Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Review of Network Economics

Editor-in-Chief: Grzybowski, Lukasz

Ed. by Briglauer, Wolfgang / Goetz, Georg / Pereira, Pedro

4 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.357
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.894

CiteScore 2017: 0.64

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.315
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.770

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 14, Issue 1


Does a Platform Monopolist Want Competition?

Andras Niedermayer
Published Online: 2016-03-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rne-2015-0006


We consider a software vendor first selling a monopoly platform and then an application running on this platform. He may face competition by an entrant in the applications market. The platform monopolist can benefit from competition for three reasons. First, his profits from the platform increase. Second, competition serves as a credible commitment to lower prices for applications. Third, higher expected product variety may lead to higher demand for his application. Results carry over to non-software platforms and, partially, to upstream and downstream firms. The model also explains why Microsoft Office is priced significantly higher than Microsoft’s operating system.

Keywords: complementary goods; entry; Microsoft; platforms; price commitment; product variety; two-sided markets; vertical integration

JEL: D41; D43; L13; L86


  • Armstrong, M. (2006) “Competition in Two-sided Markets,” RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3):668–691.Google Scholar

  • Beggs, A. W. (1994) “Mergers and Malls,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 42(4):419–428.Google Scholar

  • Besen, S. M. and J. Farrell (1994) “Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8:117–310.Google Scholar

  • Boudreau, K. (2010) “Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control,” Management Science, 56(10):1849–1872.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Caillaud, B. and B. Jullien (2003) “Chicken & Egg: Competition Among Intermediation Service Providers,” RAND Journal of Economics, 34(2):309–328.Google Scholar

  • Economides, N. (1996) “Network Externalities, Complementarities, and Invitations to Enter,” European Journal of Political Economy, 12(2):211–233.Google Scholar

  • Economides, N. (1997) “Raising Rivals’ Costs in Complementary Goods Markets: Lecs Entering Into Long Distance and Microsoft Bundling Internet Explorer.” Discussion Paper EC-98-03, Stern School of Business.

  • Economides, N. and V. B. Viard (2011) “Pricing of Complementary Goods and Network Effects.” In: (G. Madden, ed.) Regulation and the Economic Performance of Communication and Information Networks, number 0407005. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 157–190.Google Scholar

  • Evans, D. S., A. Hagiu and R. Schmalensee (2004) “A Survey of the Economic Role of Software Platforms in Computer-based Industries.” CESifo Working Paper Series CESifo Working Paper No., CESifo GmbH.Google Scholar

  • Farrell, J. and N. T. Gallini (1988) “Second-sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(4):673–694.Google Scholar

  • Grossman, S. and O. Hart (1986) “The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration,” Journal of Political Economy, 94(4):691–719.Google Scholar

  • Hagiu, A. (2004) Platforms, Pricing, Commitment and Variety in Two-sided Markets. PhD thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar

  • Hagiu, A. and J. Wright (2015) “Enabling versus Controlling.” Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Working Paper, (16-002).Google Scholar

  • Hart, O. and J. Moore (1990) “Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm,” Journal of Political Economy, 98(6):1119–1158.Google Scholar

  • Loertscher, S. and Y. Schneider (2011) “Chain Stores, Consumer Mobility, and Market Structure,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 167(2):236–246.Google Scholar

  • Muthers, J. and S. Wismer (2013) “Why Do Platforms Charge Proportional Fees? Commitment and Seller Participation.” Commitment and Seller Participation (January 21, 2013).

  • Niedermayer, A. (2013) “On Platforms, Incomplete Contracts, and Open Source Software,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 31(6):714–722.Google Scholar

  • Nocke, V., M. Peitz, and K. Stahl (2007) “Platform Ownership,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(6):1130–1160.Google Scholar

  • Parker, G. and M. W. Van Alstyne (2000) “Information Complements, Substitutes, and Strategic Product Design.” In: Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 13–15. Association for Information Systems.Google Scholar

  • Reddy, B., D. Evans, and A. Nichols (2002) “Why Does Microsoft Charge So Little For Windows?” Microsoft, Antitrust and the New Economy: Selected Essays.

  • Reddy, B., D. Evans, A. Nichols, and R. Schmalensee (2001) “A Monopolist Would Still Charge More for Windows: A Comment on Werden,” Review of Industrial Organization, 18(3):263–268.Google Scholar

  • Rochet, J.-C. and J. Tirole (2003) “Platform Competition in Two-sided Markets,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4):990–1029.Google Scholar

  • Rochet, J.-C. and J. Tirole (2006) “Two-sided Markets: A Progress Report,” RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3):645–667.Google Scholar

  • Schulz, N. and K. Stahl (1996) “Do Consumers Search for the Highest Price? Oligopoly Equilibrium and Monopoly Optimum in Differentiated-Products Markets,” RAND Journal of Economics, 27(3):542–562.Google Scholar

  • Schwartz, M. and G. J. Werden (1996) “A Quality-signaling Rationale for Aftermarket Tying,” Antitrust Law Journal, 62(2):387–404.Google Scholar

  • Spulber, D. F. (1999). Market Microstructure: Intermediaries and the Theory of the Firm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stahl, K. (1982) “Location and Spatial Pricing Theory with Nonconvex Transportation Cost Schedules,” Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2):575–582.Google Scholar

  • Varian, H. R. and C. Shapiro (1998) Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

  • Werden, G. (2001) “Microsoft’s Pricing of Windows: A Reply to Reddy, Evans, Nichols, and Schmalensee,” Review of Industrial Organization, 18(3):269–271.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Andras Niedermayer, Department of Economics, University of Mannheim, L7, 3-5, D-68131 Mannheim, Germany, e-mail:

Published Online: 2016-03-16

Published in Print: 2015-03-01

Citation Information: Review of Network Economics, Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 1–44, ISSN (Online) 1446-9022, ISSN (Print) 2194-5993, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rne-2015-0006.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in