The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Platform Performance Investment in the Presence of Network Externalities
Open accessAbstract
Managers of emerging platforms must decide what level of platform performance to invest in at each product development cycle in markets that exhibit two-sided network externalities. High performance is a selling point for consumers, but in many cases it requires developers to make large investments to participate. Abstracting from an example drawn from the video game industry, we build a strategic model to investigate the trade-off between investing in high platform performance versus reducing investment in order to facilitate third party content development. We carry out a full analysis of three distinct settings: monopoly, price-setting duopoly, and price-taking duopoly. We provide insights on the optimum investment in platform performance and demonstrate how conventional wisdom about product development may be misleading in the presence of strong cross-network externalities. In particular, we show that, contrary to the conventional wisdom about “winner-take-all” markets, heavily investing in the core performance of a platform does not always yield a competitive edge. We characterize the conditions under which offering a platform with lower performance but greater availability of content can be a winning strategy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Multihoming also requires the development of a wider pool of technological capabilities at the complementor firm (Anderson et al. 2014), resulting in a higher cost structure.”
From Smart Timing for Smart Products? Complementor Multihoming in Nascent Platform Markets (2026) · cites this paper as Anderson et al. 2014
In the citing paper
“Although the smart home market was at a ferment stage during our study period, by 2017, it had already reached a worldwide household penetration rate of 2.4% and was expected to grow rapidly.5”
From Smart Timing for Smart Products? Complementor Multihoming in Nascent Platform Markets (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cites
Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events
Arthur, W. B. (1989) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234208 · Cited by 7,489
Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility
Katz, M. L. (1985) · American Economic Review · Cited by 6,052
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
Competition in two-sided markets
Armstrong, M. (2006) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00037.x · Cited by 3,315
Mussa, M., & Rosen, S. (1978) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/0022-0531(78)90085-6 · Cited by 3,306
Brooks, F. P. (1975) · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · doi:10.1145/390016.808439 · Cited by 3,215
Two-sided markets: A progress report
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2006) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x · Cited by 2,994
Systems Competition and Network Effects
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.8.2.93 · Cited by 2,646
Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1986) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261409 · Cited by 2,622
Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1985) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2555589 · Cited by 2,554
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Allen D, 2006, PCWorld
- Armstrong M, 2009, Econom. J., 119, 270
- Arthur B, 1989, Econom. J., 99, 116
- 10.1145/800027.808439 · DOI
- Dutka B, 2009, PSXExtreme
- Eisenmann TR, 2006, Harvard Bus. Rev., 84, 92
- 10.1002/smj.935 · DOI · Paper page
- Farrell J, 1986, Amer. Econom. Rev., 76, 940
- Gawer A, 2008, MIT Sloan Management Rev., 49, 28
- Hasseldahl A, 2005, BusinessWeek.com
- Katz ML, 1985, Amer. Econom. Rev., 75, 424
- Kim R, 2007, San Francisco Chronicle
- Leheng Q, 2006, TechGate
- Parker G, 2009, Comm. Amp; Strategies, 17
- Schoenberger CR, 2008, Forbes
- Sheffield B, 2008, Game Developer, 15, 2
- Sinclair B, 2006, Gamespot
- Tirpak JA, 2007, Air Force Magazine, 90, 40
- Tiwana A, 2010, Internat. Statist. Rev., 21, 675
- Wen H, 2007, Gamasutra
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Competing in Digital Markets: A Platform-Based Perspective
Cennamo, C. (2021) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2016.0048 · Cited by 487
Generativity Tension and Value Creation in Platform Ecosystems
Cennamo, C., & Santaló, J. (2019) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2018.1270 · Cited by 408
Strategic Analysis of the Agency Model for Digital Goods
Tan, Y., & Carrillo, J. E. (2016) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/poms.12595 · Cited by 348
Platform Strategy: Managing Ecosystem Value Through Selective Promotion of Complements
Rietveld, J., Schilling, M. A., & Bellavitis, C. (2017) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2019.1290 · Cited by 336
Choi, T., Guo, S. J., Liu, N., & Shi, X. (2020) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2020.01.049 · Cited by 343
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, E. G., Parker, G. G., & Tan, B.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Tulane University (US)
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 152-172
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W3123202234
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 32.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Supply Chain and Inventory Management
- Keywords
- video game industry, product development strategy, monopoly, duopoly, winner-take-all markets
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