CONCLUSION - How to encourage Complementors in Platform Ecosystems?

The purpose of this master’s thesis was to examine heterogeneity in platform ecosystems to better understand incentive structures of platform complementors. To do so, a case study of MILLA, a concept of a domestic e-learning platform in Germany, has been conducted in order to explore the following research question:

RQ: What are the factors that affect platform complementors’ innovation efforts and how can platform owners effectively govern complementors in platform ecosystems?

13 More information can be found in chapter 3.7.2 Transferability

To analyse the research question of this master’s thesis, qualitative interviews have been conducted with potential complementors of the MILLA platform. Prior to the research, the participants were divided into three different groups, which enabled me to examine heterogeneity of co-opetition and non-co-opetition complementors in platform ecosystems. However, the starting point of this research was the academic literature from which theories could be derived relating to potential factors that might influence complementors’ behaviour in platform ecosystems. These factors relate to monetization (Boudreau, 2018; Boudreau & Jeppesen, 2015; Eisenmann et al., 2006; Parker et al., 2016; Wan et al., 2017) as well as intra-platform competition (Eisenmann et al., 2011; Gawer &

Henderson, 2007; Rietveld et al., 2017) and restrictions related to technical specifications (Boudreau, 2010; Cennamo et al., 2018; Eisenmann et al., 2008).

The findings could confirm as well as add nuance to existing theory in academic literature. Foremost, the research highlights the occurrence of heterogeneity in platform ecosystems, which is indicated by the primary goals observed across the sample of complementors. While co-opetition complementors emphasized to require an economic value associated with the participation on the platform, non-co-opetition complementors pointed out to mainly seek for the interaction with a broad user base. By contrast, it could be observed that the co-opetition complementors’ value perception is positively influenced by an increasing number of demand-side users only if they can capture economic value from the growing network-size. This implies the need of a modification of the existing theory of indirect network effects, which defines the value perception of complementors to be contingent with the mere number of users on the opposed side of the platform (Eisenmann et al., 2006; McIntyre & Srinivasan, 2017; Parker et al., 2016). However, the analysis of co-opetition complementors suggests adding nuance by accounting additional factors, such as the economic value, to the existing theory. In addition to that, this research suggests that heterogeneous platform ecosystems might enable same-side interactions of complementors, which would enhance the overall value proposition of a platform. It has to be noted that this finding is not linked to positive direct network effects since this research could not find evidence for complementors’ value perception to be related to the number of other complementors acting on the platform. Instead, it is proposed that platform owners should strive to acquire the right kinds of complementors in order to establish same-side interactions as well as to enhance the platform’s

value and thus, potentially attract demand-side users through indirect network effects. Further findings suggest negative effects with respect to potential competition with the platform owner as well as an unbalanced and non-transparent promotion strategy of the complementors’ services, whereas by contrast, complementors appeared to be encouraged by an open platform architecture, which ensures a frictionless platform entry. In addition to that, further research is needed with respect to data management and design science in the platform-context since these factors have been identified as potentially encouraging complementors in platform ecosystems. Ultimately, a platform governance framework has been proposed, which summarizes the findings of this thesis and serves as support for platform owners to create platform governance strategies by aligning heterogeneous interests of complementors in their platform ecosystems.

This research contributes to academia by responding to recent calls for further research on incentive structures in platform ecosystems (Constantinides et al., 2018; de Reuver et al., 2018; McIntyre &

Srinivasan, 2017). It provides an in-depth analysis of a heterogeneous platform ecosystem to outline factors which might influence complementors’ value-creation. Thus, it also contributes to practice since platform owners can use this work to shape platform governance strategies that align heterogeneous interests of the entire platform ecosystem.

Bibliography

Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as Structure. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451

Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations.

Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821 Agar, M. (1986). Speaking of Ethnography. 2455 Teller Road, Newbury Park California 91320

United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985895 Amateur I. (2019, April 24). Personal Interview.

Amateur II. (2019, May 28). Personal Interview.

Apple Inc. (2019). Apple Entrepreneur Camp kicks off as app developer earnings hit new record.

Retrieved September 2, 2019, from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/01/apple-entrepreneur-camp-kicks-off-as-app-developer-earnings-hit-new-record/

Arbeitsstab Zukunft der Arbeit. (2019). MILLA - A new Culture in Skill Development. Retrieved August 30, 2019, from

http://stab-zukunftderarbeit.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Milla_A4_englisch.pdf

Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2006). The Architecture of Participation: Does Code Architecture Mitigate Free Riding in the Open Source Development Model? Management Science, 52(7), 1116–1127. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0546

Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, C. J. (2008). The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1265155

Bamberger, P. A. (2018). AMD—Clarifying What We Are about and Where We Are Going. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0003

Baškarada, S. (2014). Qualitative Case Study Guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19(40). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/baskarada24.pdf

Benlian, A., Hilkert, D., & Hess, T. (2015). How open is this Platform? The Meaning and Measurement of Platform Openness from the Complementers’ Perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 30(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.6

Binken, J. L. G., & Stremersch, S. (2009). The Effect of Superstar Software on Hardware Sales in

System Markets. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.88 Boudreau, K. J. (2010). Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving

Control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849–1872. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1215 Boudreau, K. J. (2018). Amateurs Crowds & Professional Entrepreneurs as Platform

Complementors. NBER Working Paper No. 24512. Cambridge, MA.

https://doi.org/10.3386/w24512

Boudreau, K. J. (2012). Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom? An Early Look at Large Numbers of Software App Developers and Patterns of Innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1409–

1427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0678

Boudreau, K. J., & Jeppesen, L. B. (2015). Unpaid crowd complementors: The platform network effect mirage. Strategic Management Journal, 36(12), 1761–1777.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2324

Cavaye, A. L. M. (1996). Case study research: a multi-faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems Journal, 6(3), 227–242.

Cennamo, C. (2018). Building the Value of Next-Generation Platforms: The Paradox of Diminishing Returns. Journal of Management, 44(8), 3038–3069.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316658350

Cennamo, C., Gu, Y., & Zhu, F. (2016). Value Co-creation And Capture in the Creative Industry: The U.S. Home Video Game Market. Retrieved from

https://cdn.questromworld.bu.edu/platformstrategy/files/2017/06/PlatStrat_2017_paper_2 1.pdf

Cennamo, C., Ozalp, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2018). Platform Architecture and Quality Trade-offs of Multihoming Complements. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 461–478.

https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0779

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation The new Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Massachussets: Harvard Business School Press.

Clements, M. T., & Ohashi, H. (2005). Indirect Network Effects and the Product Cycle: Video Games in the U.S., 1994-2002. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 53(4), 515–542.

Company I. (2019, April 24). Personal Interview.

Company II. (2019, May 3). Personal Interview.

81 Company III. (2019, May 14). Personal Interview.

Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O., & Parker, G. G. (2018). Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 381–400.

https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0794

de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2017). The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda.

Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3

Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2011). Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1270–1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.935

Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for Two- Sided Markets.

Harvard Business Review.

Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2008). Opening Platforms: How, When and Why? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1264012

EPP II. (2019, May 20). Personal Interview.

EPP III. (2019, May 10). Personal Interview.

Evans, D. S. (2003). Some Empirical Aspects of Multi-sided Platform Industries. Review of Network Economics, 2(3), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.2202/1446-9022.1026

Foerderer, J., Kude, T., Mithas, S., & Heinzl, A. (2018). Does Platform Owner’s Entry Crowd Out Innovation? Evidence from Google Photos. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 444–460.

https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0787

Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform Leadership How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Harvard University Press.

Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How Companies Become Platform Leaders. MITSloan Management Review.

Gawer, A., & Henderson, R. (2007). Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(1).

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00130.x

Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research.

European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135–146.

https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54

Guba, E. (1981). ERIC / ECTJ Annual Review Paper: Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75–91.

Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904

Kang, H. Y. (2017). Intra-platform Envelopment: The Coopetitive Dynamics between the Platform Owner and Complementors. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1).

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.11205abstract

Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. (2017). Sustaining Superior Performance in Business Ecosystems:

Evidence from Application Software Developers in the iOS and Android Smartphone

Ecosystems. Organization Science, 28(3), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1122 Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1986). Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities.

Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 822–841. https://doi.org/10.1086/261409

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalist inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

Lueker, N., Foerderer, J., & Heinzl, A. (2018). Superstar Complementors: Does High Status Discourage Innovation in Platform Ecosystems? In DRUID18 Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark.

McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2596 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications.

MILLA representative. (2019, April 29). Personal Interview.

Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy & Leadership, 25(6), 28–33.

https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054655

Panico, C., & Cennamo, C. (2015). “What Drives a Platform’s Strategy? Usage, Membership, and Competition Effects.” Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings.

https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.246

Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution How Networked

Markets are Transforming the Economy and how to make them work for you. W. W. Norton &

Company.

Rietveld, J., & Eggers, J. P. (2018). Demand Heterogeneity in Platform Markets: Implications for Complementors. Organization Science, 29(2), 304–322.

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1183

Rietveld, J., Nieborg, D., Ploog, J. N., & Heugens, P. (2018). Platform ecosystem evolution: Towards an integrative framework and implications for complementors. In DRUID18 Copenhagen Business School (pp. 1–43). Copenhagen.

Rietveld, J., Schilling, M. A., & Bellavitis, C. (2017). Platform Strategy: Managing Ecosystem Value Through Selective Promotion of Complements. SSRN Electronic Journal.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3061424

Rietveld, J., Seamans, R., & Meggiorin, K. (2018). Market Orchestrators: The Effect of Platform Certification on Complementor Performance and Behavior in the Context of Kiva (2010-2013).

SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3131553

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

Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: A Progress Report. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645–667.

Rysman, M. (2009). The Economics of Two-Sided Markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 125–143.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students (Seventh Ed). Pearson Education.

Srinivasan, A., & Venkatraman, N. (2010). Indirect Network Effects and Platform Dominance in the Video Game Industry: A Network Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, 57(4), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2009.2037738

Tiwana, A. (2014). Platform Ecosystems. Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2012-0-06625-2

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. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0323

Venkatraman, N., & Lee, C. H. (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.

Wan, X., Cenamor, J., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2017). Unraveling Platform Strategies: A Review from an Organizational Ambidexterity Perspective. Sustainability, 9(5).

https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050734

Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology Ecosystem Governance.

Organization Science, 25(4), 1195–1215. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0895

Wen, W., & Zhu, F. (2016). How Do Complementors Respond to the Threat of Platform Owner Entry? Evidence from the Mobile App Market. SSRN Electronic Journal.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2848533

Wicks, A. C., & Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics. Organization Science, 9(2), 123–140.

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123

Wingfield, N. (2018). ‘The Mobile Industry’s Never Seen Anything Like This’: An Interview With Steve Jobs at the App Store’s Launch. Retrieved September 2, 2019, from

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mobile-industrys-never-seen-anything-like-this-an-

interview-with-steve-jobs-at-the-app-stores-launch-1532527201?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

Wuerthele, M. (2017). Apple celebrates monumental 2016 App Store growth, $240M on New Years Day alone. Retrieved September 2, 2019, from

https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/01/05/apple-celebrates-monumental-2016-app-store-growth-240m-on-new-years-day-alone

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Yoffie, D. B., & Kwak, M. (2006). With friends like these - The Art of Managing Complementors.

Harvard Business Review.

Appendices

- Appendix I: Interview Guide

- Appendix II-X: Interview transcripts and field notes - Appendix XI: Codebook

Appendix 1: Interview Guide Introduction

Thank you so much for taking part in the interview. My name is Milad Habib, I am currently writing my master thesis about the e-learning platform MILLA. During the next time I will ask you some questions that are related to your participation on MILLA. All information will be kept confidential and be treated anonymously and none of what you say during the interview will be attributed to you unless you give explicit permission to do so in advance. Also, of course you have the right not to answer any questions you for whatever reasons don't want to answer. And if at any point you wish to cancel, the Interview will be stopped. Again, all information collected will be used exclusively for the purpose of our research. I would also like to record the interview electronically and use the recording for the analysis.

Is that still okay with you?

I estimate this interview to last anywhere between 20 minutes and up to about an hour. However, there is no real time limit so you're most welcome to give lengthy answers or also elaborate on your statements if you want to. So, considering this information just provided to you, are you still okay with participating?

General questions all interviewees are being asked:

1. Why do you want to join the platform? What are your specific goals?

2. How do you want to make sure to achieve your goals?

3. What would motivate you to produce regular content or at least increase your efforts?

4. How do you intend to implement your service on MILLA?

5. How can MILLA support you in achieving your goals?

FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC:

1. Maybe you can start with a short introduction of yourself and your business and maybe you can also touch upon why you want to join MILLA’s platform?

2. How do you want to integrate MILLA into your company’s business model?

3. Do you have any specific strategies in mind that can improve your performance on the platform?

4. Would you consider producing and publishing content on a regular basis? If no, can you elaborate on why?

5. What would motivate you to produce regular content or at least increase your efforts?

6. If you think of the factors you just mentioned that positively influence your participation, can you rank these factors from most important to least important and also explain your decision?

7. Can you think of any factors that could negatively affect such efforts and why?

8. How would you react if you are not satisfied with your performance on MILLA? Could a poor performance affect your participation in a negative way?

9. Are you aware of competition? If yes, how do you want to overcome the competition?

10. How do you expect the platform owner to support you in promoting your service?

11.If you recognize support by the platform owner, would that affect your participation in any way?

12. Should the platform owner be transparent about the requirements for course providers in order to get promoted on the platform?

13. How important is a transparent and balanced promotion on the platform for you?

14. How do you ensure your courses fulfill required quality standards?

15. Would you make sure to fulfill high quality standards to participate on the platform? Even though, you would need to adjust courses to do so?

16. Consider MILLA starts producing their own courses in order to enhance the platform with high quality courses:

a. Do you think this could increase the overall value of the platform?

b. To what extent could that affect your participation on the platform?

c. (Would you consider focusing on other areas that are not covered by MILLA’s courses)

Technical:

17. How do you intend to implement your service on MILLA?

18. How do you intend to interact with the end-users on the platform?

Appendix 2: Interview Amateur I (24.04.2019)

[00:00:10.420] - Milad

All right so yeah let's start. Thank you so much for taking part in the interview. My name is Milad Habib, I am currently writing my master thesis about the e-learning platform MILLA. During the next time I will ask you some questions that are related to your participation on MILLA. All information will be kept confidential and be treated anonymously and none of what you say during the interview will be attributed to you unless you give explicit permission to do so in advance. Also, of course you have the right not to answer any questions you for whatever reasons don't want to answer. And if at any point you wish to cancel, the Interview will be stopped. Again, all information collected will be used exclusively for the purpose of our research. I would also like to record the interview electronically and use the recording for the analysis. Is that still okay with you?

[00:01:25.030] - Participant Yes

[00:01:35.220] - Milad

[00:01:46.180] - Participant Yes I am ok with participating

[00:01:46.200] – Milad

Nice, ok. Then let’s start. The first question is: Why do you want to join the platform? What are your specific goals?

[00:01:46.830] - Participant

I already have a youtube channel and this kind of work was created just because I wanted to get information across and just do something with my love for mathematics and since I have also studied mathematics, it's kind of, I think it's beneficial for everyone if I can have fun with mathematics and also show this online and then I also realized pretty quickly that I can help others just by explaining stuff or showing that math can be at a little fun. And so these are the reasons why I started educating. Education online in video form and so MILLA seems like a platform where I can do this as well.

[00:02:45.680] - Milad

Nice, you mentioned your love as one incentive or one goal for you. Do you have any economic incentives or goals you want to achieve on the platform?

[00:03:02.090] - Participant

Yeah so for me I started my YouTube channel, which is the main thing for me now in online education. When I have started there was a time where it was not possible to earn money with it.

So the first incentive was really completely not economic for me and I still do it. Mostly because I like it. But of course the bigger it grows the more you get to to the point where it is more like a

business. And so also to move to another platform or just take into consideration maybe producing for multiple sites and formats and so on, is of course also good to have to get the personal and economic incentives aligned. And so yeah YouTube does it fairly good to just if you collect a lot of views, you can monetize it directly on the platform and also you can do sponsorships on YouTube so you get some economic value out of your your videos. And so I think also for the bigger picture and for everyone it would be necessary for a platform like MILLA to have some economic value for the creators. Yeah.

[00:04:35.520] - Milad

Sure. I don't know if you have or if you're very familiar with the revenue model on MILLA. It's gonna be variable revenue model so it should..

[00:04:45.810] - Participant

Yeah just briefly I just read some some small sentences I never heard that really explained cohesive.

[00:04:52.190] - Milad

So just a little recap: It's gonna be based on your performance and the feedback you get on MILLA.

I mean if you get good reviews on the platform you will also generate more revenue. And what's also important is the relevance of your course. I mean you offer mathematic courses. So it might be ranked as a high relevant course. And based on your actual performance and on the feedback you will generate revenue. So that's how it's gonna be calculated.

[00:05:27.710] - Participant

Okay. This is the the the outline I read. Do you know any more specifics on whether a star rating at the end of the course or after every video with thumbs up or down. Or is this all too early for specifics.

[00:05:42.570] - Milad

There's gonna be something. Maybe the participants will receive emails to review it, something that they will integrate for sure. Yeah. As you said, it's too early to really name it. But considering the

potential fact that you will not achieve their economic goals you maybe have on MILLA, to what extent would that affect your participation?

[00:06:20.930] - Participant

Well I would say my participation on MILLA I would say is mainly so that I have another or maybe a better way for some people to get the information or a better environment for learning and so on.

And if I see that many people have an extra value there from my videos, I think this might be enough for me to stay on the platform. But it seems like this is also aligned with the economic value it gives for me so if no one or if not many people like it or give it a bad rating on MILLA then it also would the incentive would not be given because if people do not enjoy what I do on this platform then I don't have to do it.

[00:07:22.490] - Milad

Would you consider producing and publishing content on a regular basis?

[00:07:29.840] - Participant

I would consider it. But maybe it depends on whether I am I'm going to focus on online video for education as my career because right now I'm doing it PHD or a doctor and I work at the university and so I have many things to do and so MILLA seems right now just like another project which cannot grow ultimately too big. And I think I won't be able to produce one video a week exclusively for MILLA or I would have to look in which format I can find whether I can find something that I can produce pretty easily. But usually I like to do stuff and think about how I'm doing it for multiple weeks or time or sometimes month and years. So yeah it's also love but not in the sense like you asked.

[00:08:39.330] - Milad

Yeah. Okay let's. But still I mean is there anything that could motivate you to produce regular content or at least increase your efforts? I mean you said you're all you're busy by side but still is there anything that the platform provider could do in order to encourage you to do more on the platform?

In document How to encourage Complementors in Platform Ecosystems? (Sider 77-200)