Advertisement

Internetkonzerne: Konzentration, Konkurrenz und Macht

Chapter

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Aufsatz werden die Konzentrationsprozesse auf den wesentlichen Internetmärkten sowie die Expansions- und Innovationsstrategien der fünf führenden Konzerne Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon und Microsoft analysiert. Die Befunde, die der Text vorstellt, sind von einer Dezentralisierung der Markt- und Demokratisierung der Innovationsprozesse im Web ebenso weit entfernt wie von Vorstellungen einer vornehmlich offenen und kollaborativ betriebenen Technik- und Produktentwicklung. Die fünf un- tersuchten Konzerne prägen nicht nur wesentliche Angebote und Märkte des Internets. Sie regeln als Betreiber der zentralen Infrastrukturen auch die Zugänge zum Netz, strukturieren die Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten der Nutzer und sind wesentliche Treiber der Innovation. Nicht Dezentralisierung, Demokratisierung und Kooperation, sondern Konzentration, Kontrolle und Macht sind die Schlüsselkategorien, mit denen sich die wesentlichen Entwicklungstendenzen des (kommerziellen) Internets angemessen erfassen lassen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Ahuja, Gautam / Lampert, Curba M. / Tandon, Vivek (2008): Moving Beyond Schumpeter: Management Research on the Determinants of Technological Innovation. In: The Academy of Management Annals (2)1, 1–98.Google Scholar
  2. Alphabet Inc. (2017): Form 10-K 2016. Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Amazon Inc. (2013): Annual Report 2012 (Form 10-K). Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  4. Amazon Inc. (2017): Annual Report 2016 (Form 10-K). Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, Chris (2008): The Long Tail. Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. New York: Hachette Books.Google Scholar
  6. Angwin, Julia (2009): Stealing MySpace: The Battle to Control the Most Popular Website in America. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  7. Apple Inc. (2001): Annual Report 2001 (Form 10-K). Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  8. Apple Inc. (2016): Annual Report 2016 (Form 10-K). Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  9. Arthur, Charles (2012): Digital Wars: Apple, Google, Microsoft and the Battle for the Internet. London / Philadelphia: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  10. Atkinson, Robert D. / Ezell, Stephen J. / Andes, Scott M. / Castro, Daniel D. / Bennett, Richard (2010): The Internet Economy 25 Years After. Transforming Commerce & Life. Washington D.C.: The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Barabasi, Albert-Lázlò / Bonabeau, Eric (2003): Scale-Free Networks. In: Scientific American 5, 50–59.Google Scholar
  12. Benkler, Yochai (2006): The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Braun, Viktor / Herstatt, Cornelius (2008): The Freedom-Fighters: How Incumbent Corporations are Attempting to Control User-innovation. In: International Journal of Innovation Management 12(3), 543–572.Google Scholar
  14. Brockmeier, Joe (2011): Does Amazon “Owe” Open Source? Maybe a Little. In: Network World (27.5.2011). http://www.networkworld.com/article/2229358/ (1/2017).
  15. Chesbrough, Henry W. (2003a): Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chesbrough, Henry W. (2003b): The Era of Open Innovation. In: MIT Sloan Management Review 44(3), 35–41.Google Scholar
  17. Chesbrough, Henry W. / Bogers, Marcel (2014): Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation. In: Chesbrough, Henry W. / Vanhaverbeke, Wim / West, Joel (Eds.): New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–28.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, Jack (2014): Amazon’s ‘Schizophrenic’ Open Source Selfishness Scares off Potential Talent, Say Insiders. In: The Register (22.1.2014). http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/22/amazon_open_source_investigation/ (1/2017).
  19. Dahlander, Linus / Gann, David M. (2010): How Open is Innovation? In: Research Policy 39, 699–709.Google Scholar
  20. Dolata, Ulrich (2003): Unternehmen Technik. Akteure, Interaktionsmuster und strukturelle Kontexte der Technikentwicklung: Ein Theorierahmen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  21. Dolata, Ulrich (2013): The Transformative Capacity of New Technologies. A theory of sociotechnical change. London / New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Dolata, Ulrich / Schrape, Jan-Felix (2013): Medien in Transformation. Radikaler Wandel als schrittweise Rekonfiguration. In: Dolata, Ulrich / Schrape, Jan-Felix (Hrsg.): Internet, Mobile Devices und die Transformation der Medien. Radikaler Wandel als schrittweise Rekonfiguration. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 9–36.Google Scholar
  23. Dolata, Ulrich / Schrape, Jan-Felix (2014): App-Economy: Demokratisierung des Software-Marktes? In: Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23(2), 76–80.Google Scholar
  24. Dolata, Ulrich / Schrape, Jan-Felix (2016): Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements: Collective Action in the Internet Age. In: Social Movement Studies 15(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  25. Eaton, Ben / Elaluf-Calderwood, Silvia / Sörensen, Carsten / Yoo, Youngjin (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
  26. EHI Retail Institute (2016): Top 100 umsatzstärkste Onlineshops in Deutschland. https://www.ehi.org/de/top-100-umsatzstaerkste-onlineshops-in-deutschland (1/2017).
  27. Evans, David S. (2008): The Economics of the Online Advertising Industry. In: Review of Network Economics 7(3), 359–391.Google Scholar
  28. Facebook Inc. (2017): Annual Report 2016 (Form 10-K). Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  29. Fortune (2016): Fortune 500 2016. http://beta.fortune.com/fortune500 (1/2017).
  30. Freedman, Des (2012): Web 2.0 and the Death of the Blockbuster Economy. In: Curran, James / Fenton, Natalie / Freedman, Des (Eds): Misunderstanding the Internet. London / New York: Routledge, 69–94.Google Scholar
  31. Freeman, Christopher (1991): Networks of Innovators: A Synthesis of Research Issues. In: Research Policy 20, 499–514.Google Scholar
  32. Giddens, Anthony (1984): The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gillespie, Tarleton (2010): The Politics of ‚Platforms‘. In: New Media & Society 12(3), 347–364.Google Scholar
  34. Gillespie, Tarleton (2014): The Relevance of Algorithms. In: Gillespie, Tarleton / Boczkowski, Pablo / Foot, Kirsten (Eds): Media Technologies. Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge: MIT Press, 167–194.Google Scholar
  35. Google Inc. (2010): Annual Report 2009 (Form 10-K). Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  36. Hagedoorn, John / Link, Albert N. / Vonortas, Nicholas S. (2000): Research Partnerships. In: Research Policy 29, 567–586.Google Scholar
  37. Handelsverband Deutschland (2016): Der deutsche Einzelhandel. Stand Dezember 2016. http://einzelhandel.de/images/presse/Graphiken/DerEinzelhandelJan2014.pdf (1/2017).
  38. Haucap, Justus / Heimeshoff, Ulrich (2014): Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: Is the Internet Driving Competition or Market Monopolization? In: International Economics and Economic Policy 11(1/2), 49–61.Google Scholar
  39. Haucap, Justus / Wenzel, Tobias (2011): Wettbewerb im Internet: Was ist online anders als offline? In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik 60(2), 200–211.Google Scholar
  40. Hippel, Eric von (2005): Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hong, Ahreum / Bhattacharyya, Debadutta / Geis, George T. (2013): The Role of M&A in Market Convergence: Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft. In: Global Economy and Finance Journal 6(1), 53–73.Google Scholar
  42. Just, Natascha / Latzer, Michael (2017): Governance by Algorithms: Reality Construction by Algorithmic Selection on the Internet. In: Media, Culture & Society 39(2), 238-258Google Scholar
  43. Kirchner, Stefan / Beyer, Jürgen (2016): Die Plattformlogik als digitale Marktordnung. Wie die Digitalisierung Kopplungen von Unternehmen löst und Märkte transformiert. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 45(5), 324–339.Google Scholar
  44. Kirkpatrick, David (2010): The Facebook Effect. The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Lerner, Joshua / Tirole, Jean (2002): Some Simple Economics of Open Source. In: Journal of Industrial Economics 50(2), 197–234.Google Scholar
  46. Lessig, Lawrence (1999): CODE and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Litan, Robert E. / Rivlin, Alice M. (Eds.) (2001): The Economic Payoff from the Internet Revolution. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  48. Mellahi, Kamel / Wilkinson, Adrian (2004): Organizational Failure: A Critique of Recent Research and a Proposed Integrative Framework. In: International Journal of Management Reviews 5/6(1), 21–41.Google Scholar
  49. Microsoft Corp. (2014): Annual Report 2014 (Form 10-K). Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange CommissionGoogle Scholar
  50. Microsoft Corp. (2016): Annual Report 2016 (Form 10-K). Washington D.C.: United States Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  51. Monopolkommission (2014): Eine Wettbewerbsordnung für die Finanzmärkte. Zwanzigstes Hauptgutachten der Monopolkommission. Manuskript.Google Scholar
  52. National Retail Federation (2013): Top 50 E-Retailers, 2013. https://nrf.com/2015/top50-e-retailers-table (1/2017).
  53. National Retail Federation (2015): Top 100 Retailers Chart, 2015. https://nrf.com/2015/top100-table (1/2017)
  54. Netmarketshare (2016a): Desktop and Mobile/Tablet Search Engine Market Share. http://netmarketshare.com/ (1/2017).
  55. Netmarketshare (2016b): Mobile/Tablet Operating System Market Share. http://netmarketshare.com/ (1/2017).
  56. Pariser, Eli (2011): The Filter Bubble. What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  57. Pittaway, Luke / Robertson, Maxine / Munir, Kamal / Denyer, David / Neely, Andy (2004): Networking and Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. In: International Journal of Management Reviews 5/6(3/4), 137–168.Google Scholar
  58. Pollock, Rufus (2010): Is Google the Next Microsoft: Competition, Welfare and Regulation in Online Research. In: Review of Network Economics 9(4), Article 4.Google Scholar
  59. Powell, Walter W. / Grodal, Stine (2005): Networks of Innovators. In: Fagerberg, Jan / Mowery, David C. / Nelson, Richard R. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–85.Google Scholar
  60. Powell, Walter W. / Koput, Kenneth W. / Smith-Doerr, Laurel (1996): Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1), 116–145.Google Scholar
  61. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2016): IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report. 2015 Full Year Results. New York: PwC.Google Scholar
  62. Rochet, Jean-Charles / Tirole, Jean (2003): Platform Competition in Two-sided Markets. In: Journal of the European Economic Association 1(4), 990–1029.Google Scholar
  63. Roijakkers, Nadine / Hagedoorn, John (2006): Inter-firm Partnering in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology since 1975: Trends, Patterns, and Networks. In: Research Policy 35, 431–446.Google Scholar
  64. Rothaermel, Frank T. (2001): Incumbent’s Advantage Through Exploiting Complementary Assets via Interfirm Cooperation. In: Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7), 687–699.Google Scholar
  65. Schreyögg, Georg / Sydow, Jörg (2010): Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms. In: Organization Science 21(6), 1251–1262.Google Scholar
  66. Shapiro, Carl / Varian, Hal R. (1999): Information Rules. A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  67. Shelanski, Howard E. (2013): Information, Innovation, and Competition Policy for the Internet. In: University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161, 1663–1705.Google Scholar
  68. Statista (2016): Marktanteile der führenden Hersteller am Absatz von Smartphones weltweit vom 4. Quartal 2009 bis zum 2. Quartal 2016. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/173056/umfrage/weltweite-marktanteile-der-smartphone-hersteller-seit-4-quartal-2009/ (1/2017).
  69. Stone, Brad (2013): The Everything Store. Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  70. Tapscott, Don / Williams, Anthony D. (2006): Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration changes Everything. New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
  71. Trott, Paul / Hartmann, Dap (2009): Why ‚Open Innovation‘ is Old Wine in New Bottles. In: International Journal of Innovation Management 13(4), 715–736.Google Scholar
  72. Van Dijck, José (2013): The Culture of Connectivity. A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. West, Joel / Lakhani, Karim R. (2008): Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation. In: Industry & Innovation 15(2), 223–231.Google Scholar
  74. West, Joel / O’Mahoney, Siobhan (2008): The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities. In: Industry & Innovation 15(2), 145–168.Google Scholar
  75. West, Joel / Salter, Ammon / Vanhaverbeke, Wim / Chresbrough, Henry (2014): Open Innovation: The Next Decade. In: Research Policy 43, 805–811.Google Scholar
  76. Winner, Langdon (1980): Do Artifacts Have Politics? In: Daedalus 109(1), 121–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.StuttgartDeutschland

Personalised recommendations