TUTCRIS - Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto

TUTCRIS

Winner does not take all: Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets

Tutkimustuotosvertaisarvioitu

Standard

Winner does not take all : Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets. / Huotari, Pontus; Järvi, Kati; Kortelainen, Samuli; Huhtamäki, Jukka.

julkaisussa: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vuosikerta 114, 01.01.2017, s. 313-326.

Tutkimustuotosvertaisarvioitu

Harvard

Huotari, P, Järvi, K, Kortelainen, S & Huhtamäki, J 2017, 'Winner does not take all: Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vuosikerta. 114, Sivut 313-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.028

APA

Huotari, P., Järvi, K., Kortelainen, S., & Huhtamäki, J. (2017). Winner does not take all: Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 313-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.028

Vancouver

Huotari P, Järvi K, Kortelainen S, Huhtamäki J. Winner does not take all: Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017 tammi 1;114:313-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.028

Author

Huotari, Pontus ; Järvi, Kati ; Kortelainen, Samuli ; Huhtamäki, Jukka. / Winner does not take all : Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets. Julkaisussa: Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017 ; Vuosikerta 114. Sivut 313-326.

Bibtex - Lataa

@article{7c1286a4781640a28c4b00bd3eece866,
title = "Winner does not take all: Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets",
abstract = "We model how macro-level dynamics of platform competition emerge from micro-level interactions among consumers. We problematize the prevailing winner-take-all hypothesis and argue that instead of assuming that consumers value the general connectivity of an entire network, they are selectively attentive and locally biased. We contrast several alternative agent-based models with differing sets of assumptions regarding consumer agents' behavior and compare their predictions with empirical data from the competition between Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360. The results show that only when consumers are assumed to be selectively attentive and locally biased is it possible to explain real-life market sharing between the given platforms. In effect, it is shown how a late-entrant platform can get adopted by most consumers in the market, despite the fact that an early entrant has greater initial installed base, greater pool of complementary products, and lower initial price.",
keywords = "Adoption behavior, Agent-based modeling, Complementarities, Network effects, Platform competition, Simulation",
author = "Pontus Huotari and Kati J{\"a}rvi and Samuli Kortelainen and Jukka Huhtam{\"a}ki",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.028",
language = "English",
volume = "114",
pages = "313--326",
journal = "Technological Forecasting and Social Change",
issn = "0040-1625",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Lataa

TY - JOUR

T1 - Winner does not take all

T2 - Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets

AU - Huotari, Pontus

AU - Järvi, Kati

AU - Kortelainen, Samuli

AU - Huhtamäki, Jukka

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - We model how macro-level dynamics of platform competition emerge from micro-level interactions among consumers. We problematize the prevailing winner-take-all hypothesis and argue that instead of assuming that consumers value the general connectivity of an entire network, they are selectively attentive and locally biased. We contrast several alternative agent-based models with differing sets of assumptions regarding consumer agents' behavior and compare their predictions with empirical data from the competition between Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360. The results show that only when consumers are assumed to be selectively attentive and locally biased is it possible to explain real-life market sharing between the given platforms. In effect, it is shown how a late-entrant platform can get adopted by most consumers in the market, despite the fact that an early entrant has greater initial installed base, greater pool of complementary products, and lower initial price.

AB - We model how macro-level dynamics of platform competition emerge from micro-level interactions among consumers. We problematize the prevailing winner-take-all hypothesis and argue that instead of assuming that consumers value the general connectivity of an entire network, they are selectively attentive and locally biased. We contrast several alternative agent-based models with differing sets of assumptions regarding consumer agents' behavior and compare their predictions with empirical data from the competition between Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360. The results show that only when consumers are assumed to be selectively attentive and locally biased is it possible to explain real-life market sharing between the given platforms. In effect, it is shown how a late-entrant platform can get adopted by most consumers in the market, despite the fact that an early entrant has greater initial installed base, greater pool of complementary products, and lower initial price.

KW - Adoption behavior

KW - Agent-based modeling

KW - Complementarities

KW - Network effects

KW - Platform competition

KW - Simulation

U2 - 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.028

DO - 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.028

M3 - Article

VL - 114

SP - 313

EP - 326

JO - Technological Forecasting and Social Change

JF - Technological Forecasting and Social Change

SN - 0040-1625

ER -