=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1808/IWSECO16-paper6-Fukami-p80-94
|storemode=property
|title=Open Architectural Competition Strategy: Google's Approach to Innovation through
Standardization
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1808/IWSECO16-paper6-Fukami-p80-94.pdf
|volume=Vol-1808
|authors=Yoshiaki Fukami
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/icis/Fukami16
}}
==Open Architectural Competition Strategy: Google's Approach to Innovation through
Standardization==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1808/IWSECO16-paper6-Fukami-p80-94.pdf
Open architectural competition strategy:
Google’s approach to innovation through standardization
Yoshiaki Fukami12
1
Rikkyo Business School
3-34-1 Nishi-Ikebukuro Toshima, Tokyo Japan
2
Keio Research Institute at SFC
yoshiaki@rikkyo.ac.jp
Abstract. The realization and diffusion of web applications is the result of the
HTML5 standard. Google succeeded in making HTML5 the W3C standard by
attracting end users and other browser vendors. Google had utilized open
technology developed by other stakeholders, and outside activities for the
purpose of realizing and diffusing web application innovation. They supported
collaborative development activities and promoted the benefits of functions
provided by the specification solely with the development of add-on software.
They succeeded in diffusing a runtime environment for web applications by
contributing to an open standard. Key success factors of innovation through
standardization are 1) utilizing any technologies developed by any party, 2)
attracting customers from the multi-sided market fast and 3) adopting an
implementation-oriented process of standardization.
Keywords: innovation through standardization, implementation-oriented policy,
platform, voluntary standards development organization, HTML5
1. Introduction
Software ecosystems consist of various kinds of software based services. Distributed
sensors, devices and applications share vast amount of data to work together over the
Internet. The Internet and the World Wide Web has been developed and maintained
under the principle of open and distributed.
Self-driving cars, smart cities, the Internet of Things – most of modern technological
trends are designed on the premise that everything share data over the Internet and
work together. Therefore, it is necessary to realize interoperability to add new
functions to ecosystems. Any innovation must be realized as new standardized
specifications. However, they also face the challenges that arise from the fact that
standardization tends to prevent innovation [1][2].
There is a few cases that have overcame the dilemma; difficulty to satisfy both of
interoperability and innovation. Web applications are web services such as
spreadsheets that run on servers instead of client hardware (Fig. 1). Web applications
Copyright © 2016 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Copying permitted for
private and academic purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by the editors of
IWSECO 2016: The 8th International Workshop on Software Ecosystems.
work only when all components operate together according to common specifications
named as HTML5.
HTML is an acronym for “Hyper Text Markup Language”; fundamentally, this
means that HTML is a mere language for composing documents hyperlinked to other
documents. Upgrading to “HTML5” means converting the material of stable
documents into a runtime environment for applications. HTML5 is one of the most
important specifications for web applications that are used to realize interoperability
among web browsers. Web applications are a typical example of innovation through
standardization.
In the case of web applications, web browsers assume the OS role of acting as an
architecture platform. Performance of web browsers restrict web applications.
Moreover, the functions of browsers are determined by the application programming
interface (API) specifications of the web standard. This was necessary to ensure
browser compatibility with more standardized APIs, thus making it possible to diffuse
and improve upon web applications.
The standardization of HTML5 was conducted by corporations among vendors of
web browsers, such as Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, Opera and Apple. However, they
had conflicting business interests (Fig. 2). A typical web application is the
spreadsheet. Google launched their version of the spreadsheet in 2006. Anyone with a
Gmail address can use it without charge; thus, this popular service has increased the
number of Google accounts and given Google access to more personal information.
On the other hand, Microsoft has earned vast profits from sales of Microsoft Excel, a
native application of the spreadsheet. Google’s spreadsheet competes against
Microsoft Excel. The development of HTML5 and the diffusion of the web
application was not welcomed by Microsoft. The innovation and introduction of this
web application represented an architectural competition [3]3 between Microsoft,
with its native application-based business model, and Google, with its web
application-based business model.
We have depicted the hypothesis of an interpretive case study where “web
applications” are realized with the HTML5 web standard. The web application is an
emerging case of innovation through standardization. Its success was realized by
coordinating stakeholders with conflicting interests. In other words, the web
application is a result of architectural innovation [4]4based on open collaboration [5].5
This study intends to identify the key success factors for innovation through
standardization.
Fig. 1. Dominant design transfer from native applications to web application
Fig. 2 Architectural competition between existing and emerging architecture with
business models
2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
2.1. Dilemma between Innovation and Standardization
There are various types of standards. Grindley categorizes standards into interface /
compatibility standards and quality standards according to roles [6]. 10 David and
Shurmer classify standards into a) reference and measurement standards, b) minimum
quality and performance standards, including product safety standards and c)
compatibility and interoperability standards [7].11HTML and most of the standards for
information infrastructure are compatibility standards.
The web cannot provide benefit without compatibility. Thus, it is difficult to
compete with technological differentiated specifications based on de facto standards
because the direct network effect causes the lock-in effect [8][9],1213and switching
costs prevent users and complement goods suppliers from adopting more effective or
sophisticated specifications [10]14. Excess inertia is being rocked into nonoptimal
technology such as the QWERTY keyboard [11]. 15 On the contrary, enforced
transition to new standards with unnecessary costs resulting from changes in models
or supplier strategy is referred to as excess momentum [12].16
Innovation tends to emerge through competition [13],17and standardization usually
causes excess inertia [12],18which discourages transition between versions. Baldwin
and von Hippel [14]19presumed that regulations and standard setting tend to decrease
the value of innovation opportunities.
2.2. Strategy for Standard as Platform
HTML5 is not just a standard to realize compatibility; it also works as a runtime
environment for web applications in the way that operating systems do for native
applications. Rochet and Tirole [15]20defines a platform as the components or services
that mediate transactions between two or more groups of agents. Baldwin and
Woodard [16]21defines a platform as a set of stable components that supports variety
and evolvability in a system by constraining the linkages among other components
(pp.19). The platform is a component commonly used by multiple complements
[17][18][19].22HTML523is24a runtime environment for web applications. Therefore, it
has the features of a platform as a standard, even though Cusumano25[20] noted that
standards do not always play the role of a platform.
There are two alternative strategies for platformers; one is to monopolize the
market for the adjacent layer, and the other is to allow access to the platform interface.
If a platformer chooses an open strategy, he or she must attract others to provide
complements and thus create benefits for end users. When the choice is made to open
the platform, platformers face a two-sided market27[21][22][23]28of29complementors
and end users.
The success of the platform is not determined solely by the technological
competence of the platform itself but also by the number and quality of complements.
Diffusion of HTML5 can be realized only by attracting web applications/ web content
developers and end users of HTML5-compatible applications/ content. In other words,
the W3C and the proposers of the specification faced the two-sided market of
developers and end users.
Platform envelopment is a strategy for the two-sided market that extends the
function of the platform of the adjacent layer to what a certain complement provides.
A typical example of platform envelopment is Microsoft Windows Media Player.
Microsoft added Media Player to the Windows OS and removed a competitor, Real
Player, which was also provided to the Mac OS on the basis of a multi-homing
strategy [24].30
Some platformers provide a toolkit to encourage the development of complements
and innovation [25][23].3132Platformers tend to sustain coordination costs in realizing
cooperation among developers and from seeking out innovations by complementors
[26].33
Cooperation between platformers and complementors is determined by the
specifications of the API. The API and other resources are provided to complementors
and are referred to as boundary resources [27].34
Occasionally, a tying strategy to develop and provide complements to the adjacent
layer [28][29] 35 is 36 adopted. Tying helps to develop a competitive advantage and
discourage competitors from entering the market [30][31]37by38monopolizing certain
layers [32].39
2.3. Features of the W3C Standard
De facto standard is composed of the specifications selected by market mechanism.
Some de facto standards are sponsored by certain firms or joint ventures such as
Microsoft Windows and Blu-ray disc. On the other hand, there are unsponsored
standards developed by voluntary standardization organizations (VSOs). No one is
obligated to adopt such standards under contract [33].40VSOs have to struggle to
persuade prospective users to voluntarily choose their standard. The HTML and web
standard are unsponsored. The W3C refers to standardized specifications as
"Recommendations".
The W3C and organizations that propose the standardization of specifications
attempt to diffuse standardized specifications widely. Specifications can be workable
standards only when the majority of web developers choose them for the same
functions. Approaches for certain functions are mostly regarded as the dominant
design41[34][35].42Funk defines a standard as a certain type of dominant design [36].43
HTML5 changed the dominant design of applications. Applications had been
distributed with physical media such as compact discs. Users had to purchase and
install them on their own devices. Consumers had to pay for developers every time
the applications were updated. The success of the software business used to be
measured by the amount of license distribution. Web applications enabled by HTML5,
however, are provided through the web and are free. Revenue is generated by
displayed advertising. Users do not have to concern themselves with updates. Updates
are completed on servers. Frequency of use is the most important metric to evaluate
the success of a business because it is the basis for determining the number of
advertisements viewed.
3. Research method
A case study approach [37]44was used in this research because there are a few cases
of innovation through standardization. This inductive hypothesis-building study
attempts to develop generalizable conclusions from a rare event.
I analyzed Google’s activities and responses of other stakeholders by an analysis of
the official documents, press releases and news articles related to Google, the W3C
and its relevant organizations. Many articles of web medias are deleted in years. Thus
I utilize data of the Internet archive of some articles. I also conducted interviews with
individuals from W3C staffs, member organizations and independent developers.
Moreover, I conducted fieldwork at the W3C office in Japan as an intern from
April 2010 to March 2013 and analyzed the flow of the standardization process as
defined by the mailing list archives of the working groups, the meeting minutes,
technical documents and public relations materials. This analysis involved a study of
internal documents and more than 230,000 emails from the archives issued since the
standard-setting organization was established.
4. Case Analysis
4.1. Google’s strategy
Google began as a research project for a search engine. The company was
incorporated in 1998 but was still searching for sources of revenue. AdWords and
other advertisement-based business models had experienced explosive growth.
Google sought other sources of revenue in parallel with developing the business
model for a search engine. The Gmail development project was launched in 20011,
and other services were developed such as the calendar (Google Calendar),
spreadsheet, word processor and slide presentation tool (Google Drive, formerly
Google Document), which could take the place of Microsoft Office and other native
application-based tools.
One of the most distinctive features of Gmail is the user interface. It is not
necessary to reload pages to compose, send, receive and read messages, unlike web
mail services such as Microsoft’s Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail. Such functionality was
realized with Ajax technology. Ajax is an acronym for Asynchronous JavaScript +
XML. XML is an open technology standardized at the W3C. JavaScript is also open
standard of ECMA international. Moreover, XMLHttpRequest is an API used to
transact XML data with JavaScript and was originally invented by Microsoft. Google
has never affected the not-invented-here syndrome and tends to choose technologies,
even those developed by competitors, with little hesitation.
It is rational for Google to use existing technologies to implement web applications
because they run only when all components operate together. At the same time, the
performance of web applications is limited by the specification of the web standard.
Google did not have to improve upon their own technologies and also develop
advanced standards. Google needed a variety of APIs for their website, that is, user
interfaces for web applications. In other words, Google’s strategy depended on basic
improvements to HTML.
Google has done the following to enhance web applications and diffuse them: 1)
contributed to the development of HTML5; 2) encouraged web browser vendors to
implement HTML5; and 3) promoted HTML5 for web content developers and end
users (attracting both of two-sided market).
4.2. Google’s contribution to HTML5 development
4.2.1. Origin of HTML5
HTML was originally invented as a computer language for websites; stable
documents were created by Tim Berners-Lee, later director of the W3C. Early
1
McCracken, H. (2014, April 1). How Gmail Happened: The Inside Story of Its Launch 10 Years
Ago, TIME online. retrieved June 4, 2015, from http://time.com/43263/gmail-10th-anniversary/
upgrades of HTML (up to 4.01) were incremental improvements based on the ideas of
Tim Berners-Lee.
The attempt to transform the Web to a runtime environment for applications was
begun outside of the W3C, for example, the Java runtime environment of Sun
Microsystems and Macromedia / Adobe’s Flash technology in the 1990s. Sun
Microsystems and Microsoft developed JavaScript / JScript for programming
languages to manipulate websites.
The proposal of “XHTML Module: Extensions to Form Controls” on September
20032 was the first attempt3 to transform HTML into a runtime environment for web
applications. Ian Hickson of Opera Software, a Norwegian browser vendor, composed
the draft. The draft was renamed “Web Forms 2.04 ” and proposed to the W3C
Workshop on Web Applications and Compound Documents held on June 2004 by
Opera and Mozilla.
4.2.2. Participation to HTML5 development through employment of a leader
In the beginning, Google supported the Firefox web browser Mozilla, which was
supported by an open source software developer community. Then, they took part in
HTML5 and other web standard development projects at the W3C.
The W3C rejected the proposal of HTML5 from Apple, Opera and Mozilla,
because they had already begun the standardization process of XHTML as the next
version of HTML. Mozilla, Opera and Apple launched a specification development
activity as a grass roots developers’ community referred to as the Web Hypertext
Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) and continued to develop their
specification separately. There came to be two standard candidates for the next
version of HTML.
Ian Hickson became a central figure of WHATWG and continued as editor of the
Web Forms 2.0 specification. He began developing a draft of “Web Applications
Markup Language 1.0.” The draft was renamed “Web Application 1.0” and integrated
with Web Forms 2.0 into HTML5. HTML5 is a specification of HTML with
advanced form functions, multiple APIs and backward compatibility with existing
HTML.
Development of HTML5 was led by Ian Hickson with the support of Opera,
Mozilla and Apple. Google employed him and has encouraged him to remain as
editor of HTML5 at WHATWG. In other words, Google engaged support of
WHATWG with Opera, Mozilla and Apple. Promotion of HTML5 was conducted
through cooperation among Google and web browser vendors other than Microsoft.
2
Hickson, I., (2003, September). XHTML Module: Extensions to Form Controls - Opera Working
Draft, September 2003. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-
archive/2003Sep/att-0014/hfp.html
3
WHATWG, (n. d. ). HTML snapshots. WHATWG Wiki. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from
https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_snapshots
4
Hickson, I., (2003, September). Web Forms 2.0 - Working Draft 5 February 2004. Retrieved June
15, 2015, from http://www.hixie.ch/specs/html/forms/web-forms-2
4.3. Implementation-oriented process of the W3C
The standardization process management policy of the W3C is referred to as an
implementation-oriented policy. This is based on the clause of the W3C’s process
document introduced in 1999 and excerpted below:
Shown that each feature of the technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the
Working Group should be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of
each feature5.
This means that no proposed specification is ever certified as a standard without
more than two implementation cases. The W3C and proposers call on working group
members for implementation at the middle stage of the standardization process.
HTML working group has adopted a policy that opens every stage of the
standardization process to the public. Therefore, specifications can be improved based
on feedback from the implementations developed by non-WG members.
Most standards are developed and fixed first, and then compatible products or
services are developed and supplied. To the contrary, The W3C encourages
stakeholders to implement specifications while in discussion and presses the
standardization process forward based on discussion featuring feedback from
implementation cases (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Changes in the standardization process through the implementation-oriented
process
5
Jacobs, I. (ed.). (2005, October 14). 7.4.4 Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation. World
Wide Web Consortium Process Document 14 October 2005. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr
4.4. Ways to diffuse HTML5 compatible web browsers
4.4.1. Support for Mozilla’s browser development
HTML5 was originally proposed by three browser vendors; Apple, Opera and
Mozilla, and it stands to reason that they take the lead in implementing HTML5 in
their own products. However, all of them lacked a competitive advantage in the web
browser market. Microsoft dominated the web browser market with Internet Explorer
in the early 2000s after winning the battle with Netscape navigator in the 1990. It was
necessary for Google to build competence in web browsers in which HTML5 was
implemented.
First, Google employed Ben Goodger6 and Darin Fisher7, who worked at the
Mozilla Foundation as developers of Firefox browser in January 2005. They
continued to work for Firefox development after Google hired them8.
The development of web applications and the management of the open source web
browser project were to develop competency by corporation between platformer and
complementor based on the strategy of divided technical leadership[38].45
Google finally launched its own browser business with Chrome on September 2nd
20089. However, the plan to enter the browser market began about seven years earlier.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, proposed a plan to enter the
browser market to Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman, in March 200110, when
Schmidt transferred to Google11. Google’s emergence in the browser market brought
with it a browser that suited web applications. End users can utilize Google’s web
applications in an optimal environment.
4.4.2. Promoting benefits by providing open source software
Few developers or end-users are interested in specifications themselves. What are
possible to do with specifications are much more important than their design. Google
chose the strategy to implement as an add-on program; the Gears is as independent
development project.
6
Wagner, J. (2005, January 25). Goodger Goes to Google. InternetNews. Retrieved March 15, 2014,
from http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3463841
7
CNET News. (2005, January 27). More Mozilla talent Google's way. Retrieved March 15, 2014,
from http://news.cnet.com/More-Mozilla-talent-Googles-way/2110-1032_3-5553877.html
8
Mozilla Digital Memory Bank. (2006, June 12). Interview with Darin Fisher. Retrieved March 15,
2014, from http://mozillamemory.org/detailview.php?id=946
9
Google. (2008, September 2). Google Chrome: A New Take on the Browser. Retrieved March 11,
2014 from Google News announcements: http://googlepress.blogspot.jp/2008/09/google-chrome-new-
take-on-browser_02.html
10
Levy, S. (2008, September 2). Inside Chrome: The Secret Project to Crush IE and Remake the
Web. Wired. Retrieved March 15, 2014, from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-
10/mf_chrome?currentPage=all
11
CNET News. (2001, March 26). Novell's Schmidt joins Google at critical time. Retrieved 2014,
March 15, 2014 from http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-254750.html
Google’s strategy was to promote the benefits of HTML5 first. Google had
implemented functions, including offline and geo location APIs to enhance web
applications, in Gears with the support of Opera and Mozilla12.
Google launched the service to provide search results based on location
information after Geolocation API had been implemented in Gears13. Developers and
end users came to recognize the benefit of such functions through Google’s open but
private technologies before being converted to open standard.
Google gave a presentation on the introduction of Gears at Google I/0 2008 and
addressed the relationship between Gears and HTML5.
HTML5 is a new set of proposed extensions to HTML that radically improve the
capabilities of web applications. However, without implementations in a majority of
browsers, these proposals remain just that, and out of reach for developers.
The Gears mission is to begin implementing these APIs today, across as many browsers
as possible, as quickly as possible. In this talk, I'll explain why we are doing this, what
our motives are, and show how implementing web standards is good for Google and
good for the web14.
Takahito Kawauchi, software engineer at Google Japan, had the following remarks.
The standardization process of HTML5 based on existing specification takes long time.
Although developed functions come to be adopted by browser vendors in turn, it takes
long time till new versions to which functions are implemented. We choose and
implement functions with high possibility to be integrated into HTML5, and excluded
from the draft of HTML5. There is possible for functions implemented to Gears to be
adopted to HTML5 later15.
The aim of the Gears project was to make it possible for users to utilize functions
that would be adopted as standard later, to enhance the function of HTML5 and to
diffuse HTML5 widely.
Eric Schmidt, then CEO, mentioned the following at the keynote of Google I/O
2009.
We have spent 20 years trying to build a programming model that is the right one. Then
the Internet arrived. “It’s time.”
This is the beginning of the real win of cloud computing, of applications (on the web) 16.
12
Boodman, A. and Erik Arvidsson, E. (2007, May 30). Going offline with Google Gears. Retrieved
March 8, 2014, from Gears API Blog: http://gearsblog.blogspot.jp/2007/05/posted-by-aaron-boodman-
and-erik.html
13
Genera , P. (2008, September 11). Introducing Mobile Search with My Location. Retrieved March
8, 2014, from Official Google Mobile Blog: http://googlemobile.blogspot.jp/2008/09/introducing-
mobile-search-with-my.html
14
Boodman. A. (2008, June 9). HTML 5, Brought to You by Gears. Retrieved March 13, 2014, from
2008 Google I/O Session Videos and Slides: https://sites.google.com/site/io/html5-brought-to-you-by-
gears
15
@IT. (2008, July 14). Gears enhancing web browsers with functions of HTML5. Retrieved March
13, 2014, from http://www.atmarkit.co.jp/fwcr/special/gdd2008/google01.html#03
16
Siegler, M. G. (2009, May 27). Live From Google I/O 2009. TechCrunch. Retrieved March 17,
2014, from http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/27/live-from-google-io-2009/
He insisted that there would be a time when architecture compliance with enhanced
web applications would be common.
Then, Vic Gundotra, a vice president of engineering who had moved from
Microsoft, made the following remarks.
Never underestimate the web.” At Microsoft (where he used to work) we thought
web apps could never rival desktop apps.
The web has won.” A more powerful web made easier.
New HTML5 standards. A chance to do things differently.
Almost half billion people now using modern open source browsers17.
He insisted that HTML5 was a key technology for realizing advanced web
applications and that compatible browsers had already become widespread.
The diffusion of smartphones has encouraged users to perform searches with
location information. Google merged with Android Inc. on 2003 and released the
Android operating system and handset on 2005. Map and other web applications
services that run with data gathered with Gears API had been developed and become
popular. Some functions of HTML5 had already been popular among end users before
they came to be built into the specification.
After Gears achieved popularity, they suddenly discontinued its development and
diverted the Gears technology to the proposed HTML5. Google succeeded in
gathering programmers’ interest in web applications and the functions of HTML5 by
promoting Gears. Programmers who had previously recognized the benefits of
HTML5 began to accuse Microsoft of not making an effort to implement HTML5 in
their own web browser, Internet Explorer. Finally, Microsoft was forced to adopt
HTML5 and launched a campaign encouraging users to upgrade Internet Explorer to
the latest version, which implemented HTML5.
Google developed Gears as open source software because any specifications
proposed and adopted as standards at the W3C must be open to the public. There is no
need to be secretive about technologies intended for proposal to the W3C because any
specifications are made public just after they are proposed to the W3C. It is more
effective to open and promote technologies than to keep them closed and proprietary.
4.5. Microsoft’s adoption of HTML5
The W3C had already accepted the proposal of HTML5, and the standardization
process there had been managed integrally with the activity of WHATWG. Ian
Hickson was the specification editor of HTML5 at the W3C HTML5 working group.
Microsoft, a major web browser vendor that had never taken part in WHATWG,
joined the HTML working group at the W3C on April 200718. All major browser
vendors and a web application provider were involved with HTML5 standardization.
17
ibid.
On the contrary, Microsoft had not implemented HTML5 in Internet Explorer.
Moreover, Microsoft had developed and promoted a proprietary technology for a
runtime environment for multimedia content named as Silverlight19.
Web site developers were irritated that Microsoft did not implement HTML5 in
their product and instead promoted their proprietary runtime environment; they had to
develop two types of websites, those for HTML5 compatible browsers and those for
Internet Explorer. Google and colleagues’ promotion of HTML5 succeeded in making
the specification popular among website developers.
Therefore, website developers launched a negative campaign against Internet
Explorer, “IE6 Must Die”. They displayed pictorial figures protesting Internet
Explorer 6 on the icon of a Twitter account (Fig. )20. Microsoft was forced to adopt
and implement HTML5.
Fig. 4 Twibbon IE6 Must Die
Finally, Microsoft changed its strategy. Steve Ballmer, the CEO, made an
announcement that the company would treat HTML5 as one of Microsoft’s core
cross-platform technologies at the “Professional Developers Conference 201021”:
With the work that we’re doing with Internet Explorer, we’re trying to make that a
whole lot simpler for you. With Internet Explorer 9, we made our focus on a couple of
things: No. 1, doing HTML5 — standards-based HTML5 — really, really, really well.
And No. 2, asking the question: How do we improve on the user experience for
18
Wilson, C. (2007, April 4). Microsoft has now joined the HTML Working Group. Retrieved June
17, 2015, from public-html@w3.org mailing list archive: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
html/2007Apr/0202.html
19
Microsoft. (2007, April 30). Microsoft Lights Way for Next-Generation Web Development and
Design at MIX07. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from http://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/news/press/2007/apr07/04-30MIX07PR.aspx
20
IE6 Must Die - Support Campaign. Twibbon. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from
http://twibbon.com/support/IE6-Must-Die/
21
Ballmer, S. (2010, October 28). Steve Ballmer: PDC10 (record of keynote at Professional
Developers Conference 2010). Retrieved May 4, 2013, from
http://news.microsoft.com/2010/10/28/steve-ballmer-pdc10/
HTML5 applications based upon the fact that we know Internet Explorer runs on
Windows? How do we integrate, if you will, applications and websites from a user
experience perspective? How do we take advantage of the power of Windows and the
Windows PC to improve the performance of HTML5-based applications22?
Microsoft released Internet Explorer 9 just before Ballmer’s keynote and promoted
it as a highly HTML5 compatible product. HTML5 had been implemented in all
major web browsers.
5. Discussion
The realization and diffusion of web applications is the result of the HTML5
standard. Google had utilized open technology and outside activities for the purpose
of realizing and diffusing web application innovation. They succeeded in making
HTML5 the W3C standard by attracting end users and other browser vendors.
They supported collaborative development activities and promoted the benefits of
functions with the development of add-on software. Google succeeded in diffusing a
runtime environment for web applications by contributing to an open standard.
Google always pursued cooperation with other stakeholders and the grass-roots
developer community. Moreover, they never intended to earn revenue from the
HTML-related technologies that they developed. They have pursued a definite
strategy of developing and diffusing runtime environments for web applications and
new architecture as rapidly as possible.
This case analysis enables us to depict hypothesis of key success factors of
innovation through standardization as: 1) utilizing any technologies developed by any
party, 2) attracting customers from the multi-sided market fast and 3) adopting an
implementation-oriented process of standardization.
This hypothesis is derived by single case analysis. However, more and more
standardization processes at the W3C has been open to the public with GitHub since
then. The case of web application is a starting point of analysis. I will continue to
research for reinforcing theory construction for innovation through standardization on
software ecosystem
6. Acknowledgement
This analysis is the result of time spent in the internship program at the W3C/Keio
office, a stay at W3C/MIT and many interviews. Special thanks to the staff at the
W3C, member organizations and the developer community.
22
Ballmer, S. (2010, October 28). Steve Ballmer: PDC10 (record of keynote at Professional
Developers Conference 2010). Retrieved May 4, 2013, from
http://news.microsoft.com/2010/10/28/steve-ballmer-pdc10/
References
1. Simcoe, T.: Delay and de jure standardization: Exploring the slowdown in Internet
standards development. In: S. Greenstein and Stango V. (eds.). Standards and public policy.
Cambridge University Press, pp. 260--295, (2006)
2. Farrell, J. and Simcoe, T.: Choosing the rules for consensus standardization. In: The RAND
Journal of Economics, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 235--252. (2012)
3. Henderson, R. M. and Clark, K. B.: Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of
existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. In: Administrative
Science Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 9--30. (1990)
4. Morris, C. R. and Ferguson, C. H.: How architecture wins technology wars. In: Harvard
Business Review, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 86--96. (1993)
5. Baldwin, C. and von Hippel, H.: Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to
user and open collaborative innovation. In: Organization Science, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1399--
1417. (2011)
6. Grindley, P.: Standards, strategy and policy: Cases and stories. Oxford University Press
(1995)
7. David, P.A. and Shurmer, M.: Formal standards-setting for global telecommunications and
information services. Towards an institutional regime transformation? In:
Telecommunications Policy vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 789--815 (1996)
8. Katz, M.L. and Shapiro, C.: Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities.
In: The Journal of Political Economy. vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 822--841. (1986)
9. Arthur, W. B.: Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events.
In: The Economic Journal, vol. 99, no. 394, pp. 116—131, (1989)
10. Klemperer, P.: Markets with Consumer Switching Costs. In: The Quarterly Journal of
Economics. vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 375--94, (1987)
11. David, P. A.: Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. In: American Economic Review, vol.
75, no. 2, pp. 332--37, (1985)
12. Farrell, J. and Saloner, G.: Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. In: The RAND
Journal of Economics. vol. 16. no. 1, pp. 70—83, (1985)
13. Utterback, J. M.: Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business Press, (1996)
14. Baldwin, C. and von Hippel, H.: Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to
user and open collaborative innovation. In Organization Science, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1399--
1417 (2011)
15. Rochet, J. C. and Tirole, J.: Platform competition in two-sided markets. In: Journal of the
European Economic Association, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 990--1029. (2003)
16. Baldwin, C. Y. and Woodard, C. J. The architecture of platforms: A unified view. In:
Gawer, A. (ed.). Platforms, markets and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 19--44,
(2009)
17. Utterback, J. M. and Meyer, M. H.: The product family and the dynamics of core capability.
In: Sloan Management Review. vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 29-47 (1993)
18. Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. A.: Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco
Drive Industry Innovation. Harvard Business School Press. (2002)
19. Meyer, M. H. and Lehnerd, A. P.: The power of product platforms. Free Press (2011)
20. Cusumano, M.: The evolution of platform thinking. In: Communications of the ACM. vol.
53, no. 1, pp. 32--34 (2010)
21. Rochet, J.C. and Tirole, J.: Platform competition in two-sided markets. In: Journal of the
European Economic Association. vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 990--1029 (2003)
22. Parker, G. G., and Van Alstyne, M. W.: Two-sided network effects: A theory of
information product design. In. Management Science. no. 51, vol. 10, pp. 1494--1504
(2005)
23. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., and Van Alstyne, M. W.: Strategies for Two-Sided Markets. In:
Harvard Business Review, vol. 84. no. 10, p92--101. (2006)
24. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., and Van Alstyne, M.: Platform envelopment. In: Strategic
Management Journal. vol. 32, no. 12, p. 1270—1285 (2011)
25. von Hippel, E., & Katz, R.: Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. In: Management
Science. vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 821--833 (2002)
26. Almirall, E. and Casadesus-Masanell, R.: Open versus closed innovation: A model of
discovery and divergence. In: Academy of Management Review. vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 27--
47(2010)
27. Ghazawneh, A. and Henfridsson, O.: Balancing platform control and external contribution
in thirdparty development: the boundary resources model. In: Information Systems
Journal. vol.23, no. 2, pp. 173--192 (2013)
28. Whinston, M. D.: Tying, foreclosure, and exclusion. NBER Working Paper 2995. (1989)
Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w2995
29. Nalebuff, B. J.: Bundling as an Entry Barrier. In: The Quarterly Journal of Economics. vol.
119, no. 1, pp. 159--187 (2004)
30. Choi, J. P. and Stefanadis, C.: Tying, investment, and the dynamic leverage theory. In:
RAND Journal of Economics. vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 52--71 (2001)
31. Choi, J. P.: Tying and innovation: A dynamic analysis of tying arrangements. In: The
Economic Journal. vol. 114, no. 492, pp. 83--101(2004)
32. Carlton, D. W. and Waldman, M.: The strategic use of tying to preserve and create market
power in evolving industries. In: RAND Journal of Economics. vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 194--220
(2002)
33. Greenstein, S.M.: Invisible hands and visible advisors: An economic interpretation of
standardization. In: Journal of the American society for information science. vol. 43, no. 8,
pp. 538--549 (1992)
34. Utterback, J.M.: Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard Business Press (1996)
35. Tushman, M. and Murmann, J.P.: Dominant designs, technology cycles, and organizational
outcomes. In: Gawer, A. and Kumaraswamy, A. and Langlois, R. N. (eds.). Managing in
the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks, and Organizations. pp. 316--348. Blackwell
Publishing. (2002)
36. Funk, J.L.: Standards, dominant designs and preferential acquisition of complementary
assets through slight information advantages. In: Research Policy. vol.32, no.8, pp. 1325--
1341. (2003)
37. Yin, R. K. Case study research: Design and methods, Fourth Edition, SAGE Publications.
(2008)
38. Bresnahan, T. F. and Greenstein, S.: Technological competition and the structure of the
computer industry. In: The Journal of Industrial Economics. vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1--40 (1999)