5 ms·

Is Vendor Lock-In Really a Bad Thing?

5 points by lmacvittie 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago
I hope that's a rethorical question ? The author tries to link the fact that people would like to see data portability in cloud computing to the success of consumer stuff like the iphone and the like. They are completely different beasts and you can't compare them like that. As for the closing question: "Has the possibility of “vendor lock-in” ever stopped you from making a purchasing decision or is it just a “potential risk” that’s weighed in the overall decision making process?" Yes, every time. And unless the product has very limited utility for me (say facebook or something like that) I refuse to put myself in to a position of 'lock-in' because experience has taught me that it is only a matter of time before the thumb screws come out. So even 'free'+'lock-in' won't cut it for me.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Playing devil's advocate, I think there's a difference between what you would do and what the average consumer would do. There's also a difference between something that might be better in the short-term (say over 2-3 years) and something that is good for the long haul. But I feel the same way as you do, mostly. I'm just more willing to make that trade off for say, a Kindle, knowing that in the near future I'm jumping to an open platform as quickly as possible.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I'd never buy an iphone for that reason, and as for the kindle, I'd buy one but only to use it as a reader for open format text files. The DX isn't available here though, so I guess even that will have to wait. The reason your 'typical' consumer and the HN audience approach this in a different way is probably because a consumer usually isn't aware of the exact moment they are locked in, they only find out to their regret much later. But by then it is too late, and the price to switch is too high.
  - carbon8 17y ago
    "knowing that in the near future I'm jumping to an open platform as quickly as possible" Assuming that's even possible or realistic, which it often isn't in markets dominated by a single vendor. Supporting vendor lock-in, particularly as a developer, makes it harder for open alternatives to exist. It's common for a single vendor to dominate a market for years. The future of jumping to an open platform could simply never come to pass.
asciilifeform 17y ago
Next: Is Sticking Your Hand in a Bear Trap Really a Bad Thing?
- maukdaddy 17y ago
  Vendors like this is what makes me want to get out of IT.
vegai 17y ago
yes
wglb 17y ago
Consider the mainframe, and, say, CICS. Things in that end of things are now such that IBM and others are making special efforts to recruit youngsters to work in that world. It seems reasonable to suggest that the reason that there is still all that many COBOL and mainframe shops in the world is due to vendor lock-in. The cost of that? Well, one can sketch out part of the opportunity cost of that. Consider ITA which fuels Orbitz and others. Their technology, running our idea of modern servers, gets at least an order of magnitude better results than the mainframe technology it replaced. This old iron doesn't even have files or filesystems.
- bitwize 17y ago
  But the old iron is almost completely reliable. Forget "five nines" of uptime; we're talking a one and two naughts. CPU modules, disks, and I/O peripherals can be hot-swapped with no interruption to service. Furthermore, the I/O bandwidth on those suckers is through the roof. Likely that's partially because a mainframe computer system consists of a CPU which does the heavy lifting and a whole bunch of satellite computers -- actual computers -- whose whole purpose in life is to drive I/O devices and relay information between them and the mainframe CPU. When your application has to be up and has to service an entire department or organization for decades on end, the IBM mainframe platform is pretty much the only choice.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Tandem (now HP) made good money because IBM stuff wasn't always up. I've worked for a bank and have seen two serious mainframe crashes. They're rare, but they do happen, and when they happen you can bet that the vendor will get involved because it really isn't supposed to happen. Unlike the PC world, where if a machine crashes it gets rebooted and nobody bats an eye. I blame the 'we're not to blame' culture around PC software manufacturers. You're spot on about the IO, that is the place where big iron really shines. The place where I worked had both Sperry and IBM stuff (we got 'bought' and had to move all the software from the Sperry machines to the CICS environment on a 4381).
- gaius 17y ago
  Nothing quite does what CICS or IMS or TPF does. Certainly nothing open source. The programming model is radically different to anything in the Linux application world (think, writing database applications in a shader language, is the closest analogy). Sure your typical mainframe shop would prefer it if there was a competitive market, but for really serious OLTP, nothing touches a mainframe still. Also, arguably, the "it's all a database" approach is superior to files and filesystems. It's what Be had and what Microsoft has been struggling with for 20 years.

5 points by lmacvittie 17y ago

I hope that's a rethorical question ? The author tries to link the fact that people would like to see data portability in cloud computing to the success of consumer stuff like the iphone and the like. They are completely different beasts and you can't compare them like that. As for the closing question: "Has the possibility of “vendor lock-in” ever stopped you from making a purchasing decision or is it just a “potential risk” that’s weighed in the overall decision making process?" Yes, every time. And unless the product has very limited utility for me (say facebook or something like that) I refuse to put myself in to a position of 'lock-in' because experience has taught me that it is only a matter of time before the thumb screws come out. So even 'free'+'lock-in' won't cut it for me.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Playing devil's advocate, I think there's a difference between what you would do and what the average consumer would do. There's also a difference between something that might be better in the short-term (say over 2-3 years) and something that is good for the long haul. But I feel the same way as you do, mostly. I'm just more willing to make that trade off for say, a Kindle, knowing that in the near future I'm jumping to an open platform as quickly as possible.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I'd never buy an iphone for that reason, and as for the kindle, I'd buy one but only to use it as a reader for open format text files. The DX isn't available here though, so I guess even that will have to wait. The reason your 'typical' consumer and the HN audience approach this in a different way is probably because a consumer usually isn't aware of the exact moment they are locked in, they only find out to their regret much later. But by then it is too late, and the price to switch is too high.
- carbon8 17y ago
  "knowing that in the near future I'm jumping to an open platform as quickly as possible" Assuming that's even possible or realistic, which it often isn't in markets dominated by a single vendor. Supporting vendor lock-in, particularly as a developer, makes it harder for open alternatives to exist. It's common for a single vendor to dominate a market for years. The future of jumping to an open platform could simply never come to pass.

asciilifeform 17y ago

Next: Is Sticking Your Hand in a Bear Trap Really a Bad Thing?

maukdaddy 17y ago
Vendors like this is what makes me want to get out of IT.

vegai 17y ago

yes

wglb 17y ago

Consider the mainframe, and, say, CICS. Things in that end of things are now such that IBM and others are making special efforts to recruit youngsters to work in that world. It seems reasonable to suggest that the reason that there is still all that many COBOL and mainframe shops in the world is due to vendor lock-in. The cost of that? Well, one can sketch out part of the opportunity cost of that. Consider ITA which fuels Orbitz and others. Their technology, running our idea of modern servers, gets at least an order of magnitude better results than the mainframe technology it replaced. This old iron doesn't even have files or filesystems.

bitwize 17y ago
But the old iron is almost completely reliable. Forget "five nines" of uptime; we're talking a one and two naughts. CPU modules, disks, and I/O peripherals can be hot-swapped with no interruption to service. Furthermore, the I/O bandwidth on those suckers is through the roof. Likely that's partially because a mainframe computer system consists of a CPU which does the heavy lifting and a whole bunch of satellite computers -- actual computers -- whose whole purpose in life is to drive I/O devices and relay information between them and the mainframe CPU. When your application has to be up and has to service an entire department or organization for decades on end, the IBM mainframe platform is pretty much the only choice.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Tandem (now HP) made good money because IBM stuff wasn't always up. I've worked for a bank and have seen two serious mainframe crashes. They're rare, but they do happen, and when they happen you can bet that the vendor will get involved because it really isn't supposed to happen. Unlike the PC world, where if a machine crashes it gets rebooted and nobody bats an eye. I blame the 'we're not to blame' culture around PC software manufacturers. You're spot on about the IO, that is the place where big iron really shines. The place where I worked had both Sperry and IBM stuff (we got 'bought' and had to move all the software from the Sperry machines to the CICS environment on a 4381).
gaius 17y ago
Nothing quite does what CICS or IMS or TPF does. Certainly nothing open source. The programming model is radically different to anything in the Linux application world (think, writing database applications in a shader language, is the closest analogy). Sure your typical mainframe shop would prefer it if there was a competitive market, but for really serious OLTP, nothing touches a mainframe still. Also, arguably, the "it's all a database" approach is superior to files and filesystems. It's what Be had and what Microsoft has been struggling with for 20 years.