Technological Cycle and S-Curve: A Nonconventional Trend in the Microprocessor Market

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 13)

Abstract

In the literature there is agreement on the fact that battles between two technologies sooner or later end with the dominance of one over the others, or, under certain conditions, with their coexistence. The aim of this paper is to understand if competition between rival technologies can be reopened after one technology dominates the market. We argue that, if a technology has prevailed this could not be a static situation, but rather a dynamic one. In doing so, we have analyzed the microprocessor market, finding a nonconventional S-curve trend.

Keywords

Technology life cycle S-curve Dominant paradigm Coexistence 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Fabiana Marras gratefully acknowledges Sardinia Regional Government for the financial support of her PhD scholarship (P.O.R. Sardegna F.S.E. Operational Programme of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, European Social Fund 2007–2013—Axis IV Human Resources, Objective l.3, Line of Activity l.3.1.).

References

  1. 1.
    Schumpeter, J.A.: Socialism, capitalism and democracy. Harper and Brothers (1942)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tushman, M.L., Rosenkopf, L.: Organizational determinants of technological change: towards a sociology of technological evolution. Res. Organ. Behav. 14, 311–347 (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Utterback, J.M.: Mastering the dynamics of innovation: how companies can seize. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schilling, M.: Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: the impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Acad. Manag. J. 45(2), 387–398 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adner, R., Zemsky, P.: Disruptive technologies and the emergence of competition. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor, M., Taylor, A.: The technology life cycle: conceptualization and managerial implications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140(1), 541–553 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anderson, P., Tushman, M.L.: Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm. Sci Q 604–633 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinch, T.J., Bijker, W.: The social construction of facts and artifacts. Technol. Soc. 107 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schumpeter, J.A.: The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle, vol. 55. Transaction Publishers (1934)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murmann, J.P., Frenken, K.: Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Res. Policy 35(7), 925–952 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katz, M.L., Shapiro, C.: Network externalities, competition and compatibility. Am. Econ. Rev. 75, 424–440 (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basu, A., Mazumdar, T., Raj, S.P.: Indirect network externality effects on product attribute. Market. Sci. 22–2, 209–221 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suarez, F.F.: Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework. Res. Policy 33, 271–286 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Besen S.M., Farrell J.: Choosing how to compete: Strategies and tactics in standardization. J. Econ. Perspect. 8(2), 117–131 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    David P.A.: Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am. Econ. Rev. 75, 332–337 (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foster, R.N.: Innovation: the attacker’s advantage, vol. 152. Summit Books, New York (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nair, A., Ahlstrom, D.: Delayed creative destruction and the coexistence of technologies. J. Eng. Tech. Manage. 20(4), 345–365 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galvagno, M., Faraci, R.: La coesistenza fra tecnologie: definizione ed elementi costitutivi. Sinergie rivista di studi e ricerche, pp. 64–65 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenberg, N.: Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Windrum, P., Birchenhall, C.: Structural change in the presence of network externalities: a co-evolutionary model of technological successions. J. Evol. Econ. 15(2), 123–148 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Vries H.J., de Ruijter, J.P.M., Argam, N.: Dominant design or multiple designs: the flash memory card case. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 23(3), 249–262 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raffaelli, R.: Mechanisms of technology re-emergence and identity change in a mature field: Swiss watchmaking. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 13784 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tegarden, L., Hatfield, D., Echols, A.: Doomed from the start: What is the value of selecting a future dominant design? Strateg. Manag. J. 20, 495–518 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thompson, J.D.: Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill (1967)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blem, E., Menon, J., Sankaralingam, K.: Power struggles: revisiting the RISC vs. CISC debate on contemporary ARM and x86 architectures. Appears in the 19th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture HPCA (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krad, H., Al-Taie, A.Y.: A new trend for CISC and RISC architectures. Asian J. Inform. Technol. 6(11), 1125–1131 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee, J., Lee, J., Lee, H.: Exploration and exploitation in the presence of network externalities. Manag. Sci. 49(4), 553–570 (2003)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gomes-Casseres, B.: Competitive advantage in alliance constellations. Strateg. Organ. 1(3), 327–335 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Semmler, A.: Competition in the microprocessor market: intel, AMD and beyond. University of Teier, pp. 1–7 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin, C.-P., Tsai, Y. H., Wang, Y-J., Chiu, C.-K.: Modeling IT relationship quality and its determinants: a potential perspective of network externalities in e-service, p. 2. Elsevier (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choi, J.P.: Irreversible choice of uncertain technologies with network externalities. Department of Economics, Columbia University (1992)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A.: Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: an exploration of Sun Microsystems’ open system strategy. Strateg. Mang. J.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    http://www.intc.com/annuals.cfm. Accessed June 2014
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Christensen, C.M.: The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Press (1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Reilly III, C.A., Tushman, M.L.: Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res. Organ. Behav. 28, 185–206 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Ehringer, D.: The dalvik virtual machine architecture. Tech. Rep. (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations