Marketing 56(4) 33-52.
27. Kristiansen, E. G. 1998. R&D in the presence of network externalities: Timing and compatibility. RAND J. Econom. 29(3) 531-547.
28. Kuan, J. W. 2001. Open source software as consumer integration into production. SSRN Working Paper Series, http://ssrn.com/abstract=259648.
29. Lakhani, K., E. von Hippel. 2003. How open source software works: "Free" user-to-user assistance. Res. Policy 32(6) 923-943.
30. Lee, D., H. Mendelson. 2007. Adoption of information technology under network effects. Inform. Systems Res. 18(4). Forthcoming.
31. Lerner, J., J. Tirole. 2002. Some simple economics of open source. J. Indust. Econom. 50(2) 197-234.
32. Lieberman, M. B., D. B. Montgomery. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management J. 9(2) 941-958.
33. LinuxWorld. Microsoft's Ballmer: Linux requires our concentrated focus and attention. Retrieved December 17, 2007, http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index. php/id;580132275;fp;2jfpid;1.
34. Lohr, S. 2005. Can this man reprogram Microsoft? New York Times (December 11), http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/yourmoney/11micro. html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
35. Manenti, F. M., E. Somma. 2003. One-way compatibility, two-way compatibility and entry in network industries. Working paper, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
36. Netcraft. Web survey. Retrieved March 20, 2007, http://news.netcraft.com/ archives/web_server_survey.html.
37. Parker, G., M. W. Van Alstyne. 2005. Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Sci. 51(10) 1494-1504.
38. Regibeau, P., K. Rockett. 1996. The timing of product introduction and the credibility of compatibility decisions. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 14(6) 801-823.
39. Ricciuti, M. 2002. Open source: Rebels at the gate. CNET (October 14), http://news.com.com/2009-1001-961354.html.
40. Roberts, J. A., I.-H. Hann, S. A. Slaughter. 2006. Undertanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Sci. 52(7) 984-999.
41. Rochet, J., J. Tirole. 2002. Cooperation among competitors: Some economics of payment card associations. RAND J. Econom. 33(4) 549-570.
42. Rohlfs, J. 1974. Theory of interdependent demand for a communications service. Bell J. Econom. 5(1) 16-37.
43. Rosenberg, D. 2000. Open Source: The Unauthorized White Papers. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto.
44. Schiff, A. 2003. Open and closed systems of two-sided networks. Inform. Econom. Policy 15(4) 425-442.
45. Shah, S. K. 2006. Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Sci. 52(7) 1000-1014.
46. Shankland, S. 2002. IDC: Windows cheaper than Linux. CNET (December 3), http://news.com.com/2100-1001-975938.html.
47. Shapiro, C., H. Varian. 1999. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
48. Simon, B., M. Loewy, S. Sturmer, U. Weber, P. Freytag, C. Habig, C. Kampmeier, P. Spahlinger. 1998. Collective identification and social movement participation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 73(3) 646-658.
49. Toch, H. 1965. The Social Psychology of Social Movements. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
50. Tyagi, R. 2000. Sequential product positioning under differential costs. Management Sci. 46(7) 928-940.
51. Zeichick, A. 2004. Relational databases rule the roost. Software Development Times (July 1) 12.