(no title)
tamlin | 5 years ago
"The Rule of Three applies wherever competitive market forces are allowed to determine market structure with only minor regulatory and technological impediments."
https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/competitive-mark... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(economics)
The costs here of developing the platform and substitute services / features is high and all investors want some return on the investment. Third place companies are often stuck in the ditch going nowhere. Microsoft has deep pockets and years of experience, but ultimately bailed on Windows Phone because #3 is not a good place to be.
zepto|5 years ago
However I agree with you about Windows phone. There is no room for a 3rd place closed ecosystem like iOS or Android, where the goal is to monetize the app distribution platform.
However, there is absolutely room for an open platform where the profit comes from competitive apps that are able to do things that are not allowed under iOS and Android and can be developed by more parties.
The fact that a truly open platform would get leverage the from community, only strengthens the case.
If you want some MBA buzzwords as a lens, this would be called commoditizing your complement.
It is in the interests of people who don’t own closed stores, for the stores to be a commodity priced at as close to cost as possible.
That group has an interest in investing in such a platform. Not because of the direct ROI from platform fees, but because of the reduced costs to them, and frankly the reduction in power of companies like Apple.
It’s appears that it is cheaper for them to attempt to lobby for legislation to force other people’s App stores into being a commodity (or more likely force access for a limited group), than to actually build one, or at least it’s cheaper to try that first.
You can also look at low-end disruption theory.