6.1 Introduction
6.2 Digital Platforms and Ecosystems
6.3 Value Creation Within Digital Ecosystems
6.4 The Concept of Power in Partner Networks
6.5 Research Method
6.6 G-Cluster
6.6.1 Creation of a Partner Network
6.6.2 Evolution in Partner Networks
6.6.3 Equal Power in a Partner Network
6.7 Results
Focal relationship | Direct value | Indirect value | Relationship power and position | Source of power |
---|---|---|---|---|
G-cluster → game publishers | • Financial value • SDK | • No piracy • No second-hand markets • Bigger markets for games • New revenue models | • Game publisher had a strong position in 2005. • Later, the relationship was more equal as G-cluster reached the position of critical solution supplier. | • Game publishers provided content for G-cluster’s platform. • G-cluster provided critical competences in developing markets. |
Game publishers → G-cluster | • Content (games) for the platform | • References | ||
G-cluster → telecom/IPTV operators | • Financial value • More content for the services | • Market potential | • Telecom/IPTV operators had a strong position that remains strong in the changing situation. | • Telecom/IPTV operators operated G-cluster’s platform. • Telecom/IPTV operators had many customers for the service and the marketing channel. |
Telecom/IPTV operators → G-cluster | • Delivery channel • Computing services | • Pre-existing customers • Marketing • Brand name • Networking with game publishers | ||
G-cluster → video-on-demand service providers | • New feature for the service | • Market potential | • Equal | • Video-on-demand service providers had contacts with telecom/IPTV operators. • G-cluster offered new features that made video-on-demand providers’ products more attractive to telecom/IPTV operators. |
Video-on-demand service providers → G-cluster | • Invoicing system for the service | • Networking with IPTV providers | ||
G-cluster → set-top box manufacturers | • New feature for the service | • Market potential | • Equal | • Set-top box manufacturers had contacts with telecom/IPTV operators. • G-cluster offered new features that made set-top box manufacturers’ products more attractive to telecom/IPTV operators. |
Set-top box manufacturers → G-cluster | • Networking with IPTV providers | |||
G-cluster → middleware software providers | • New feature for the service | • Market potential | • Equal | • Middleware software providers had contacts with telecom/IPTV operators. • G-cluster offered new features that made middleware software providers’ services more attractive to telecom/IPTV operators. |
Middleware software providers → G-cluster | • Networking with IPTV providers | |||
G-cluster → portals | • Financial value • More content for the services | • Market potential | • Equal | • Portals got more content for their services. • G-cluster got a delivery channel for their service. |
Portals → G-cluster | • Delivery channel • Games menu | • Pre-existing customers • Marketing • Brand name | ||
G-cluster → server manufacturer | • New feature for the services | • Market potential | • Equal | • Server manufacturer had contacts with telecom/IPTV operators. • G-cluster offered new features that increased the value of the server manufacturer’s product. |
Server manufacturer → G-cluster | • Networking with telecom/IPTV operators |