The term vendor-lockin is often used in a negative way. When in fact, it is hiding the underlying problem that people want to address: Trust.

We all depend on work of others. "If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants". This, we take for granted.
... but who are those "others"? In software, they're vendors, companies, individuals, contributors, all sorts of people who have built software for us. We depend on them and their products to some extent.

When a vendor innovates, users get "locked in" to that vendor's product(s)
This can be a "glass-is-5%-empty-way" of saying that vendor's product is so advanced, or specific, or different from other vendors' products that it will not be easy to replace the product by an alternative.

Which can be a good thing, because the product is such a great fit.
Other vendors will want to imitate the successful product to steal customers. But often they're behind the innovator. The imitation isn't as good. So the innovator "locks in their users" through excellency (or market power, or some other means).
Of course, successful vendors can increase prices because they're in a position to do so.

If this is taken personally, then the "lock in" narrative starts popping up. But it shouldn't be taken personally, it's a market effect. It's how business works.
If we believe in markets, there should be a force for other players to catch up with the innovator and commoditise the innovation, to "free" people from "lock in". E.g. OSS does that.

If we don't believe in markets, regulation might kick in, and an innovation is standardised.
Standardisation forces an innovator to give up on parts of their innovation (mostly the parts that can be taken for granted), shifting focus elsewhere, where there is still much more room for innovation

E.g. after 50 years, the innovation in SQL is in optimisation, not in syntax
There isn't anything inherently good or bad about all this. It's just a natural course of business and innovation

So when you say "lock in," maybe a more honest way to phrase concerns would be "I don't trust this particular vendor in the context of this particular product."
Sure, we've all been burned by bad experience, and "never want to experience this again."

But there's no guarantee

1. That a particular experience is repeated with a different vendor.
2. That a standard is inherently better. It can be just as much of a dead end.
So, the real question is, again, "do I trust this vendor with this product, and will it provide enough value for my business?"

Why yes? Why not? "Lock in" is one factor, but there are hundreds of others, which are, again, to be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_cost_of_ownership

FIN
You can follow @lukaseder.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: