1.2.
To start with, there can be firmly stated that important part of an article is research about ecosystems. As building ecosystems is one of different methods to diversify business, different authors reviewed how and why such organizations are built.  There can be applied different definitions of what exactly ecosystem is. According to some authors, ecosystems usually have some common features. Mirva Peltoniemi reviewing different authors summarized that these features usually include building large number of organizations into one network, interconnection and interdependency of these organizations and dynamic evolution of them as parts of one ecosystem (Peltoniemi, 2006). However, there must be set apart two research ideas – to study whole economics in some country or industry as ecosystem or an ecosystem built around one company. As an example of first idea, in earlier studies, the concept of a business ecosystem was considered by some authors as an economic parallel to biological systems. For example, Bruce Hannon (1997) stated that biological ecosystem and economics as ecosystem are both complex dynamic systems that consist of similar processes, such as production, storage, exchange and others. Another early article as an example of second idea about ecosystems in business is wrote by James F. Moore, who similarly to Hannon built parallel of business ecosystem to biological environment (Moore, 1993). He stated that biological ecosystem includes interacting organisms and environment, while business ecosystem includes individuals, organizations, customers, competitors and many other interdependent participants (Moore, 1996). To state benefits of such network for business, Moore stated that in ecosystems customers can be loyal for a particular ecosystem for long-term, getting benefits from existing services and expecting more in future.  To clarify, in this research ecosystems are viewed as a diversification of company’s businesses, aimed to cover different needs of customers. Similarly, chairman of the management board of Sberban, Herman Gref stated that Sberbank now builts an ecosystem, that will allow customers to satisfy their need via usage of many Sberbank services (Lenta.ru, 2020).  There are some scientific papers, that examine ecosystems on the example of particular companies. To specify, there are reviewed articles about ecosystems in banking, telecom and online service providers. For instance, Jingn and Xiong-Jian conducted a case study about China Mobile telecom company (Jingn and Xiong-Jian, 2011). They reviewed its ecosystem strategy, basing on ecosystem strategy classification by Marco Iansiti and Roy Levien. These authors determined five common strategic roles in a business ecosystem, basing on levels of uncertainty and complexity (Iansiti and Levien, 2004). To continue, there are some scientists, who examine how ecosystems are built around mobile payment platforms and how such platforms are integrated into ecosystems. For instance, Liu et al (2015) examined how financial payments evolved into technology ecosystems and how consumer payments channel changed with this process. Some authors analyzed how ecosystems are built by mobile operators. For example, in 2006 Joe Peppard and Anna Rylander analyzed such ecosystems via Network Value Analysis and came to conclusion that for this moment mobile operators were not ready to build ecosystems (Peppard & Rylander, 2006). They claimed that mobile operators can not offer all kinds of content and service that customers usually demand. However, in some ecosystem creation processes there can occur problems. In 2015 there was published an article, when group of scientists reviewed occurring problems of joint projects of banks and telecom operators (Reuver et al. 2015). They interviewed representatives from three banks, three telecom operators, and some other specific participants to find out possible strategic objectives and conflicts. According to their results, there can be issues, such as question about whose services will be provided on joint platform. Jocevski et al. (2020) also examined changes of business model of company via lenses of Canvas BM. They classified needed activities for changes into 3 groups that include work on relationship with retailers, creating strategic partnerships and integration with mobile systems.  These ideas lead to a point that now ecosystems become digital. And since in many countries mobile phones are widely used, for most companies it is beneficial to attract them via mobile apps. For instance, accordingly to the study of Eleonora Pantano (2014), traditional offline commerce companies move to digital ecosystems. She claims that retail-oriented firms start using mobile technologies to improve sales. Then, there is another term, that is close to digital ecosystem in this view – service system. As determined by Spohrer et al (2007), service system is “a value coproduction configuration of people, technology, other internal and external service systems and shared information” These authors primarily review aspects of business ecosystem building paying low attention to M&A as one of the methods to support this process. Oppositely, Wassenhoven et al analyzed how M&A contributed to the emerging ecosystem (2020). To continue, Gautier and Lamesch analyzed how five giants GAFAM (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft) acquired 175 firms developing ecosystem of services. (Gautier & Lamesch, 2020). They analyzed deals classifying them via 6 different user groups and find out that most of acquired products are shut down after M&A. As authors claimed, this happens because GAFAM acquire firms’ assets and integrate it into own ecosystem. Other group of researchers analyzed M&A activity of Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft in a period 2005-2011 and claimed ecosystem synergy as one of M&A motives for this firms (Hong et al., 2012). They also claim that there is no certain causal relationship between number of M&A deals and revenue growth. Another author, Scott Sins compared M&A of two ecosystem giants – Amazon and Walmart (Sins, 2018). He described chronology of companies deals and provided simple analysis of stock price relationship with M&A events.  One of the most important paper in the field of this article is wrote by Yang et al (2018). This group of scientists studied how M&A activities of Google and Apple influenced their shareholder value. Specifically, they descriptively analyzed 163 deals in the period from 2008 to 2015. They classified deals for 2 groups: main business acquisitions and others. First group was also divided into 2: platform and non-platform. Accordingly, platform deals in this classification mean M&A activities aimed to build service ecosystem. Non-platform deals include activities of acquiring companies that are in the same functional group as core business of viewed acquirers but are not bought to be integrated in ecosystem. Then, they analyzed how deals influenced on shareholders value of both companies via CAR methodology. Among a lot of other researchers, Yang et al not only analyzed M&A effect on acquirer, but also checked how this activity influence on rival. According to their results, there was revealed that deals of “Main Business” category make a positive impact on acquirer shareholder value and negative on rival. However, deals of “Others” category positively influence rival company, making insignificant influence on acquirer. It should be also mentioned that according to this study, M&A deals of “Platform” subcategory make insignificant effect for the acquirer, but negatively influence on rival shareholder value. To continue, “Non-platform” subcategory deals positively influence acquirer shareholder value and provide insignificant effect on rival.  
The article discusses how and why businesses are diversified through creating and integration with various environments. The main idea is that such environments are not only the main sources of material and information, but also the main sources of opportunities for businesses. The main problem is that the environments are very complex and dynamic, and the enhancement of one enhancement of other enhancements can be difficult.