2026-09-19T00:52:57Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/request

oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/459342022-01-13T07:54:52Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023

Charles Fine. Aye, Thida, S.M. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. Sloan School of Management 2009-06-30T16:40:44Z 2009-06-30T16:40:44Z 2008 2008 http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/45934 320955028 Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, 2008. Includes bibliographical references (p. 75-77). In this thesis, based on the example case study of the Apple iTunes-iPods platform technology, two simple models are analyzed to gain a better understanding of open vs. closed business models as management and market strategies for multi-sided platforms. First, a simple model of a firm with a two-sided platform serving two distinct types of customers is evaluated, assuming network effects as the only intrinsic benefits to joining such a platform. Three different cases of market structure are investigated: (i) monopoly, (ii) open duopoly (iii) closed duopoly. Using game theory, comparative results of prices, profits, consumer surplus and social welfare among the three regimes are presented. The second model focuses on the effects of competition and compatibility between a profit-maximizing closed platform and an open, freely accessible platform. Given certain conditions, it is shown that compatibility can in fact be a profitable strategy for closed platforms while improving social welfare at the same time. by Thida Aye. S.M. 77 p. eng Massachusetts Institute of Technology M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582 Sloan School of Management. Open vs. closed Apple music distribution platform Open versus closed Apple music distribution platform Thesis application/pdf Publication unknown unknown <Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="55c3b05a-7a83-4c5a-ad3a-06a4af25948b"> <Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type> <Language>eng</Language> <Title>Open vs. closed Apple music distribution platform</Title> <Subtitle>Open versus closed Apple music distribution platform</Subtitle> <PublishedIn> <Publication> </Publication> </PublishedIn> <PublicationDate>2008</PublicationDate> <Authors> <Author> <DisplayName>Aye, Thida, S.M. Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName> <Affiliation> <OrgUnit> </OrgUnit> </Affiliation> </Author> </Authors> <Editors> </Editors> <Publishers> <Publisher> <DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName> <OrgUnit /> </Publisher> </Publishers> <License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License> <Keyword>Sloan School of Management.</Keyword> <Abstract>In this thesis, based on the example case study of the Apple iTunes-iPods platform technology, two simple models are analyzed to gain a better understanding of open vs. closed business models as management and market strategies for multi-sided platforms. First, a simple model of a firm with a two-sided platform serving two distinct types of customers is evaluated, assuming network effects as the only intrinsic benefits to joining such a platform. Three different cases of market structure are investigated: (i) monopoly, (ii) open duopoly (iii) closed duopoly. Using game theory, comparative results of prices, profits, consumer surplus and social welfare among the three regimes are presented. The second model focuses on the effects of competition and compatibility between a profit-maximizing closed platform and an open, freely accessible platform. Given certain conditions, it is shown that compatibility can in fact be a profitable strategy for closed platforms while improving social welfare at the same time.</Abstract> <Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right" > </Access> </Publication>