A Paradigmatic Analysis of Digital Application Marketplaces

Abstract

Abstract. This paper offers a paradigmatic analysis of digital application marketplaces for advancing information systems (IS) research on digital platforms and ecosystems. We refer to the notion of digital application marketplace, colloquially called "appstores," as a platform component that offers a venue for exchanging applications between developers and end-users belonging to a single or multiple ecosystems. Such marketplaces exhibit diversity in features and assumptions, and we propose that examining this diversity, and its ideal types, will help us to further understand the relationship between application marketplaces, platforms, and platform ecosystems. To this end, we generate a typology that distinguishes four kinds of digital application marketplaces: closed, censored, focused, and open marketplaces. The paper also offers implications for actors wishing to make informed decisions about their relationship to a particular digital application marketplace.

Love and Hate Relationships in a Platform Ecosystem: A case of Finnish Electronic Identity Management

“…We then show how legislation changes affect the platform ecosystem. Our findings also suggest that the participation in the platform ecosystems, as argued in existing literature [3], [6], is not always prompted to ecosystem health and prosperity motives when the platform adoption is enforced and it is the only choice.…”

“…Gawer & Cusumano [9] studied the strategies for platform leadership building. Paradigmatic analysis of digital application marketplaces and the monopolistic quality of platforms was discussed by Ghazawneh & Henfridsson [6] and Eisenmann et al [10]. The results obtained by Henfridsson & Bygstad [11] on configurational perspectives of digital infrastructures evolution demonstrated the generative mechanisms of such infrastructures.…”

Appraising the impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP) in UK Government public service reform: Towards a Platform Assessment Framework (PAF)

“…Anderson et al, 2014;Clemons, 2010;Koh & Fichman, 2014;Rai, Patnayakuni, & Nainika, 2006;Xu & Zhang, 2013). Significantly for our research, some have suggested that the emergent nature of platforms calls for distributed rather than centralised governance arrangements (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2015;Nielsen & Aanestad, 2006;Tiwana, Konsynski, & Bush, 2010). Indeed, the acknowledgement that platforms, and the value of platforms, are co-created by stakeholders (Ceccagnoli et al, 2012;Lusch & Nambisan, 2015) leads to a more general questioning of existing assumptions of platform control in favour of a more distributed governance arrangement (one in which shared visualisation remains important).…”

Generative Innovation: A Comparison of Lightweight and Heavyweight IT

“…Reversely, if the platform is too malleable, it easily becomes too fragmented to serve as a platform. Ghazawneh and Henfridsson (2015) proposed a typology of platform-based marketplaces, in terms of openness: closed, censored, focused and open.…”