Morten Hansen and Henry Chesbrough describe networked incubators as companies offering space, coaching, funding, and various basic services for start-ups, and being a new organizational model to create value and wealth.

“The promise of networked incubators lies in their potential to surpass existing organizational structures in creating and growing new businesses. They combine the benefits of large corporations with those of VC-backed start-ups […]. Networked incubators are designed to launch a greater number of ventures more quickly than an established company can, and their ability to connect those start-ups surpasses that of an independent VC.”

In that sense, networked incubators do not play a role much different from intermediary platforms networking Open Entrepreneurs unless they are unvirtually real. The main difference lies in the local aggregation of start-ups produced by networked incubators, having contributed in the density of high-tech companies for example in Silicon Valley as well as for the corporate birth surplus of the New Economy. The interesting part of it lies in the competition between the different networks, virtual regarding intermediary platforms as well as in real terms of networked incubators.

While real start-ups are bound to networked incubators by funding or long-lasting rent-contracts, virtual collaborations do not stick necessarily to a specific network and might change sides to another one if conditions alter. Therefore the competition between virtual networks must usually be higher although networking externalities could maybe suggest staying on the largest platform where the most customers or contacts can be expected. However, for an Open Entrepreneur in virtual networks nothing speaks against partnering with different networks at the same time. Therefore pressure on virtual intermediary platforms could be very high if competitors are around that could benefit from this latent polygamy.

Morten Hansen and Henry Chesbrough describe networked incubators as companies offering space, coaching, funding, and various basic services for start-ups, and being a new organizational model to create value and wealth.

“The promise of networked incubators lies in their potential to surpass existing organizational structures in creating and growing new businesses. They combine the benefits of large corporations with those of VC-backed start-ups […]. Networked incubators are designed to launch a greater number of ventures more quickly than an established company can, and their ability to connect those start-ups surpasses that of an independent VC.”

In that sense, networked incubators do not play a role much different from intermediary platforms networking Open Entrepreneurs unless they are unvirtually real. The main difference lies in the local aggregation of start-ups produced by networked incubators, having contributed in the density of high-tech companies for example in Silicon Valley as well as for the corporate birth surplus of the New Economy. The interesting part of it lies in the competition between the different networks, virtual regarding intermediary platforms as well as in real terms of networked incubators.

While real start-ups are bound to networked incubators by funding or long-lasting rent-contracts, virtual collaborations do not stick necessarily to a specific network and might change sides to another one if conditions alter. Therefore the competition between virtual networks must usually be higher although networking externalities could maybe suggest staying on the largest platform where the most customers or contacts can be expected. However, for an Open Entrepreneur in virtual networks nothing speaks against partnering with different networks at the same time. Therefore pressure on virtual intermediary platforms could be very high if competitors are around that could benefit from this latent polygamy.