In those that do not of course it’s desirable to push towards the ideal, but in the meantime I think it’s legitimate, desirable and commercially sensible for vendors to offer consumers a proprietary solution which ‘just works’. Desirable because, for example, the utility of the DVR is so great that I would rather be locked into TiVo now than wait until some standards body has drafted and promoted standards for DVRs. That is my consumer choice, in the short term at least.

There are also varying degrees of lock-in, and the degree chosen will determine how successful the vendor’s strategy is. For example, while only iPods will play iTMS-purchased tracks, they also play mp3s, and would never have taken off had they not done so. Apple has struck the balance here between openness (you can after all move your mp3s to another music player easily enough) and lock-in (you can’t move your purchased music) which clearly appeals to consumers on balance (based on iPod sales).

More on this process in home media here (see the linked Mosserg article in particular):

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=189700050

I guess the real issue is the long term one, and whether the short-term utility of a proprietary offering creates a market or product category so popular that the proprietary standard is ultimately licensed or replaced by an open standard (e.g. VCRs, PCs, CDs, screw threads, railway gauges), or whether the lock-in results in a monopoly (e.g. Windows). Clearly the former is vastly better than the latter.

Seamlessness *and* loosely-coupled seems like nirvana. I hope it is easier to achieve.

Would you rather have a partner who stays with you against his/her will or one who chooses to? Which one will support you in times of need?

Would you rather have a customer who chooses you freely, or one who is forced to trade with you? Which one will stay with you through ups and downs?

If I am to be gnomic, then I guess I would say there is always lock-in. Voluntary lock-in is a covenant relationship and has immense power. For all concerned. Enforced lock-in is a contract (I can’t even call it a relationship) and isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

WRT Stu’s points, I agree with most, but disagree with some. As you would expect. I particularly disagree with the statement that seamlessness requires the cooperation of multiple vendors. This is only true when vendors set the standards. They will choose to differentiate subtly on the standards, in order to make it hard for customers to mix and match offerings.

Market- and community driven standards don’t face that issue. We are moving towards a world where such seamlessness is more possible than it has ever been before.

There’s a prisoner’s dilemma approach somewhere in there, where modern or even partially enlightened vendors recognise that cooperate wins and defect loses. That’s the subject of a post I’m in the middle of, which I will complete when everyone’s gone to bed tonight.

Also, the consumer appeal of the seamlessness of locked-in products and services should not be underestimated. When a company locks-in customers to an offering (e.g. Apple’s iTunes Music Store + iTunes + iPod) it can at least ensure everything works perfectly together, whereas open environments tend to be a lot more fiddly, since seamlessness requires the co-operation of multiple vendors (which is usually difficult to achieve).

Personally I prefer to avoid locked-in offerings, but sometimes will tolerate it if it makes something complicated ‘just work’…