The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel
Open accessAbstract
This paper explores Intel's strategy with respect to complements. We find that, as the literature predicts, Intel's entry decisions are shaped by the belief that it does not have the capabilities to enter all possible markets, and thus that it must encourage widespread entry despite the fact that potential entrants (rationally) fear Intel's ability to “squeeze” them ex post. We explore the ways in which Intel addresses this issue, highlighting in particular the firm's use of organizational structure and processes as commitment mechanisms. Our results have implications for our understanding of the dynamics of competition in complements and of the role of organizational form in shaping competition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/154247603322493212 · Cited by 5,642
Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers
Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1593720 · Cited by 1,799
West, J. (2003) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00052-0 · Cited by 854
Cited by
Towards a theory of ecosystems
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2904 · Cited by 3,724
Self-citationEcosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy
Adner, R. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316678451 · Cited by 2,600
Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12105 · Cited by 2,394
Self-citationBridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework
Gawer, A. (2014) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006 · Cited by 1,869
“Intel for example ook particular care to ensure that its complementors could remain rofitable by refraining to compete directly with them in a number f markets (Gawer and Henderson, 2007).”
BackgroundNetworks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps
McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2596 · Cited by 1,109
Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age
Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O., & Parker, G. G. (2018) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0794 · Cited by 943
Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends
Gomes, L. A. D. V., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009 · Cited by 836
Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software1
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410417 · Cited by 794
Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1496336 · Cited by 829
How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems
Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2750 · Cited by 692
Architectural Leverage: Putting Platforms in Context
Thomas, L. D. W., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. (2014) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2011.0105 · Cited by 639
Digital platforms’ boundaries: The interplay of firm scope, platform sides, and digital interfaces
Gawer, A. (2021) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102045 · Cited by 626
Self-citationInnovation, Openness, and Platform Control
Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2757 · Cited by 549
Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com
Zhu, F., & Liu, Q. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2932 · Cited by 546
Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments
Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2010 · Cited by 502
Ecosystems: broadening the locus of value creation
Kapoor, R. (2018) · Journal of Organization Design · doi:10.1186/s41469-018-0035-4 · Cited by 504
Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. (2017) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1122 · Cited by 453
Competing in Digital Markets: A Platform-Based Perspective
Cennamo, C. (2021) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2016.0048 · Cited by 487
The interplay of competition and cooperation
Hoffmann, W., Lavie, D., Reuer, J. J., & Shipilov, A. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2965 · Cited by 378
Chen, L., Tong, T. W., Tang, S., & Han, N. (2022) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063211045023 · Cited by 345
Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R., & Lyytinen, K. (2018) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0786 · Cited by 286
Platform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements
Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2018) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0779 · Cited by 273
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2024) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104906 · Cited by 220
Self-citationAppropriability Mechanisms and the Platform Partnership Decision: Evidence from Enterprise Software
Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., & Wu, D. J. (2013) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1618 · Cited by 198
On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and strategy
Basole, R. C., & Karla, J. (2011) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-011-0174-4 · Cited by 192
Configurations of platform organizations: Implications for complementor engagement
Saadatmand, F., Lindgren, R., & Schultze, U. (2019) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.015 · Cited by 190
Building the Value of Next-Generation Platforms: The Paradox of Diminishing Returns
Cennamo, C. (2018) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316658350 · Cited by 173
Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Schuetz, S. W., & Heinzl, A. (2019) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12186 · Cited by 126
Tavalaei, M. M., & Cennamo, C. (2021) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2020.101994 · Cited by 101
Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social coordination and ecosystem emergence
Fang, T. P., Wu, A., & Clough, D. R. (2021) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3230 · Cited by 85
Vertical and horizontal complementarities in platform ecosystems
Thomas, L. D. W., Ritala, P., Karhu, K., & Heiskala, M. (2025) · Innovation · doi:10.1080/14479338.2024.2303593 · Cited by 34
Architectural Convergence and Platform Evolution: Empirical Test of Complementor Moves in Videogames
Srinivasan, A., & Venkatraman, V. N. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2018.2881560 · Cited by 26
Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2016) · The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management · doi:10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_435-1 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Gawer, A., & Henderson, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Economics & Management Strategy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01-22
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-34
- ISSN
- 1058-6407 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9134
- OpenAlex
- W2108929577
- Cited by
- 488
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 45.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.