Lably
Skip to content

Vendor lock-in

Switching costs inhibiting a change of vendor

  • 15 min read
  • 2 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Economics, Product (business) and Monopoly

The use of open standards and alternative options makes systems tolerant of change, so that decisions can be postponed until more information is available or unforeseen events are addressed. Vendor lock-in does the opposite: it makes it difficult to move from one solution to another.

Lock-in costs that create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly.

Lock-in types

Monopolistic
Whether a single vendor controls the market for the method or technology being locked in to. Distinguishes between being locked to the mere technology, or specifically the vendor of it.

This class of lock-in is potentially technologically hard to overcome if the monopoly is held up by barriers to market that are nontrivial to circumvent, such as patents, secrecy, cryptography or other technical hindrances.

Collective
Whether individuals are locked in collectively, in part through each other. Economically, there is a cost to resist the locally dominant choice, as if by friction between individuals. In a mathematical model of differential equations, disregarding discreteness of individuals, this is a distributed parameter system in market share, applicable for modeling by partial differential equations, for example, the heat equation.

This class of lock-in is potentially inescapable to rational individuals not otherwise motivated, by creating a prisoner's dilemma—if the cost to resist is greater than the cost of joining, then the locally optimal choice is to join—a barrier that takes cooperation to overcome. The distributive property (cost to resist the locally dominant choice) alone is not a network effect, for lack of any positive feedback; however, the addition of bistability per individual, such as by a switching cost, qualifies as a network effect, by distributing this instability to the collective as a whole.

Technology lock-in

As defined by The Independent, this is a non‑monopoly (mere technology), collective (on a society level) kind of lock-in:

Technological lock-in is the idea that the more a society adopts a certain technology, the more unlikely users are to switch.

Examples:

  • The continued prevalence of the QWERTY keyboard layout is said to be caused by technological lock-in.
  • Carbon lock-in is the theory that society has become reliant on carbon intensive technologies, thereby hindering renewable energy commercialization.
  • Converting one lossy file format into another incurs a generation loss that reduces quality. This is in effect a switching cost. Therefore, if valuable content is encoded in the format, this creates a need for continued compatibility with it.

Personal technology lock-in

Technology lock-in, as defined, is strictly of the collective kind. However, the personal variant is also a possible permutation of the variations shown in the table, but with no monopoly and no collectivity, it would be expected to be the weakest lock-in. Equivalent personal examples:

  • A person who has become proficient on QWERTY keyboards will have an incentive to continue using QWERTY keyboards.
  • A person who grew up with full-travel keyboards will find them more efficient and comfortable to type on, as they are more likely to apply too much pressure and bottom out shallower keyboards. Likewise, a person used to shallower keyboards, particularly on laptops, may find a full-travel keyboard to be unnatural or tedious.
  • A person who grew up playing actual pianos or digital pianos with weighted keys will prefer that feeling over "synth-action" or "organ-action" keys, and vice versa.
  • A person used to the warmer color temperature of incandescent or other light bulbs may find cooler color profiles to be cold, unnatural, or even painful to look at in a home.
  • A person who has a long history of using a Mac-exclusive video or audio editing program will keep using it since they have many project files in the exclusive format, and will also keep using Macs since the alternative means either losing access to most of your work, or losing time trying to recreate everything on a universal piece of software.
  • A person who has become proficient at using a DAW's MIDI piano roll for composition and editing will have an incentive to keep using applications that provide a piano roll. Alternatives may include a score editor or music engraving program, which emphasizes traditional Western musical notation, or the alphanumeric system of a music tracker, which still has a niche today. Yet another system is the step sequencer, more commonly used for drum patterns.
    • All four systems mentioned have their own approach to handling note duration and silence, and each sequencing program may offer one or more, and have a radically different approach to each than the other. For example, some score editors will effectively move all notes in a song if you delete a note without adding a rest, while others add the rest automatically, and the concept of rests doesn't exist on a piano roll (where a simple absence of a note will do), on a step sequencer (which is usually used for imitating struck percussion, so one only needs to worry about when the note is struck), or on a tracker (where stopping a part is handled with a single "note off" command and then leaving the track empty until the next note).
  • A given DAW might also be more catered to certain use cases, workflows, and concepts. For example, some DAWs give one more freedom to experiment with synth oscillators and effects, allow many shortcuts when using the piano rolls, and better cater to extreme workflows, like extremely fast tempos or working with thousands of audio clips. Others may be better suited to a more conventional sound, such as by including more "set it and forget it" presets, de-emphasizing sound design, or focusing more on recording natural singers and accessing a library of included orchestral instrument patches. Someone used to the rock- and classical-oriented Pro Tools may find FL Studio "cheap" or Ableton "confusing," while someone used to making electronic dance and experimental music on the latter two may be encumbered by Logic Pro.
  • A given operating system or application may influence one's vocabulary. What one person calls an alias, another will call a shortcut, depending on if they're used to the choice jargon of industry leaders macOS and Microsoft Windows.
  • A car owner has an incentive to make use of their car. Even if a newer car is more reliable, more efficient, or cheaper to insure, that alone may not be a good incentive to stop using a perfectly functional vehicle. It's reasonable to assume that for one's current car, gas and eventual maintenance from wear and tear is cheap compared to the cost of a new car itself; the car is said to be a sunk cost. Insurance rates also may or may not factor in the cost of miles driven; if they don't, the cost of insurance plus the car itself may be more than the cost of gas required for many long road trips.
  • A person who has ripped their CD collection to MP3 will have an incentive to prefer audio equipment that supports this format; and vice versa, for personal investment reasons, has an incentive to continue ripping to this format.
  • A person who has most of their multimedia equipment interconnected with HDMI will tend to seek HDMI compatibility to all their other multimedia-capable equipment (although this is a far less severe case of lock-in than those above, due to the wide availability of adapters that can be used to connect HDMI equipment to and from—for instance—DVI or DisplayPort equipment).

Collective vendor lock-in

There exist lock-in situations that are both monopolistic and collective. Having the worst of two worlds, these can be very hard to escape E.g, the cost to resist incurs some level of isolation from the (dominating technology in) society, which can be socially costly, yet direct competition with the dominant vendor is hindered by compatibility.

As one blogger expressed:

If I stopped using Skype, I'd lose contact with many people, because it's impossible to make them all change to [other] software.

While MP3 is patent-free as of 2017, in 2001 it was both patented and entrenched, as noted by Richard Stallman in that year (in justifying a lax license for Ogg Vorbis):

there is [...] the danger that people will settle on MP3 format even though it is patented, and we won't be *allowed* to write free encoders for the most popular format. [...] Ordinarily, if someone decides not to use a copylefted program because the license doesn't please him, that's his loss not ours. But if he rejects the Ogg/Vorbis code because of the license, and uses MP3 instead, then the problem rebounds on us—because his continued use of MP3 may help MP3 to become and stay entrenched.

More examples:

  • Proprietary file formats that have become widespread on the Web: examples include GIF (patent expired), Adobe Flash and H.264.
  • Communication services that require membership with the same vendor as the communication partner: Unlike telephone service providers or email service providers, which enable communication with competing providers' users, services like Skype and Facebook are effectively single-vendor communication protocols. Facebook is said to have achieved technological lock-in, in terms of its self-reinforcing presence on a society level. However, if the lock-in is to Facebook specifically, not social media in general, then it is fair to promote this title to collective vendor lock-in.

Sign in to keep reading

One more chapter is free with a Lably account.

More in Computing and communication