CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 157Digital Platforms and EconomicsInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingBusiness Strategy and Innovation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reconsideration of the Winner-Take-All Hypothesis: Complex Networks and Local Bias

Lee, Eocman, Lee, Jeho, Lee, Jongseok·2006·Management Science
DOI 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0571
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The literature on network effects has popularized a hypothesis that competition between incompatible technologies results in the “winner-take-all” outcome. For the survival of the firm in this sort of competition, the installed base has been emphasized. We argue that the validity of this hypothesis depends on how customers interact with one another (e.g., if they exchange advice or files). In some interaction networks, customers influenced by their acquaintances may adopt a lagging technology even when a lead technology has built a large installed base. The presence of such a local bias facilitates the persistence of incompatibilities. When local bias cannot be sustained in other interaction networks, one technology corners the market. Our study suggests that overemphasizing the installed base, while ignoring network structure, could mislead practitioners.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0571

Cites

48 of 48 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Arthur W. B., 1987, Technology Change and Economic Theory, 590
  2. Arthur W. B., 1996, Harvard Bus. Rev., 74, 101
  3. Farrell J., 1986, Amer. Econom. Rev., 76, 940
  4. Katz M. L., 1985, Amer. Econom. Rev., 75, 424
  5. Lee J., 2003, The Wharton Technology Mini-Conference, April 25

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 157

Related

Metadata

Authors
Lee, E., Lee, J., & Lee, J.
Affiliations
  • Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
  • Hallym University (KR)
  • Department of Business Administration, Hallym University, 39 Hallymdaehak-gil, Chunchon, Kangwon-do 200-702, Korea
ORCID
Lee, Jeho
Venue
Management Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
2006-12
Volume
52
Issue
12
Pages
1838-1848
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
DOI
10.1287/mnsc.1060.0571
OpenAlex
W2128344388
Cited by
157
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
14.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Management Science (publishedVersion)
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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
Keywords
network effects, local bias, installed base, technology adoption, network structure, complex networks, market dominance

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