Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Moscow, Russian Federation
Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
Moscow, Moscow, Russian Federation
JEL L10 General
JEL O32 Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
JEL O33 Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes
JEL M16 International Business Administration
This paper examines the contemporary models of international competitiveness adopted by Big Tech corporations between 2010 and 2025. The study aims to identify the internal drivers underpinning the resilience of technological giants and to assess their capacity to withstand external shocks, including sanctions, geo-economic fragmentation, and regulatory shifts. To achieve this objective, the authors employ a comprehensive methodological framework that integrates financial performance analysis (revenue, return on assets), market metrics (market share, international footprint), innovation activity (R&D intensity, patenting), and qualitative attributes such as network effects, lock-in effects, and corporate dynamic capabilities. The empirical basis of the research draws on data from Statista, IDC, and Omdia concerning global smartphone shipments by key vendors from 2009 to 2026. The findings indicate that the primary internal drivers of competitiveness are data network effects, ecosystem-based user lock-in, control over strategic infrastructure (data centers, chips, submarine cables), and sustained R&D investments that often exceed the national budgets of entire countries. External shocks, such as the sanctions imposed on Huawei, have laid bare the vulnerability of even the largest players: the company's shipments plummeting from 240.5 million units in 2019 to 35 million in 2021 underscores a critical dependence on global supply chains and access to digital ecosystems (Android, Google Services). At the same time, Samsung has managed to maintain a stable position (62.8 million units in Q1 2026) owing to its vertical integration and diversification. The conclusions drawn are relevant for the development of corporate strategies and state industrial policy in the context of digital transformation.
international competitiveness; Big Tech; network effects; lock-in effect; dynamic capabilities; digital ecosystems; geo-economic fragmentation, technology giants
1. Aka, H. (2025). Tip of the iceberg: Understanding the full depth of Big Tech's contribution to U.S. innovation and competitiveness. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
2. Bruijl, G. (2026). The five forces plus model: Competitiveness in the digital, algorithmic, and geopolitical era. Management Decision. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2025-3658
3. Climent, R. C., Haftor, D. M., & Staniewski, M. W. (2024). AI-enabled business models for competitive advantage. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), Article 100532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100532
4. Crémer, J., Crawford, G. S., Dinielli, D., Fletcher, A., Heidhues, P., Schnitzer, M., & Scott Morton, F. M. (2023). Fairness and contestability in the Digital Markets Act. Yale Journal on Regulation, 40(3), 973–1040.
5. Danilin, I. (2022). Fighting Internet monopolies in China and the U.S.A. World Economy and International Relations, 66(10), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-10-73-80
6. Dunning, J. H. (2000). The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9(2), 163–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(99)00035-9
7. Genge, E. (2017). An analysis of competitiveness of the EU countries using the dependent mixture model. Argumenta Oeconomica, 2(39), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.15611/aoe.2017.2.06
8. Hoang, D. V., Hien, N. T., Thang, H. V., Phuong, P. N. T., & Duong, T. T. T. (2025). Digital capabilities and sustainable competitive advantages: The case of emerging market manufacturing SMEs. SAGE Open, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251329967
9. Karahan, O., Ranaivoson, H., & Canedo, D. (2025). Adapting Porter's five forces model to digital streaming platforms: A framework for the audiovisual ecosystem. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, (68), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2025-1682232
10. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424–440.
11. Krugman, P. (1994). Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 28–44.
12. Li, J., Surana, A., Chavan, M., Kano, L., Schotter, A., & Chirico, F. (2025). The internationalization of digital platform-based firms: A systematic literature review and directions for future research. Journal of World Business, 60, Article 101629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2025.101629
13. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
14. Rastvortseva, S., & Kameneva, E. (2024). Development of national specialization in 5G technologies within the European Union. Journal of Economic Structures, 13(1), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-024-00334-1
15. Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212
16. Teece, D. J. (2017). Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles. In J. A. C. Baum & J. Birkinshaw (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management (Vol. 37, pp. 211–225). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220170000037008
17. Van Alstyne, M. W., Parker, G. G., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 94(4), 54–62.
18. Vokhmyanin, I. A. (2015). Konkurentsiya: Teoreticheskiye podkhody k opredeleniyu sushchnosti [Competition: Theoretical approaches to defining the essence]. Ekonomika i Sotsium, 2-1(15), 1080–1086.
