Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Internet Companies: Market Concentration, Competition and Power

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Collectivity and Power on the Internet

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Sociology ((BRIEFSSOCY))

Abstract

Based on a systematic review and evaluation of business reports, documents, statistics, literature and press releases, this article analyzes the market concentration and the expansion and innovation strategies of the leading internet companies Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft. The findings invalidate any claims that a decentralization of the market and a democratization of the internet is taking place, or that research, development and innovation processes are becoming more open and collaborative. The five examined companies, as the operators of the core infrastructures of the worldwide web, shape the overall products and services offer of the internet, determine access to the web, structure the communication possibilities for users, and are the main drivers of innovation in this field. Not decentralization, democratization and open innovation but market concentration, control and power struggles are categories to adequately describe the fundamental dynamics of the commercial internet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The use of the term commercial internet refers to consumer-oriented economic offerings and markets, which is referred to as business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce in the economic literature. The internet companies examined here are predominantly active in this B2C sector. The latter is in fact relatively small compared to e-commerce as a whole, as that includes the economic activities taking place between companies (business-to-business e-commerce, B2B). “While the internet economy is generally thought of as enterprises selling to consumers, the vast majority of e-commerce is actually comprised of businesses selling to other businesses. In 2007, roughly 90% of global e-commerce was B2B” (Atkinson et al. 2010, p. 22).

  2. 2.

    The, at first sight, very low percentage of R&D in Apple’s total turnover (Table 1) should not be interpreted as a weakness. The group’s product portfolio, to which its R&D is dedicated, is fairly small. Moreover, its exorbitant growth rate over the last 15 years—from $5.4 billion in 2001 to just under $230 billion in 2017—invariably dwarfs the R&D intensity (as a percentage of R&D expenditure in relation to total revenue) (Apple 2001, 2017).

  3. 3.

    For example, Google itself points to “the vital role of open source software plays at Google” (https://developers.google.-com/open-source/) and Apple emphasizes that “Open Source development [is] a key part of its ongoing software strategy” (https://www.apple.com/opensource/). Amazon too uses “tons of Linux, not only to power all the servers that it uses for retail but also for Amazon Web Services—and in its own Kindle Device” (Brockmeier 2011).

  4. 4.

    The automotive industry, for example, has numerous suppliers; and in the pharmaceutical industry there are the many R&D-intensive start-up companies that exist alongside and in cooperation with the large pharmaceutical companies.

References

  • Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Tandon, V. (2008). Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on the determinants of technological innovation. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 1–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amazon.com Inc. (2013). Annual Report 2012 (Form 10-K). United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. (2008). The long tail. Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hachette Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angwin, J. (2009). Stealing MySpace: The battle to control the most popular website in America. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple Inc. (2001). Annual Report 2001 (Form 10-K). United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple Inc. (2017). Annual Report 2017 (Form 10-K). United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, C. (2012). Digital wars: Apple, Google, Microsoft and the battle for the internet. London/Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. D., Ezell, S. J., Andes, S. M., Castro, D. D., & Bennett, R. (2010). The internet economy 25 years after. Transforming commerce & life. Washington D.C.: The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi, A.-L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 5, 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Herstatt, C. (2008). The freedom-fighters: How incumbent corporations are attempting to control user-innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 543–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockmeier, J. (2011). Does Amazon “owe” open source? Maybe a little. Network World. https://www.networkworld.com/article/2229358/opensource-subnet/does-amazon–owe–open-source–maybe-a-little.html. Accessed 5 February 2018.

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. (2014). Amazon’s “schizophrenic” open source selfishness scares off potential talent, say insiders. The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/22/amazon_open_source_investigation/. Accessed 5 February 2018.

  • Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39, 699–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U. (2003). Unternehmen Technik. Akteure, Interaktionsmuster und strukturelle Kontexte der Technikentwicklung: Ein Theorierahmen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U. (2013). The transformative capacity of new technologies. A theory of sociotechnical change. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U., & Schrape, J.-F. (2013). Medien in Transformation. Radikaler Wandel als schrittweise Rekonfiguration. In U. Dolata & J.-F. Schrape (Eds.), Internet, Mobile Devices und die Transformation der Medien. Radikaler Wandel als schrittweise Rekonfiguration (pp. 9–36). Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U., & Schrape, J.-F. (2014). App-Economy: Demokratisierung des Software-Marktes? Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 23(2), 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U., & Schrape, J.-F. (2016). Masses, crowds, communities, movements. Collective action in the internet age. Social Movement Studies, 15(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sörensen, C., & Yoo, Y. (2011). Dynamic structures of control and generativity in digital ecosystem service innovation: The cases of the Apple and Google mobile app stores. Working Paper Series 183. London: LSE Innovation Systems and Innovation Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S. (2008). The economics of the online advertising industry. Review of Network Economics, 7(3), 359–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facebook Inc. (2018). Annual Report 2017 (Form 10-K). United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortune (2017). Fortune 500 2016. http://fortune.com/fortune500/list. Accessed 5 February 2018.

  • Freedman, D. (2012). Web 2.0 and the death of the blockbuster economy. In J. Curran, N. Fenton, & D. Freedman (Eds.), Misunderstanding the internet (pp. 69–94). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1991). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy, 20, 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, C. (2017). US ecommerce sales 2017. The top 10 companies. eMarketer Report. eMarketer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of “platforms”. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, & K. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies. Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Google Inc. (2010). Annual Report 2009 (Form 10-K). United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haucap, J., & Heimeshoff, U. (2014). Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: Is the internet driving competition or market monopolization? International Economics and Economic Policy, 11(1–2), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haucap, J., & Wenzel, T. (2011). Wettbewerb im Internet: Was ist online anders als offline? Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, 60(2), 200–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, A., Bhattacharyya, D., & Geis, G. T. (2013). The role of M&A in market convergence: Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft. Global Economy and Finance Journal, 6(1), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDC (2017). Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker. https://www.idc.com/tracker/showproductinfo.jsp?prod_id=37. Accessed 27 April 2017.

  • Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2017). Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the internet. Media, Culture and Society, 39(2), 238–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring, 2016, 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchner, S., & Beyer, J. (2016). Die Plattformlogik als digitale Marktordnung. Wie die Digitalisierung Kopplungen von Unternehmen löst und Märkte transformiert. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 45(5), 324–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, D. (2010). The Facebook effect. The inside story of the company that is connecting the world. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2), 197–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1999). CODE and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litan, R. E., & Rivlin, A. M. (Eds.). (2001). The economic payoff from the internet revolution. Brookings Institution: Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellahi, K., & Wilkinson, A. (2004). Organizational failure: A critique of recent research and a proposed integrative framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft Corporation. (2013). Annual Report 2013 (Form 10-K). United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monopolkommission. (2014). Hauptgutachten 2012/2013. Eine Wettbewerbsordnung für die Finanzmärkte. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Retail Federation. (2017a). Top 50 e-retailers, 2015. https://nrf.com/2017-top-50-e-retailers-chart Accessed 5 February 2018.

  • National Retail Federation. (2017b). Top 100 retailers chart, 2017. https://stores.org/stores-top-retailers-2017/. Accessed 5 February 2018.

  • Netmarketshare. (2017a). Search engine market share (desktop and mobile/tablet). http://netmarketshare.com/. Accessed 5 February 2018.

  • Netmarketshare. (2017b). Operating system market share (mobile/tablet). https://www.netmarketshare.com/ Accessed 5 February 2018.

  • Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. What the internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3&4), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, R. (2010). Is Google the next Microsoft: Competition, welfare and regulation in online research. Review of Network Economics, 9(4), Article 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 56–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996, March). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2016). IAB internet advertising revenue report. 2015 full year results. New York: PwC.

    Google Scholar 

  • PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2017). IAB internet advertising revenue report. 2016 full year results. New York: PwC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roijakkers, N., & Hagedoorn, J. (2006). Inter-firm partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: Trends, patterns, and networks. Research Policy, 35, 431–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T. (2001). Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 687–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrape, J.-F. (2017). Open-source projects as incubators of innovation: From niche phenomenon to integral part of the industry. Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. OnlineFirst. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354856517735795.

  • Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules. A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelanski, H. E. (2013). Information, innovation, and competition policy for the internet. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161, 1663–1705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Cambridge/Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, B. (2013). The everything store. Jeff Bezos and the age of Amazon. Little, Brown and Company: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trott, P., & Hartmann, D. (2009). Why “open innovation” is old wine in new bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 715–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity. A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry & Innovation, 15(2), 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & O’Mahoney, S. (2008). The role of participation architecture in growing sponsored open source communities. Industry & Innovation, 15(2), 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chresbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, 43, 805–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Sciences (SOWI VI), University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Ulrich Dolata

Authors
  1. Ulrich Dolata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Dolata .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dolata, U. (2018). Internet Companies: Market Concentration, Competition and Power. In: Collectivity and Power on the Internet. SpringerBriefs in Sociology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78414-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78414-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78413-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78414-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation