View source for Vendor lock-in

{{Short description|Switching costs inhibiting a change of vendor}}
{{Marketing}}
{{Competition law}}
In [[economics]], '''vendor lock-in''', also known as '''proprietary lock-in''' or '''customer lock{{nbh}}in''', makes a customer dependent on a [[vendor]] for [[Product (business)|product]]s, unable to use another vendor without substantial [[switching barriers|switching costs]].

The use of [[open standard]]s 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 entry|barriers to market entry]] may result in [[competition law|antitrust]] action against a [[monopoly]].

== Lock-in types ==
<!-- Excuse my manual implementation of the Yes and No templates, wikipedias parser made a big mess when combining them with rowspan. -->
{|  class="wikitable"
|-
! Monopolistic !! Collective !! Popular term
|-
| rowspan="2" style="background:#F99; vertical-align:middle; text-align:center;" class="table-no" | No || {{No}} || {{n/a}}
|-
| {{Yes}} || Technology lock-in
|-
| rowspan="2" style="background:#9F9; vertical-align:middle; text-align:center;" class="table-yes" | Yes || {{No}} || rowspan="2" | Vendor lock{{nbh}}in
|-
| {{Yes}} 
|}

; 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 [[Discrete space|discreteness]] of individuals, this is a [[distributed parameter system]] in market share, applicable for modeling by [[partial differential equation]]s, 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{{nbh}}monopoly (mere technology), collective (on a society level) kind of lock-in:<ref name="facelock">{{cite web|title=Facebook may "lock in" its internet dominance|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/facebook-may-lock-in-its-internet-dominance-1880398.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518095756/http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/facebook-may-lock-in-its-internet-dominance-1880398.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 18, 2015|website=The Independent|access-date=2015-05-05|date=2010-01-27}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=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.<ref name="facelock" />
* [[Carbon lock-in]] is the theory that society has become reliant on [[List of European power companies by carbon intensity|carbon intensive]] technologies, thereby hindering [[renewable energy commercialization]].
* Converting one [[Lossy compression|lossy file format]] into another incurs a [[generation loss]] that reduces quality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vorbis.com/faq/#transcode|title=Can I convert my MP3 collection to the Ogg Vorbis format?|date=2003-10-03|work=Vorbis.com: FAQ|publisher=[[Xiph.Org]]|access-date=2012-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120922124854/http://vorbis.com/faq/#transcode|archive-date=2012-09-22|url-status=dead}}</ref> 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 has become proficient at using a [[Digital audio workstation|DAW]]'s MIDI [[piano roll]] for composition and editing will have an incentive to keep using applications that provide a piano roll, as opposed to traditional Western [[musical notation]] or a [[music tracker]].
* A car owner has an incentive to make use of their car, because gas and eventual maintenance from wear and tear is cheap compared to the cost of the car itself and the cost of insurance (assuming the insurance plan does not factor in mileage); the car is said to be a [[sunk cost]].
* 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 [[adapter]]s that can be used to connect HDMI equipment to and from—for instance—[[Digital Visual Interface|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{{nbsp}}—{{nbsp}}in many examples, 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:<ref>{{cite web|title=Top 10 reasons I hate Skype|url=http://www.dgeex.de/2015/04/04/top-10-reasons-i-hate-skype/|website=dgeex.de|access-date=2015-04-26|date=2015-04-04|archive-date=2015-04-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429114521/http://www.dgeex.de/2015/04/04/top-10-reasons-i-hate-skype/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=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 [[Vorbis|Ogg Vorbis]]):<ref name="rms-ov-license" />

{{Blockquote|text=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 format]]s that have become widespread on the [[World Wide Web|Web]]: examples include [[GIF]] (patent expired), [[Adobe Flash]] and [[Advanced Video Coding|H.264]].
* Communication services that require membership with the same vendor as the communication partner: Unlike [[Telecommunications company|telephone service providers]] or [[Mailbox provider|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.<ref name="facelock" /> 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.

== Examples ==

=== Microsoft ===
{{main|Criticism of Microsoft#Vendor lock-in}}
The [[European Commission]], in its March 24, 2004 decision on Microsoft's business practices,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/37792/37792_4177_1.pdf|title=Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft)|date=2019-02-06|publisher=European Commission|access-date=2009-06-17|archive-date=2011-02-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110221115451/http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/37792/37792_4177_1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> quotes, in paragraph 463, Microsoft general manager for [[C++]] development Aaron Contorer as stating in a February 21, 1997 internal Microsoft memo drafted for [[Bill Gates]]:
{{blockquote|"The [[Windows API]] is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most [[Independent software vendor|ISVs]] [independent software vendors] would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead. It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high [[Total cost of ownership|TCO]] [total cost of ownership], our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties. [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago. The Windows franchise is fueled by application development which is focused on our core APIs."}}

Microsoft's application software also exhibits lock-in through the use of proprietary [[file format]]s. [[Microsoft Outlook]] uses a proprietary, publicly undocumented datastore format. In 2007 Microsoft introduced a new format [[Office Open XML|MS-OOXML]] for their office suite; However Microsoft do not claim to support this as their default file format, instead stating that the default is an "XML-based" file format.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/compatibility/office-file-format-reference|title=File format reference for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint|website=Microsoft|date=2025-04-25|access-date=2025-07-20}}</ref> Additionally, Microsoft introduced a new undocumented line break algorithm for Microsoft Word 2013 onwards, this was after ODF and OOXML standardization. The secret algorithm/s were reverse engineered 13 years later with financial support from the European Commission, benefiting competing office suites [[LibreOffice]], [[Collabora Online]], and others.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.numbertext.org/typography/|title=LibreOffice/Collabora Online Typography|website=numbertext|author=László Németh|date=2025-06-30|access-date=2025-07-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://nlnet.nl/project/LO-Typography|title=LibreOffice/Collabora Online typography|website=NLnet foundation|access-date=2025-07-20}}</ref>

=== Apple Inc. ===<!-- This section is linked from [[iTunes Store]] -->
{{main|Criticism of Apple Inc.#Vendor lock-in practices}}
Prior to March 2009, digital music files with [[digital rights management]] (DRM) were available for purchase from the [[iTunes Store]], encoded in a proprietary derivative of the [[Advanced Audio Coding|AAC]] format that used Apple's [[FairPlay]] DRM system. These files are compatible only with Apple's [[iTunes]] media player software on [[Mac (computer)|Macs]] and [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]], their [[iPod]] portable digital music players, [[iPhone]] [[smartphone]]s, [[iPad]] [[tablet computer]]s, and the [[Motorola]] [[Motorola ROKR#E1|ROKR E1]] and [[Motorola Slvr|SLVR]] mobile phones. As a result, that music was locked into this ecosystem and available for portable use only through the purchase of one of the above devices,<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v5/n2/5/#note10|title=Is Apple Playing Fair? Navigating the iPod FairPlay DRM Controversy|first1=Nicola F.|last1=Sharpe|first2=Olufunmilayo B.|last2=Arewa|date=Spring 2007|journal=Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property|publisher=[[Northwestern University]]|volume=5|issue=2|access-date=2009-06-17|archive-date=2012-02-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120207190225/http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v5/n2/5/#note10|url-status=dead}}</ref> or by burning to [[Compact disc|CD]] and optionally re-ripping to a DRM-free format such as [[MP3]] or [[WAV]].

In January 2005, an [[iPod]] purchaser named Thomas Slattery filed a suit against Apple for the "unlawful bundling" of their [[iTunes Store|iTunes Music Store]] and iPod device. He stated in his brief:
{{blockquote|text="Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice."}}
At the time, Apple was stated to have an 80% market share of digital music sales and a 90% share of sales of new music players, which he claimed allowed Apple to horizontally leverage its dominant positions in both markets to lock consumers into its complementary offerings.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4151009.stm|title=Itunes user sues Apple over iPod|publisher=[[BBC]]|date=2005-01-06|access-date=2009-06-17|archive-date=2009-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090709154325/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4151009.stm|url-status=live}}</ref> In September 2005, U.S. District Judge [[James Ware (judge)|James Ware]] approved ''Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc.'' to proceed with monopoly charges against Apple in violation of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/andrews/bt/cmp/20050922/20050922slattery.html|title=Antitrust Suit Against Apple Over iPod, iTunes to Proceed|first=Donna|last=Higgins|publisher=FindLaw Legal News|date=2005-09-22|access-date=2009-06-17|archive-date=2009-07-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090723212454/http://news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fandrews%2Fbt%2Fcmp%2F20050922%2F20050922slattery.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

On June 7, 2006, the [[Norwegian Consumer Council]] stated that Apple's [[iTunes Store|iTunes Music Store]] violates Norwegian law. The contract conditions were vague and "clearly unbalanced to disfavor the customer".<ref>{{cite web|title=iTunes violates Norwegian law|work=Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman|url=http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11032467|date=2006-06-07|access-date=2006-06-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060625153735/http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11032467|archive-date=2006-06-25|url-status=dead}}</ref> The retroactive changes to the DRM conditions and the incompatibility with other music players are the major points of concern. In an earlier letter to Apple, consumer ombudsman [[Bjørn Erik Thon]] complained that iTunes' DRM mechanism was a lock-in to Apple's music players, and argued that this was a conflict with consumer rights that he doubted would be defendable by Norwegian copyright law.<ref name="ombudsman">{{cite web|last=Thon|first=Bjørn Erik|title=iTunes' terms of service vs Norwegian marketing law §9a|url=http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/asset/2406/1/2406_1.pdf|date=2006-05-30|access-date=2015-05-02|quote=English transcribed: ''The Consumer Council reacts to the observation that iTunes' DRM entails that the files can only be played on a few players, mainly Apple's own players. They furthermore believe that the terms of service's point 9b, where the customer among other things must agree not to circumvent or change such technical hindrances, is in conflict with the copyright law §53a(3). [...] Copyright holders are by the copyright law entitled to decide if the work is to be made available, and in principle also how it is made available. [...] Copyright can in my opinion not give the copyright holder right to demand all kinds of conditions when sold to consumers in generality.'' Norwegian original: ''Forbrukerrådet reagerer på at iTunes Music Stores DRM medfører at filene kun kan spilles på et fåtall spillere, hovedsakelig Apples egne spillere. De mener videre at tjenestevilkårenes punkt 9b, hvor kunden blant annet må samtykke til ikke å omgå eller endre slike tekniske sperrer, er i strid med åndsverksloven §53a(3). [...] Rettighetshaverens enerett etter åndsverksloven gir anledning til å bestemme om verket skal gjøres tilgjengelig, og rettighetshaveren kan også i utgangspunktet bestemme måten dette skal skje på. [...] Opphavsretten kan etter min mening ikke gi rettighetshaveren rett til å stille enhver form for betingelser ved salg til forbrukere i alminnelighet.''|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304185517/http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/asset/2406/1/2406_1.pdf|archive-date=March 4, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>

{{As of|2007|05|29}}, tracks on the [[EMI]] label became available in a DRM-free format called [[iTunes Store|iTunes Plus]]. These files are unprotected and are encoded in the AAC format at 256{{nbsp}}[[data-rate units#Kilobit per second|kilobits per second]], twice the bitrate of standard tracks bought through the service. iTunes accounts can be set to display either standard or iTunes Plus formats for tracks where both formats exist.<ref name="itunesplus">{{cite web|url=https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/30itunesplus.html|title=Apple Launches iTunes Plus|work=[[Apple Inc.]]|access-date=2007-05-30|date=2007-05-30|archive-date=2011-06-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110608084938/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/30itunesplus.html|url-status=live}}</ref> These files can be used with any player that supports the AAC file format and are not locked to Apple hardware. They can be converted to MP format if desired.{{clarify|date=June 2022}}

As of January 6, 2009, all four big music studios ([[Warner Bros.]], [[Sony BMG]], [[Universal Music Group|Universal]], and [[EMI]]) have signed up to remove the DRM from their tracks, at no extra cost. However, Apple charges consumers to have previously purchased DRM music restrictions removed.<ref name="iTunesChanges2009">{{cite web|url=https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-the-iTunes-Store.html|title=Changes Coming to the iTunes Store|work=[[Apple Inc.]]|access-date=2011-08-30|date=2009-01-06|archive-date=2011-09-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110904043716/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-the-iTunes-Store.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Google ===
Although [[Google]] has stated its position in favor of interoperability,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://developers.google.com/talk/open_communications|title=Open Communications - Google Talk for Developers|date=2013-05-15|publisher=Google Inc.|access-date=2015-05-04|archive-date=2016-10-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161018105628/https://developers.google.com/talk/open_communications|url-status=dead}}</ref> the company has taken steps away from open protocols replacing open standard Google Talk by proprietary protocol Google Hangouts.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/google-abandons-open-standards-instant-messaging|title=Google Abandons Open Standards for Instant Messaging|date=2013-05-22|publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]]|access-date=2015-05-04|archive-date=2014-08-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140801173557/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/google-abandons-open-standards-instant-messaging|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techtimes.com/articles/33037/20150217/you-have-no-choice-google-to-shutdown-gtalk-today-hello-hangouts.htm|title=You Have No Choice: Google To Shutdown GTalk Feb. 23, Hello Hangouts|date=2015-02-17|publisher=TechTimes|access-date=2015-05-04|archive-date=2015-04-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429105015/http://www.techtimes.com/articles/33037/20150217/you-have-no-choice-google-to-shutdown-gtalk-today-hello-hangouts.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Also, Google's [[Google Data Liberation Front|Data Liberation Front]] has been inactive on Twitter since 2013<ref>{{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/dataliberation|date=2013-04-24|title=dataliberation (@dataliberation) on Twitter|access-date=2015-05-04|archive-date=2015-03-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150314043851/https://twitter.com/dataliberation|url-status=live}}</ref> and its official website, www.dataliberation.org, now redirects to a page on Google's FAQs, leading users to believe the project has been closed.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/vtoubiana/status/432866762682408960|title=Vincent Toubiana (@vtoubiana) on Twitter|date=2014-02-10|access-date=2015-05-04|archive-date=2015-12-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151201193823/https://twitter.com/vtoubiana/status/432866762682408960|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/robdolin/status/494326709496188928|title=Rob Dolin(@robdolin) on Twitter|date=2014-07-29|access-date=2015-05-04|archive-date=2015-12-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151201193922/https://twitter.com/robdolin/status/494326709496188928|url-status=live}}</ref> Google's mobile operating system [[Android (operating system)|Android]] is open source; however, the operating system that comes with the phones that most people actually purchase in a store is more often than not shipped with many of Google's proprietary applications that [[antitrust cases against Google by the European Union|promote users to use only Google services]].

=== Cloud computing ===
{{excerpt|Cloud computing issues|Vendor lock-in}}

=== Oracle ===
[[Oracle Corporation]] executives in 2007 told of how [[Boeing]] got into an argument with [[Larry Ellison]] at a contract meeting, after the latter acknowledged that [[Oracle Database]] version{{nbsp}}7 had 11,000 bugs and insulted the [[Boeing 777]]. Boeing refused to sign the contract, and was also an [[IBM]] customer so had an alternative. The company was so dependent on Oracle, however, that it resumed negotiations and signed the contract.<ref name="rdbmsoracle20070612">{{Cite interview|interviewer=Luanne Johnson|title=RDBMS Workshop: Oracle|type=PDF|url=https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102746581|access-date=2025-06-01|publisher=Computer History Museum|date=2007-06-12}}</ref>

=== Other examples ===
* Many printer manufacturers claim that if any ink cartridges, beyond those sold by themselves, are used in the printer, the warranty of the printer becomes void. [[Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.|Lexmark tried to go further]], making ink cartridges containing an authentication system, the purpose of which was intended to make it illegal in the United States (under the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]]) for a competitor to make an ink cartridge compatible with Lexmark printers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-979791.html|title=Lexmark invokes DMCA in toner suit|last=McCullagh|first=Declan|date=2003-01-08|website=CNET|access-date=2013-07-07}}</ref> The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in 2004 that third parties replicating such devices purely to make their cartridges interface with printers does not in fact violate the DMCA.
* Test strips for [[glucose meter]]s are typically made for a specific make or model. Strips designed for [[roche|Accu-chek]] devices, for example, are incompatible with meters from other manufacturers. This lack of standardization can lead to problems especially in [[Developing country|developing countries]], where glucose meters and their associated strips are a scarce commodity. Some companies, despite claiming to have lifetime warranty on their products, stop making specific models and their respective strips so that even those who have a good functioning model have to buy a new model.<ref name="Babaria">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/opinion/a-haitian-boys-needless-death.html?_r=0|title=A Haitian Boy's Needless Death From Diabetes|last1=Babaria|first1=Palav|last2=O'Riordan|first2=Aisling|date=2013-11-14|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2014-07-17|archive-date=2014-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140726130336/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/opinion/a-haitian-boys-needless-death.html?_r=0|url-status=live}}</ref>
* The [[keurig#Keurig K-Cup brewing systems|K-Cup]] single-serving coffee pod system was covered by a patent owned by [[Keurig]], which is a subsidiary of [[Keurig Dr Pepper|Green Mountain Coffee Roasters]], and no other manufacturer could create K-Cup packs compatible with Keurig coffee makers without a license from Keurig. While the company does have patents on improvements to the system, the original K-Cup patents expired in September 2012.<ref name="wsj-kcuppatentdead">{{cite web|title=The K-Cup Patent Is Dead, Long Live The K-Cup|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2012/11/28/the-k-cup-patent-is-dead-long-live-the-k-cup/|work=[[Wall Street Journal]]|access-date=2014-03-08|archive-date=2018-11-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123223425/https://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2012/11/28/the-k-cup-patent-is-dead-long-live-the-k-cup/|url-status=live |last1=Gara |first1=Tom }}</ref> Other [[:Category:Single-serving coffee|single{{nbh}}serving coffee]] brands, such as [[Nespresso]], also have proprietary systems.
* [[Lens mount]]s of competing [[camera]] manufacturers are almost always incompatible. Therefore, a photographer with a set of lens mounts of a certain manufacturer will prefer not to buy a camera from another manufacturer.
* [[Nvidia]], as of 2018, still only supports the proprietary [[Nvidia G-Sync]] despite the availability of the open [[Video Electronics Standards Association]] (VESA) standard Adaptive Sync technology ([[FreeSync]]). In January 2019, Nvidia announced that it will advance compatibility of its video cards with FreeSync-compatible monitors.<ref>{{cite web|last=Kerns|first=Michael|title=The (Unproductive) Battle of FreeSync and G-Sync|url=http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2373-op-ed-unproductive-battle-of-freesync-and-gsync|website=Gamer's Nexus|access-date=2016-10-11|archive-date=2016-11-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161101205856/http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2373-op-ed-unproductive-battle-of-freesync-and-gsync|url-status=dead}}</ref>
* Some cordless tool manufacturers make batteries that fit only their own brand of tools, and often are not backwards compatible. Often, multiple brands are owned by the same company, and share tool designs and features, accessories and batteries are deliberately changed to make them incompatible. An example would be [[Stanley Black & Decker]] which also owns or manufactures [[Black+Decker]], [[DeWalt]], [[Porter-Cable]], Mastercraft, and [[Craftsman (tools)|Craftsman]]. All use almost identical batteries, yet all have some feature designed to stop use in other tools.{{Citation needed|date=May 2022}}
* [[Dell]] laptops will 'throttle', or limit the processing speed available to the end-user, if genuine Dell OEM power supplies are not used with their devices (Users are presented with the warning: "The AC adapter type cannot be determined. This will prevent optimal system performance.").<ref>{{Cite web|title=How to Troubleshoot AC Adapter Issues {{!}} Dell US|url=https://www.dell.com/support/article/en-us/sln128918/how-to-troubleshoot-ac-adapter-issues?lang=en|access-date=2020-07-20|website=www.dell.com|archive-date=2020-07-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200720230951/https://www.dell.com/support/article/en-us/sln128918/how-to-troubleshoot-ac-adapter-issues?lang=en|url-status=live}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Closed platform]]
* [[Data portability]]
* [[Embrace, extend, and extinguish]]
* [[Enshittification]]
* [[Format war]]
* [[Free software]]
* [[Network effect]]{{snd}}the benefit from having a large number of people using an agreed-upon format or vendor
* [[Path dependence]]
* [[Planned obsolescence]]
* [[Proprietary software]]
* [[Protocol ossification]]
* [[Razor and blades model]]
* [[Regional lockout]]
* [[Right to repair]]
* [[Subscription business model]]
* [[Tivoization]]
* [[Universal charger]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist|30em

<ref name="rms-ov-license">{{cite web|last=Stallman|first=Richard|author-link=Richard Stallman|title=RMS on the Ogg Vorbis license|url=https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3|access-date=2016-06-05|date=2001-02-26|quote=In general I would rather see software copylefted, which is one way of defending users' freedom against one particular danger. In the case of Ogg/Vorbis, there is a bigger danger from another direction: 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. To overcome the inertia that supports MP3 format will require strenuous effort. Even if we do our utmost to encourage everyone to replace MP3 format with Ogg/Vorbis format, it is not certain they will do so. Consider how long we have been trying to replace GIF with PNG. 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.|archive-date=2019-12-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191209231346/https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3|url-status=live}}</ref>
}}

== References ==
* {{cite journal|last=Arthur|first=W. B.|date=1989|title=Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events|journal=Economic Journal|volume=97|pages=642–665|jstor=2234208}}
* {{cite journal|last=David|first=P. A.|date=1985|title=Clio and the economics of QWERTY.|journal=American Economic Review|volume=75 |pages=332–337 |jstor=1805621}}
* {{cite journal|url=http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/paths.html|last1=Liebowitz|first1=S. J.|last2=Margolis|first2=Stephen E.|date=1995|title=Path dependence, lock-in and history|journal=Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization|volume=11|pages=205–226}}
* {{cite journal|url=http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/palgrave/palpd.html|last1=Liebowitz|first1=S. J.|last2=Margolis|first2=Stephen E.|title=Path Dependence" entry|journal=The New Palgraves Dictionary of Economics and the Law|publisher=MacMillan|date=1998}}
* {{cite journal|url=http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html|title=The Fable of the Keys|last1=Liebowitz|first1=S. J.|last2=Margolis|first2=Stephen E.|date=1990|journal=Journal of Law and Economics|volume=33|pages=1–26|doi=10.1086/467198|s2cid=14262869|url-access=subscription}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.linfo.org/vendor_lockin.html Vendor Lock-in Definition] by The Linux Information Project
* [https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/files/?whdmsaction=public:main.file&fileID=6738 "The Intertemporal Dynamics of Consumer Lock-In"] (PDF) by Gal ZAUBERMAN
* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Strategy_for_Information_Markets/Dynamic_Competition Dynamic competition] by Wikibooks
* [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Strategy_for_Information_Markets/Background/Nash_equilibrium Nash equilibrium] by Wikibooks

{{Embedded systems}}

[[Category:Business-to-business]]
[[Category:Hardware restrictions]]
[[Category:Marketing techniques]]
[[Category:Strategic management]]