A co‐opetitive game analysis of platform compatibility strategies under add‐on services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large‐scale platforms (LSPs) with valuation and awareness advantages have enabled competing small‐scale platforms (SSPs) to be embedded in their platforms. This compatibility strategy creates a new channel, that is, the compatible channel, through which customers can purchase services from SSPs via the LSPs. Additionally, numerous platforms have been introducing add‐on services to enhance their profitability. In this study, we develop stylized game models to characterize the interaction between an LSP and an SSP and explore their strategic and operational decisions on platform compatibility under add‐on services. Our major research findings are as follows: First, compatibility has opposite impacts on service pricing. That is, at a low proportion of demand through the compatible channel, the two platforms engage in a price war; otherwise, they both raise prices. Second, we identify the conditions for platform compatibility: Compatibility becomes an equilibrium strategy if the proportion of demand through the compatible channel falls within an intermediate range. Third, we find that homogeneous add‐on services stimulate rather than inhibit compatibility due to the different profit foci of two platforms. Finally, we conduct extensions to further verify the robustness of the conclusions. Our results provide important implications to the burgeoning debate on when platforms should implement compatibility to achieve a win–win scenario under a variety of settings.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".