Editing Vendor lock-in (section)

== 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-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-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 — 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.