Never Say Never: Incumbents and Newcomers in the Presence of an Architectural Innovation

References

• Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
   Google Scholar
• Adner R., (2002) When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667–688.
   Google Scholar
• Brown S.L, and Eisenhardt K.M. (1997) The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42,1,1–34.
   Google Scholar
• Caves, R.E. 2000. Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chandler A. (1990) Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. (1993), The rigid disk drive industry: A history of commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Review, Winter, 67: 531–588.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. and R. Rosenbloom (1995). Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24: 233–257.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. and J. Bower, (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 197–218.
   Google Scholar
• Constant, E. W. (1980). The origins of the turbojet revolution (Vol. 5). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, A. C. and D. Shendel (1976). Strategic responses to technological threats. Business Horizons, 61–69.
   Google Scholar
• Dewar, R.D. Dutton J.E. (1986) The adoption of radical and incremental innovation: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422–1433.
   Google Scholar
• Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11(3): 147–162.
   Google Scholar
• Dosi, G. (1993) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 22: 102–103.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991) Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16:620–627
   Google Scholar
• Fosfuri A., Giarratana M. S., Luzzi A. (2005) Firm assets and investments in open source software product. DRUID working papers, retrieved from http://www.druid.dk/ uploads/tx_picturedb/wp05–10.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, R. M. and K. B. Clark (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9–30.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson R.M. and Mitchell, W. (1997). The interaction of organizational and competitive influences on strategy and performance. Strategic Management Journal 18 (Summer Special Issue) 5–14.
   Google Scholar
• Hesmondhalgh, D. (2007). The cultural industries. London: Sage 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Huygens M., Baden-Fuller C.,Van Den Bosch F.A.J., Volberda H.W. (2001) Coevolution of firm Capabilities and Industry Competition: Investigating the Music Industry 1877–1997 Organization Studies, 22/6 971–1011
   Google Scholar
• IFPI (2004) IFPI:04 Digital Music Report. Retrieved from www.ifpi.org
   Google Scholar
• IFPI (2005) IFPI:05 Digital Music Report. Retrieved from www.ifpi.org
   Google Scholar
• IFPI (2006) IFPI:06 Digital Music Report. Retrieved from www.ifpi.org
   Google Scholar
• IFPI (2007 IFPI:07 Digital Music Report. Retrieved from www.ifpi.org
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, R. (1975). Images and Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Katila, R. and G. Ahuja (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45(6): 1183.
   Google Scholar
• King, A. A. and C. L. Tucci (2002). Incumbent entry into new market niches: The role of experience and managerial choice in the creation of dynamic capabilities. Management Science 48(2): 171.
   Google Scholar
• Landes, D. (1983). Revolution in time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinthal D.A. and Myatt J. (1994) Coevolution of capabilities and industry: The evolution of mutual fund processing. Strategic Management Journal 15 (Summer Special Issue) 45–62.
   Google Scholar
• Majumdar, B. A. (1982). Innovations, product developments and technology transfers: An empirical study of dynamic competitive advantage, the case of electronic calculators. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi natural organization science. Organization Science 8/4 352–380.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell W. (1989) Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents’ entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 208–234.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell W. (1991) Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 85–100
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell W. (1992) Are more good things better: or will technical and market capabilities conflict when a firm expands? Industrial and Corporate Change, 1 (2) 327–346.
   Google Scholar
• Murmann, J. P. (2003). Knowledge and competitive advantage: the coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1982). An evolutionarv theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noble. D. (1984) Forces of production. New York: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Pinch T. and W. Bijker (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts, in Bijker, W., T. Hughes and T. Pinch, Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rothaermel, F.T. (2001) Incumbents’ advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7) 687 -699
   Google Scholar
• Sahal, D. (1985). Technological guideposts and innovation avenues. Research Policy, 14(2): 61–82.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1950) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper Brothers.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological iInnovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy, Research Policy, 15: 285–305.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. (1986). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”, Research Policy, 35: 1131–1146.
   Google Scholar
• Teece D.J. and Pisano G., Shuen A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, L.A. (1995) Brand capital and incumbent firms’ positions in evolving markets. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77: 522–534
   Google Scholar
• Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry.” Strategic Management Journal, 18:119–142
   Google Scholar
• Tripsas, M. (2006). Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change. Managerial and decision economics.
   Google Scholar
• Tushman, M.L. and P. Anderson (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 439–465.
   Google Scholar
• Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
   Google Scholar