Cited by 286Digital Platforms and EconomicsOpen Source Software InnovationsBusiness Strategy and Innovation

Exploiting and Defending Open Digital Platforms with Boundary Resources: Android’s Five Platform Forks

Open access
Karhu, Kimmo, Gustafsson, Robin, Lyytinen, Kalle·2018·Information Systems Research

Abstract

Digital platforms can be opened in two ways to promote innovation and value generation. A platform owner can open access for third-party participants by establishing boundary resources, such as APIs and an app store, to allow complements to be developed and shared for the platform. Furthermore, to foster cooperation with the complementors, the platform owner can use an open-source license boundary resource to open and share the platform’s core resources. However, openness that is too wide renders the platform and its shared resources vulnerable to strategic exploitation. To our knowledge, platform strategies that promote such negative outcomes have remained unexplored in past research. We identify and analyze a prominent form of strategic exploitation called platform forking in which a hostile firm, i.e., a forker, bypasses the host’s controlling boundary resources and exploits the platform’s shared resources, core and complements, to create a competing platform business. We investigate platform forking on Google’s Android platform, a successful open digital platform, by analyzing the fate of five Android forks and related exploitative activities. We observe several strategies that illustrate alternative ways of bundling a platform fork from a set of host, forker, and other resources. We also scrutinize Google’s responses, which modified Android’s boundary resources to curb exploitation and retain control. In this paper, we make two contributions. First, we present a theorization of the competitive advantage of open digital platforms and specifically expose platform forking as an exploitative and competitive platform strategy. Second, we extend platform governance literature by showing how boundary resources, which are mainly viewed as cooperative governance mechanisms, are also used to combat platform forking and thus sustain a platform’s competitive advantage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.2018.0786

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Hard forks represent a significant shock to an open source project, yet provide a path towards sustainability through the continuance of the resources that were initially developed in the original project.

    “the multifacetedness of hard forks remains a bit of a paradox in open source as they represent a significant shock to an open source project, yet provide a path towards sustainability (Nyman et al. 2012;Acquatella et al. 2024) through the continuance of the resources that were initially developed in the original project (Karhu et al. 2018(Karhu et al. , 2020)).”
  • Collective action threats and governance changes can contribute to an immediate need for departure from the original project for reasons of long-term sustainability of technical assets.

    “Collective action threats and governance changes can contribute to an immediate need for departure from the original project for reasons of long-term sustainability of technical assets (Nyman et al. 2012;Karhu et al. 2018Karhu et al. , 2020) )”
  • The goal of projects is to achieve competitive advantage over others.

    “The goal of projects is thus to achieve competitive advantage over others (Chengalur-Smith et al., 2010; Karhu et al., 2018).”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Karhu et al., 2018

  • Decisions on architecture must be made in a short time, and mistakes can turn out to be dramatic.

    “Decisions on architecture must therefore be made in a short time, and mistakes can turn out to be dramatic (Karhu et al., 2018;Nambisan et al., 2019).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 286

Authors
Karhu, K., Gustafsson, R., & Lyytinen, K.
Affiliations
  • Aalto University (FI)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
2018-06
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
479-497
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W2801115940
Cited by
286
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 4
FWCI
38.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
Keywords
boundary resources, Android, platform governance, open source licenses, API, App Store, platform strategy, competitive advantage, platform control, complementors

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