4 ms·
I disagree your definition of what 'lock in' is. All new technologies and process imply some degree of disruption. 'Lock in' is existential disruption. + You
by alexasmyths 9y ago
I disagree your definition of what 'lock in' is.
All new technologies and process imply some degree of disruption.
'Lock in' is existential disruption.
+ You wrote your entire app in .NET - that's lock in. Changing it means gambling the whole company.
+ You went Oracle/SQL because of regulatory requirements - your app is wrapped around SQL, you have SQL/Oracle exports on board, you're not going to change that.
+ SAP - your whole company is wrapped around it, it's integrated with a dozen other systems.
+ You went Cisco - it really only interfaces with other Cisco gear. Lock in.
Slack is a 'chat app'. It's not that big a deal to switch.
If Slack evaporated tomorrow - one could switch to an alternative instantly. Teams would figure out a new protocol for communicating instantly. It's just chat.
- bpicolo 9y agoThere's a massive amount of potential lock in on the integrations side. How your pagers fire, how code deploys rollout, etc
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> Slack is a 'chat app'. It's not that big a deal to switch. You're over-constraining lock-in to its technical factors. Facebook has lock-in for totally non-technical reasons. These are equally, if not sometimes more, powerful than technical lock-in. Lock-in means high switching costs. If it's more disruptive to switch than you could hope to gain from switching, you won't bother even contemplating switching and are, again by definition, locked in.