MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999769861 · doi:10.1080/08109028.2012.743289

Sony’s redemption: the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD standards war

2012· article· en· W1999769861 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrometheus · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominance (genetics)First-mover advantageCompetition (biology)Customer basePosition (finance)BusinessIndustrial organizationTelecommunicationsMarketingEconomicsEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the factors that affect market dominance in a standards competition by comparing the VHS–Beta war in the 1980s with that between Blu-ray and HD-DVD in the 2000s. We first look at the changing home video market in terms of technological development. Then we move on to discuss three main strategies in a standards war: first-mover advantage, indirect network effects and software provision, and strategic alliances of hardware firms. We find that technological innovation is essential. Being a first mover is helpful, but not sufficient, in building a dominant position in the market. Historical evidence shows that Sony created a network of complementary firms for Blu-ray. Consequently, an effective strategy to become a winner in a standards competition appears to be building a network of complementary products and subsequently an installed base .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it