Competing with the platform: Complementor positioning and cross‐platform response to entry

IF 6.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Strategic Management Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1002/smj.3643
Aldona Kapacinskaite, Ahmadreza Mostajabi
{"title":"Competing with the platform: Complementor positioning and cross‐platform response to entry","authors":"Aldona Kapacinskaite, Ahmadreza Mostajabi","doi":"10.1002/smj.3643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis study contrasts traditional entry dynamics with platform owner entry into a complementor market and examines cross‐platform complementor response to competition with the platform. Generalists experience low repositioning cost and are more likely to shift effort away, while specialists focus their effort on the focal platform. We examine Apple's “Files” app entry and find support for our hypotheses: generalists shift effort toward the competing platform, while specialists double down on the focal platform. Moreover, empirically comparing Apple's entry with that of other large firms, we find that only the platform owner elicits a strong complementor response. This article contributes to the competitive and corporate strategy literatures, underscoring how complementor heterogeneity affects cross‐platform allocation of effort when the platform owner becomes a competitor in complementor spaces.Managerial SummaryGiven the growing managerial and regulatory interest in competitive arenas on digital platforms, we analyze how firms respond to competition with the platform owner. We hypothesize that platform‐enabled firms (complementors) with an outside option—those who also operate on a different platform—reposition, while firms only focused on a single platform double down. Examining the case of the “Files” app on Apple's App Store, we find support for these predictions. We also study other large firm entries on App Store (by Microsoft and SanDisk), but do not observe a meaningful response by complementors. We describe how market entry by the platform owner differs from traditional entry and argue stakeholders may benefit from a deeper understanding of the unique nature of competing with a platform.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategic Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3643","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research SummaryThis study contrasts traditional entry dynamics with platform owner entry into a complementor market and examines cross‐platform complementor response to competition with the platform. Generalists experience low repositioning cost and are more likely to shift effort away, while specialists focus their effort on the focal platform. We examine Apple's “Files” app entry and find support for our hypotheses: generalists shift effort toward the competing platform, while specialists double down on the focal platform. Moreover, empirically comparing Apple's entry with that of other large firms, we find that only the platform owner elicits a strong complementor response. This article contributes to the competitive and corporate strategy literatures, underscoring how complementor heterogeneity affects cross‐platform allocation of effort when the platform owner becomes a competitor in complementor spaces.Managerial SummaryGiven the growing managerial and regulatory interest in competitive arenas on digital platforms, we analyze how firms respond to competition with the platform owner. We hypothesize that platform‐enabled firms (complementors) with an outside option—those who also operate on a different platform—reposition, while firms only focused on a single platform double down. Examining the case of the “Files” app on Apple's App Store, we find support for these predictions. We also study other large firm entries on App Store (by Microsoft and SanDisk), but do not observe a meaningful response by complementors. We describe how market entry by the platform owner differs from traditional entry and argue stakeholders may benefit from a deeper understanding of the unique nature of competing with a platform.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与平台竞争:补充者定位和跨平台进入的对策
研究摘要本研究对比了传统的进入动态与平台所有者进入互补者市场的动态,并考察了跨平台互补者对与平台竞争的反应。通才的重新定位成本低,更有可能将精力转移到其他方面,而专才则将精力集中在焦点平台上。我们研究了苹果公司的 "Files "应用程序入口,发现它支持了我们的假设:通才将精力转向竞争平台,而专才则加倍努力于焦点平台。此外,通过对苹果公司与其他大型公司的进入进行实证比较,我们发现只有平台所有者才会引起强烈的互补者反应。本文强调了当平台所有者成为互补者空间的竞争者时,互补者的异质性如何影响跨平台的努力分配,为竞争和企业战略文献做出了贡献。我们假设,拥有外部选择权的平台企业(互补者)--那些同时在不同平台上运营的企业--会重新定位,而只专注于单一平台的企业则会加倍努力。通过研究苹果应用商店的 "文件 "应用,我们发现这些预测得到了支持。我们还研究了其他进入 App Store 的大型企业(微软和闪迪),但没有观察到互补者做出有意义的反应。我们描述了平台所有者进入市场与传统进入市场的不同之处,并认为利益相关者可以从更深入地了解与平台竞争的独特性中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
8.40%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: At the Strategic Management Journal, we are committed to publishing top-tier research that addresses key questions in the field of strategic management and captivates scholars in this area. Our publication welcomes manuscripts covering a wide range of topics, perspectives, and research methodologies. As a result, our editorial decisions truly embrace the diversity inherent in the field.
期刊最新文献
Curating 1000 flowers as they bloom: Leveraging pluralistic initiatives to diffuse social innovations Economic nationalism and the home court advantage Fading corporate survival prospects: Impact of co‐selection bias in resource allocation on strategic intent Rewiring the organizational network: Corporate offsites and network tie formation Political competition and the rechanneling of corporate bribery into politically connected charity donations: Evidence from South Korea
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1