CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Digital Platforms and EconomicsInnovation and Knowledge ManagementBusiness Strategy and Innovation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

In search of complementarities within and across platform ecosystems: Complementors’ relative standing and performance in mobile apps ecosystems

Tavalaei, M. Mahdi, Cennamo, Carmelo·2021·Long Range Planning
DOI 10.1016/j.lrp.2020.101994
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Firms can benefit immensely from participating in digital platform ecosystems—specifically, from the shared technological assets and market opportunities offered by the platform owner. Yet, while aligning with the platform ecosystem rules, each member must decide whether to specialize in a given platform ecosystem or across multiple platform ecosystems to capture these benefits. We examine two common patterns through which platform ecosystem members (i.e., complementors ) specialize within and across platform ecosystems, and the relative impact on their market performance. We look at the high relative standing of the complementary product as a reflection of complementors' specialization in the given product category or platform ecosystem. We then theorize that having products with high relative standing in a single product category and a single platform ecosystem, together, diminishes complementors’ market performance over time. Similarly, high relative standing in multiple platform ecosystems and multiple product categories, at the same time, adversely impacts the market performance. We find supportive evidence for our hypotheses, in a panel dataset of mobile app developers. This paper contributes to the burgeoning stream of research that investigates the trade-offs faced by complementors, suggesting that complementor strategies are more complex than simply trying to maximize market reach.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.lrp.2020.101994

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bryant, 2009, The self-regulatory foundations of entrepreneurial ambidexterity, Front. Entrep. Res., 29, 6
  2. Sharapov, 2018, July. Complementor strategies in smartphone application markets, vol. 2018, 14344

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 101

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tavalaei, M. M., & Cennamo, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • Copenhagen Business School (DK)
Corresponding author
Cennamo, Carmelo
ORCID
Venue
Long Range Planning
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-10
Volume
54
Issue
5
Pages
101994
ISSN
0024-6301 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.lrp.2020.101994
OpenAlex
W3014095858
Cited by
101
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10
FWCI
12.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Long Range Planning (publishedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Google
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
Keywords
digital platform ecosystems, complementors, relative standing, market performance, mobile app developers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review