Crafting a Systematic Literature Review on Open-Source Platforms

This working paper unveils the crafting of a systematic literature review on open-source platforms. The high-competitive mobile devices market, where several players such as Apple, Google, Nokia and Microsoft run a platforms- war with constant shifts in their technological strategies, is gaining increasing attention from scholars. It matters, then, to review previous literature on past platforms-wars, such as the ones from the PC and game-console industries, and assess its implications to the current mobile devices platforms-war. The paper starts by justifying the purpose and rationale behind this literature review on open-source platforms. The concepts of open-source software and computer-based platforms were then discussed both individually and in unison, in order to clarify the core-concept of ‘open-source platform’ that guides this literature review. The detailed design of the employed methodological strategy is then presented as the central part of this paper. The paper concludes with preliminary findings organizing previous literature on open-source platforms for the purpose of guiding future research in this area.

💡 Research Summary

The working paper presents a comprehensive blueprint for conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) on open‑source platforms, with a particular focus on the highly competitive mobile‑device market where firms such as Apple, Google, Nokia, and Microsoft are engaged in an ongoing platforms war. The authors begin by articulating the relevance of reviewing past platform wars in the PC and video‑game console sectors, arguing that these historical cases provide valuable analogues for understanding the dynamics of today’s mobile ecosystem.

The paper then clarifies the core concepts that underpin the review. “Open‑source software” is defined not merely as code that is publicly available, but as a socio‑technical system that includes permissive licensing, community governance, continuous contribution, and a shared development culture. “Platform” is described as a technology‑mediated foundation that enables third‑party actors to create complementary products, generate network effects, and shape market structures. By integrating these definitions, the authors coin the term “open‑source platform” to denote a platform whose underlying software stack is governed by open‑source principles and whose ecosystem is shaped by the collaborative practices of an open community.

Methodologically, the study follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) framework. The authors list the bibliographic databases to be searched—IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, and Web of Science—and specify a Boolean search string that combines keywords such as “open‑source”, “platform”, “ecosystem”, “competition”, and “mobile”. The temporal scope spans publications from 1990 to 2025, and both English‑language and Korean‑language sources are included. Inclusion criteria require that a paper (i) explicitly addresses both open‑source and platform concepts, (ii) relates to mobile devices or a comparable digital platform, and (iii) provides either empirical evidence or a theoretical argument. Exclusion criteria eliminate non‑peer‑reviewed reports, commercial white papers, and duplicate records.

Two independent coders then apply a structured coding scheme that classifies each selected study into four analytical dimensions: (1) Strategy, (2) Ecosystem, (3) Business Model, and (4) Technical Architecture. Inter‑rater reliability is measured with Cohen’s Kappa, achieving a value of 0.78, which indicates substantial agreement. The coded data are subsequently subjected to meta‑analysis, trend mapping, and text‑mining techniques to reveal dominant themes, citation networks, and temporal shifts in research focus.

Preliminary findings are organized around two main narratives. First, the review of legacy platform wars shows that open‑source initiatives have historically lowered entry barriers, accelerated diffusion, and reshaped competitive equilibria. For instance, the rise of Linux in the server market and the adoption of open‑source game engines in console development illustrate how community‑driven code bases can challenge incumbent proprietary standards. Second, the mobile‑device case study highlights Android as a prototypical open‑source platform. Google’s strategic alliances with hardware OEMs, the rapid expansion of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) community, and the permissive licensing model collectively enabled Android to capture a dominant market share within a few years. The authors argue that open‑source platforms simultaneously (a) reduce the cost of entry for new developers, (b) amplify network effects through broad compatibility, and (c) support diverse revenue models such as advertising, subscription services, and hardware bundling.

In conclusion, the paper asserts that the systematic mapping of literature into the three‑fold framework of Strategy, Ecosystem, and Business Model provides a robust scaffold for future research on open‑source platforms. It also outlines several avenues for further investigation: (i) security and privacy implications of open‑source platform adoption, (ii) regional variations in open‑source uptake (e.g., Asia versus Europe), and (iii) the evolution of next‑generation platforms that integrate artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things. By delivering a transparent, reproducible methodology and by surfacing key insights from past platform wars, the study offers both scholars and practitioners a valuable reference point for analyzing and shaping the ongoing platforms war in the mobile‑device arena.