Standardization : The Rise of Linux in the Network Era

To attract complementary assets, firms that sponsor proprietary de facto compatibility standards must trade off control of the standard against the imperative for adoption. For example, Microsoft and Intel in turn gained pervasive adoption of their technologies by appropriating only a single layer of the standards architecture and encouraging competition in other layers. In reaction to such proprietary strategies, the open source movement relinquished control to maximize adoption. To illustrate this, we examine the rise of the Linux operating system from 1995–2001, particularly the motivations of organizational buyers and suppliers of complementary assets, and Microsoft’s reaction to its success.

[1]  R. Garud,et al.  Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy , 1993 .

[2]  Ping Pan,et al.  Internet Engineering Task Force , 1995 .

[3]  Peter Grindley,et al.  Standards, strategy, and policy : cases and stories , 2000 .

[4]  Peter H. Salus,et al.  A quarter century of UNIX , 1994 .

[5]  Chris DiBona,et al.  Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution , 1999 .

[6]  Stephen E. Margolis,et al.  Winners, Losers & Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology , 1999 .

[7]  Gary Scott Malkin.  The Tao of IETF - A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force , 1993, RFC.

[8]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Refining and Extending the Business Model with Information Technology: Dell Computer Corporation , 1999, Inf. Soc..

[9]  Timothy F. Bresnahan,et al.  Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry , 2003 .

[10]  C R Morris,et al.  How architecture wins technology wars. , 1993, Harvard business review.

[11]  S. Greenstein.  Lock-in and the Costs of Switching Mainframe Computer Vendors: What Do Buyers See? , 1991 .

[12]  Robert Sobel,et al.  I.B.M., colossus in transition , 1981 .

[13]  Alan MacCormack,et al.  Red Hat and the Linux Revolution , 1999 .

[14]  E. von Hippel,et al.  Sources of Innovation , 2016 .

[15]  Jason L. Dedrick,et al.  Innovation and Control in Standards Architectures: The Rise and Fall of Japan's PC-98 , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[16]  Andrew S. Tanenbaum,et al.  Operating systems: design and implementation , 1987, Prentice-Hall software series.

[17]  V. Vinay,et al.  What is free software? , 1999 .

[18]  Raghu Garud,et al.  CHARGING COMPETITIVE DYNAMICS IN NETWORK INDUSTRIES: AN EXPLORATION OF SUM MICROSYSTEMS' OPEN , 1993 .

[19]  James Chposky,et al.  Blue Magic: The People, Power and Politics Behind the IBM Personal Computer , 1988 .

[20]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[21]  Alexander Hars,et al.  Working for free? Motivations of participating in open source projects , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[22]  Ken Thompson,et al.  The UNIX time-sharing system , 1974, CACM.

[23]  David C. Moschella.  Waves of Power: The Dynamics of Global Technology Leadership, 1964-2010 , 1997 .

[24]  Tineke M. Egyedi,et al.  Why Java™ was - not - standardized twice , 2001, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[25]  Eric S. Raymond,et al.  The cathedral and the bazaar - musings on Linux and Open Source by an accidental revolutionary , 2001 .

[26]  Mark J. Safferstone.  Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy , 1999 .

[27]  Josh Lerner,et al.  The Simple Economics of Open Source , 2000 .

[28]  Andrew S. Grove,et al.  Only the Paranoid Survive: How to Exploit the Crisis Points that Challenge Every Company and Career , 1996 .