IoT and Vendor Lock-in
I was researching an idea last weekend and stumbled across something unexpected. My view on IoT has been that it provides a framework for a rich ecosystem of hardware and software products and their use. That flexibility and extensibility foster innovation, which in turn leads to greater use and adoption of the best products. It was quite a surprise to discover that IoT was being used to do just the opposite.
My initial find was a YouTube video about “Tractor Hacking” that lets farmers make their own repairs. That seemed like an odd video to appear in my search results, but it made sense about halfway through. The video discusses not having access to software, replacement components not working because they aren’t registered to that tractor’s serial number, and the only alternative being costly transportation of the equipment to a Dealership to have a costly component installed.
I initially thought there had to be more to the story, as I found it hard to believe that a major vendor in any industry would intentionally do something like this. That led me to an article from nearly two years earlier that contained the following:
“IoT to completely transform their business model” and
“John Deere was looking for ways to change their business model and extend their products and service offering, allowing for a more constant flow of revenue from a single customer. The IoT allows them to do just that.”
That article closed with the assertion:
“Moreover, only allowing John Deere products access to the ecosystem creates a buyer lock-in for the farmers. Once they own John Deere equipment and make use of their services, it will be very expensive to switch to another supplier, thus strengthening John Deere’s strategic position.”
While any technology – especially platforms – has the potential for vendor lock-in, the majority of vendors offer some form of openness, such as:
- Supporting open standards, APIs, and processes that support some degree of portability and third-party product access.
- Providing simple ways to unload your data in at least one of several commonly used non-proprietary formats.
Some buyers may deliberately implement systems that support non-standard technology and extensions because they believe the long-term benefits of a tightly coupled system outweigh the risks of being locked into a vendor’s proprietary stack. But there are almost always several competitive options available; always consider all viable alternatives.
Less technology-savvy buyers may never even consider asking questions like this when purchasing. Even technologically savvy people may fail to consider IoT as a key component of everyday tools and services – thus failing to recognize the implications of a closed system relative to their purchase.
It will be interesting to see whether deliberate business strategies like these change because of competitive pressure, social pressure, or legislation over the coming years. In the meantime, the principle of caveat emptor may be truer than ever in this age of connected everything and the Internet of Things.
Where Ideas, Experiences, and Lessons Learned Intersect 