請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62146
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 江炯聰 | |
dc.contributor.author | Chih-Yuan Ho | en |
dc.contributor.author | 何志遠 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T13:30:18Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2015-07-26 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2013-07-26 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-07-22 | |
dc.identifier.citation | (一)學術期刊與書籍
Abrams, S., & Mark, G. (2007). Network-centricity: hindered by hierarchical anchors. In Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on Computer human interaction for the management of information technology (p. 7). ACM. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity(Vol. 1). mIt Press. Baldwin, C. Y., & C. J. Woodard (2008). The architecture of platforms: A unified view.Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper, (09-034). Basole, R. C., & Karla, J. (2011). On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and strategy. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 3(5), 313-322. Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2001). Competing cybermediaries. European Economic Review, 45(4), 797-808. Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003). Chicken & egg: Competition among intermediation service providers. RAND journal of Economics, 309-328. Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012). Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: the case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly-Management Information Systems, 36(1), 263. Choi, J. P. (2010). Tying in Two-Sided Markets with Multi-Homing. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(3), 607-626. Cooke, P., Cooke, P., De Laurentis, C., & MacNeill, S. (2010). Platforms of Innovation: Dynamics of New Industrial Knowledge Flows. Edward Elgar Publishing. Corts, K. S., & Lederman, M. (2009). Software exclusivity and the scope of indirect network effects in the US home video game market. international Journal of industrial Organization, 27(2), 121-136. Cusumano, M. A. (2012). Platforms versus products: Observations from the literature and history. History and Strategy, 29, 35-67. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?.Strategic management journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard business review, 84(10), 92. Eisenmann, T. (2008). Managing proprietary and shared platforms. California Management Review, 50(4), 31-53. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). Platform envelopment.Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1270-1285. Farrell, J., & Klemperer, P. (2007). Coordination and lock-in: Competition with switching costs and network effects. Handbook of industrial organization, 3, 1967-2072. Frey, K., Luthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397-420. Gawer, A. and M.A. Cusumano (2002), Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation, Harvard Business School Press. Gawer, A., & Henderson, R. (2007). Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(1), 1-34. Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. (2012). Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation. DRUID 2012. CBS, Copenhagen, Denmark Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A., & Strategy, D. S. (2012). How companies become platform leaders. MIT/Sloan Management Review, 49. Halaburda H., Yehezkel Y. (2011). Platform competition under asymmetric information. Working Paper 11-080, Harvard Business School, Boston. Han, J. H., Lee, D. H., Kim, H., In, H. P., Chae, H. S., Hwang, E., & Eom, Y. I. (2012). A situation-aware cross-platform architecture for ubiquitous game. Computing and Informatics, 28(5), 619-633. Herrmann, P. (2005). Evolution of strategic management: the need for new dominant designs. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 111–130 Huang, D., Yuan, H., & Xie, X. (2012,). Research on Information Security Risk Control and Legal Regulation of Typical Cloud Computing Services. In Industrial Control and Electronics Engineering (ICICEE), 2012 International Conference on (pp. 700-703). IEEE. Lazaric, N., Longhi, C., & Thomas, C. (2008). Gatekeepers of knowledge versus platforms of knowledge: from potential to realized absorptive capacity. Regional Studies, 42(6), 837-852. Liebowitz, S. J. (2002). Re-Thinking the Network Economy: The True Forces That Drive the Digital Marketplace, American Management Assoc. Inc., New York, NY. MacCormack, A. & Iansiti, M. (2002). Intellectual Property, Architecture, and the Management of Technological Transitions: Evidence from Microsoft Corporation. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 03-020. Marfia, G., Amoroso, A., Roccetti, M., Basile, G., & Palazzi, C. E. (2011). Video Games at the Library: A Historical Perspective. In Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), 2011 Proceedings of 20th International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE. Marsh, S. J., & Stock, G. N. (2006). Creating dynamic capability: The role of intertemporal integration, knowledge retention, and interpretation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 422-436. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp.75–86. Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. (2011). Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation: evidence from the field. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 40-57. Park, S. (2004). Quantitative analysis of network externalities in competing technologies: The VCR case. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 937-945. Quandt, T., & Singer, J. B. (2009). Convergence and cross-platform content production. Handbook of journalism studies, 130-144. Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two‐sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990-1029. Rong, K., Lin, Y., Shi, Y., & Yu, J. (2013). Linking business ecosystem lifecycle with platform strategy: a triple view of technology, application and organisation. International Journal of Technology Management, 62(1), 75-94. Sharapov, D., Thomas, L. D., & Autio, E. (2013). Building ecosystem momentum: The case of AppCampus. 35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013, Barcelona, Spain Srinivasan, A., Venkatraman, N. (2010). Indirect Network Effects and Platform Dominance in the Video Game Industry: A Network Perspective.Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 57(4), 661-673. Suarez, F. F. (2004). Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework. Research Policy, 33(2), 271-286. Subramanian, A. M., Chai, K. H., & Mu, S. (2011). Capability reconfiguration of incumbent firms: Nintendo in the video game industry. Technovation, 31(5), 228-239. Sun, M., & Tse, E. (2009). The Resource‐Based View of Competitive Advantage in Two‐Sided Markets. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 45-64. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. Tilson, D., Sorensen, C., & Lyytinen, K. (2012). Platform Complexity: Lessons from Mobile Wireless. In 2012 International Conference on Mobile Business, The Netherlands: AIS, pp. 289-300. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research Commentary—Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675-687. Venkatraman, N. (2004). Preferential linkage and network evolution: A conceptual model and empirical test in the U.S. video game sector. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 876-892. Weinman, J. (2011). Network implications of cloud computing. In Telecom World (ITU WT), 2011 Technical Symposium at ITU (pp. 75-81). IEEE. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180. Zhu, F., & Iansiti, M. (2007). Dynamics of platform competition: Exploring the role of installed base, platform quality and consumer expectations. Division of Research, Harvard Business School. (二)網站資料 Atari 官方網站 http://www.atari.com/ Braid 遊戲官方網站 http://braid-game.com/ Electronic Entertainment Expo/Exposition 電子娛樂展覽官方網站 http://www.e3expo.com/ IEEE Spectrum 網站 http://spectrum.ieee.org/ International Data Corporation 國際數據資訊網站 http://www.idc.com/ Kabam 遊戲官方網站 https://www.kabam.com/ Magnavox 官方網站 http://www.magnavox.com/ Microsoft 官方網站 http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx Microsoft XBOX 官方網站 http://www.xbox.com/en-US/ Net Applications 市場調查網站 http://www.netapplications.com/ Nielsen 市場調查網站 http://www.nielsen.com/us/en.html Ninja Theory 遊戲官方網站 http://www.ninjatheory.com/ Nintendo 官方網站 http://www.nintendo.com/?country=US&lang=en Nintendo Wii 官方網站 http://www.nintendo.com/wii Nintendo Wii U 官方網站 http://www.nintendo.com/wiiu Pew Research Center 市場調查網站 http://www.people-press.org/ PlayStation Magazine and Pocket Gamer 網站 http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/ RedGamingTech 遊戲統計網站 http://www.redgamingtech.com/ Sega 官方網站 http://www.sega.com/Home/ Sony 官方網站 http://www.sony.net/ Sony Computer Entertainment 官方網站 http://www.scei.co.jp/index_e.html Sony PlayStation 官方網站 http://playstation.com/ StatCounter 通訊統計網站 http://statcounter.com/ Statistica 市場調查網站 http://www.statsoft.com/ Vgchartz 遊戲統計網站 http://www.vgchartz.com/ | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62146 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 隨著全球化與科技的演變,以「平台」(Platform)進行競爭的模式也日益白熱化。本研究從過往探究平台之相關文獻與理論中,歸納出影響平台競爭力的三個主要因素,分別為-「平台支配性」(Platform Dominance),以平台為中心的資源知識運用,與用戶以及互補品廠商的連結關係等;「動態能力」(Dynamic Capability),連結平台內外部的能力,具備演化性來因應競爭環境;「跨平台整合」(Multi-Platform Integration),平台之競爭跨足到其他平台領域,演變成以平台生態系統的方式進行競爭,而相關參與者該如何選擇最適合的平台生態系統。本研究以第七代家用遊戲主機兩大競爭者-Microsoft微軟公司XBOX 360遊戲主機與Sony索尼公司PlayStation 3遊戲主機-為對象,設定共十項操作變數,並利用所蒐集之次級資料來佐證。本研究發現,在平台支配性中PlayStation 3與XBOX 360的表現不相上下,而在動態能力與跨平台整合部份XBOX 360的表現佔得上風。從本研究中可了解到,當平台提供者能在平台支配性、動態能力與跨平台整合該三項因素中佔有優勢,則對於提昇平台競爭力有相當大的幫助,並能維持持續性的競爭優勢。本研究希望能提供另一個切入平台競爭環境的觀點,不論在學術理論或是實際應用上都能做出貢獻。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | With the evolvement of globalization and technology, using “platform” as the pattern of competition has become more and more intense and popular. In this study, we explore past literatures and theories related to platform competitiveness and conclude three main factors that impact the most – “Platform Dominance”, platform-centric application of resources and knowledge, as well as the relationship between platform, platform users and complementories; “Dynamic Capability”, the ability for integrating platform internality and externality to cope with the evolution of the environment; “Multi-Platform Integration”, the competition of platform has turned into the platform ecosystem, and relevant participants have to decide which platform ecosystem they need. We examine two seventh-generation game console competitors Microsoft XBOX 360 and Sony PlayStation 3, and set ten variables using secondary data as measurement. We find out that both XBOX 360 and PlayStation 3 do well in platform dominance, where XBOX 360 performs better than PlayStation 3 in dynamic capability and multi-platform integration. In this study we highlight that, if platform owners have the advantage in platform dominance, dynamic capability and multi-platform integration than other competitors, it will strengthen their platform competitiveness and maintain sustainable competitive advantage. This study provides another view to analysis the competitive environment of platform, and we hope it will make contribution to not only in academia but also in practice. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T13:30:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R00741053-1.pdf: 1230757 bytes, checksum: 07575dcbabd5221c5f46b72f477b6e6c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i
誌謝 ii 中文摘要 iii Abstract iv 圖目錄 ix 表目錄 x 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究動機與目的 1 1.2 家用遊戲主機產業之介紹 2 1.2.1 家用遊戲主機的起源 2 1.2.2 家用遊戲主機的發展史 2 1.2.3 家用遊戲主機產業之現況 6 1.3 Sony PlayStation系列 9 1.3.1 PlayStation系列主機介紹 9 1.3.2 PlayStation之網路服務 11 1.3.3 PlayStation系列之跨平台整合 13 1.4 Microsoft XBOX系列 14 1.4.1 XBOX系列主機介紹 14 1.4.2 XBOX之網路服務 16 1.4.3 XBOX系列之跨平台整合 18 1.5 未來展望 19 1.5.1 PlayStation 4介紹 19 1.5.2 XBOX One介紹 20 1.5.3 新一代家用遊戲主機之競爭者與特點 21 1.5.4 家用遊戲主機產業外之替代品 23 第二章 文獻回顧 25 2.1平台 Platform 25 2.1.1 平台定義 25 2.1.2 平台類型 26 2.1.3 平台策略 27 2.2平台支配性 Platform Dominance 29 2.2.1 支配性與平台之關係 29 2.2.2 資源基礎理論 Resource-Based View 30 2.2.3 網路中心性 Network-centric 31 2.2.4 知識創新支援 Supporting Knowledge Creation 32 2.3 動態能力 Dynamic Capability 33 2.3.1 動態能力與平台之關係 33 2.3.2 遊戲主機平台之動態能力 35 2.4 跨平台整合 Multi-Platform Integration 36 2.4.1 跨平台 Cross-Platform 36 2.4.2 平台生態系統 Platform Ecosystem 37 2.4.3 多重持有成本 Multi-Homing Cost 39 第三章 研究方法 41 3.1 研究類型與步驟 41 3.1.1 研究類型 41 3.1.2 研究步驟 41 3.2 研究架構 43 3.3 研究假設 45 3.4 操作變數定義與衡量 47 3.4.1 平台支配性之操作變數設定 47 3.4.2 動態能力之操作變數設定 48 3.4.3 跨平台整合之操作變數設定 49 3.4.4 衡量方式 51 第四章 研究結果與分析 52 4.1 XBOX 360與PlayStation 3-平台支配性之比較 52 4.1.1 主機安裝數量 52 4.1.2 軟體遊戲數 54 4.1.3 平台帳戶數 55 4.1.4 遊戲類別 56 4.1.5 平台支配性之分析與討論 58 4.1.6 平台支配性比較之小結 59 4.2 XBOX 360與PlayStation 3-動態能力之比較 60 4.2.1 技術規格 60 4.2.2 伺服器安全 61 4.2.3 服務項目 63 4.2.4 動態能力之分析與討論 64 4.2.5 動態能力比較之小結 66 4.3 XBOX 360與PlayStation 3-跨平台整合之比較 66 4.3.1 平台裝置數 66 4.3.2 跨平台開發 68 4.3.3 多重持有成本 69 4.3.4 跨平台整合之分析與討論 72 4.3.5 跨平台整合比較之小結 73 4.4 分析結果總結 74 第五章 結論與建議 76 5.1 學術貢獻 76 5.2 應用面貢獻 77 5.3 研究限制與不足 79 5.4 建議 81 參考文獻 83 (一)學術期刊與書籍 83 (二)網站資料 88 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 平台競爭力分析-以家用遊戲主機XBOX 360與PlayStation 3為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Platform Competitiveness Analysis of Game Console Industry – the Case of XBOX 360 and PlayStation 3 | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃俊堯,柴惠珍,魏資文 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 平台,平台競爭力,家用遊戲主機產業,平台支配性,動態能力,跨平台整合,微軟,索尼, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Platform,Platform Competitiveness,Game Console Industry,Platform Dominance,Dynamic Capability,Multi-Platform Integration,Microsoft XBOX 360,Sony PlayStation 3, | en |
dc.relation.page | 89 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-07-22 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 商學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.2 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。