Topic: “The Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD Standards
Battle”
literature:
·
Besen, S.M. & Farrell,
J. (1994): Choosing
How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1994, vol 8, no. 2, p. 117-131.
·
Belleflamme, P., & Peitz, M. (2016). Industrial organization – Markets and Strategies, Chapter:
Strategies for Network
Goods, p. 612-614. Cambridge University Press.
Preferred Structure of the paper
Few important points from the
professor:
1.
Part 1/
Chapter1: Introduction:
2.
Part 2/
Chapter 2: Theory and Hypothesis:
should be theoretical part here. Here we could focus
mainly on the article by Besen & Farell. Few important points are to be
addressed here like why there are standards, why it’s important to have
standards, whether the market is big enough to compete the standards, whether
you should have unique common standard, what more factors are important here,
etc. So we would talk about all these kind of things in this part.
Hypothesis will be based on besen and farrell theory. In
this article, writer have mentioned mainly Three different forms of
competition. And one of the type of competition will be related to our case
study here (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray). So We can create hypothesis from this and
structure the entire paper accordingly.
Once you introduced the Besen & Farrell articles /
models, you can use that to come up with the hypothesis, because there are some
related to the theory, so they make some predictions , different scenario to
compete within a standard.
3.
Part 3 /
Chapter 3: should be discussed on case study, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, in this
section.
4.
Part 4/
chapter 4: Here is the part of ‘Discussion’. Here you can consider the theory
and the case and then you can assess that the theory works or not? Model by
besen & farrell are helpful here or not? Whether some of it helps to make
some predictions here? Whether the
hypothesis is true or not, by the way
you should make clear that why you come to this hypothesis.
One important point to note: It’s not possible to prove a
theory 100% right empirically, but we can mention here if we find that the
theory fails fully or partially or something wrong to describe the problem mentioned
in our case study. To support the theory incompleteness, we can mention any
other case study, but not more than one case study due to word limit/ short
length of the assignment. You only need one example to prove the theory wrong
or incomplete.
5.
Part 5/
chapter 5: Conclusion: A brief summary here.
We don’t have enough room for
comprehensive literature review due to limitation of the word limit of 3000
words.
Text body: 3000 words (including footnotes, but excluding references, the title page, abstract, contents pages etc.,
reference list and appendices).
Chicago Style Referencing
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|