Editing Vendor lock-in (section)

== Examples ==

=== Microsoft ===

{{main|Criticism of Microsoft#Vendor lock-in}}
The [[European Commission]], in its March 24, 2004 decision on Microsoft's business practices,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/37792/37792_4177_1.pdf |title=Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft) |date=2019-02-06 |publisher=European Commission |access-date=2009-06-17 |archive-date=2011-02-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110221115451/http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/37792/37792_4177_1.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> quotes, in paragraph 463, Microsoft general manager for [[C++]] development Aaron Contorer as stating in a February 21, 1997 internal Microsoft memo drafted for [[Bill Gates]]:
{{blockquote|text="The [[Windows API]] is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most [[Independent software vendor|ISVs]] [independent software vendors] would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead. It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high [[Total cost of ownership|TCO]] [total cost of ownership], our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties. […] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago. The Windows franchise is fueled by application development which is focused on our core APIs."}}

Microsoft's application software also exhibits lock-in through the use of proprietary [[file format]]s. [[Microsoft Outlook]] uses a proprietary, publicly undocumented datastore format. Present versions of Microsoft Word have introduced a new format [[Office Open XML|MS-OOXML]]. This may make it easier for competitors to write documents compatible with Microsoft Office in the future by reducing lock-in.{{citation needed|date=November 2015}} Microsoft released full descriptions of the file formats for earlier versions of Word, Excel and PowerPoint in February 2008.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.microsoft.com/interop/docs/OfficeBinaryFormats.mspx |title=Microsoft Office Binary (doc, xls, ppt) File Formats |website=Microsoft |date=2008-02-15 |access-date=2009-06-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090308012827/http://www.microsoft.com/interop/docs/OfficeBinaryFormats.mspx |archive-date=2009-03-08}}</ref>

=== Apple Inc. ===<!-- This section is linked from [[iTunes Store]] -->
{{main|Criticism of Apple Inc.#Vendor lock-in practices}}
Prior to March 2009, digital music files with [[digital rights management]] (DRM) were available for purchase from the [[iTunes Store]], encoded in a proprietary derivative of the [[Advanced Audio Coding|AAC]] format that used Apple's [[FairPlay]] DRM system. These files are compatible only with Apple's [[iTunes]] media player software on [[Mac (computer)|Macs]] and [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]], their [[iPod]] portable digital music players, [[iPhone]] [[smartphone]]s, [[iPad]] [[tablet computer]]s, and the [[Motorola]] [[Motorola ROKR#E1|ROKR E1]] and [[Motorola Slvr|SLVR]] mobile phones. As a result, that music was locked into this ecosystem and available for portable use only through the purchase of one of the above devices,<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v5/n2/5/#note10 |title=Is Apple Playing Fair? Navigating the iPod FairPlay DRM Controversy |author-first1=Nicola F. |author-last1=Sharpe |author-first2=Olufunmilayo B. |author-last2=Arewa |date=Spring 2007 |journal=Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property |publisher=[[Northwestern University]] |volume=5 |issue=2 |access-date=2009-06-17 |archive-date=2012-02-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120207190225/http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v5/n2/5/#note10 |url-status=dead }}</ref> or by burning to [[Compact disc|CD]] and optionally re-ripping to a DRM-free format such as [[MP3]] or [[WAV]].

In January 2005, an [[iPod]] purchaser named Thomas Slattery filed a suit against Apple for the "unlawful bundling" of their [[iTunes Store|iTunes Music Store]] and iPod device. He stated in his brief:
{{blockquote|text="Apple has turned an open and interactive standard into an artifice that prevents consumers from using the portable hard drive digital music player of their choice."}}
At the time, Apple was stated to have an 80% market share of digital music sales and a 90% share of sales of new music players, which he claimed allowed Apple to horizontally leverage its dominant positions in both markets to lock consumers into its complementary offerings.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4151009.stm |title=Itunes user sues Apple over iPod |publisher=[[BBC]] |date=2005-01-06 |access-date=2009-06-17 |archive-date=2009-07-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090709154325/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4151009.stm |url-status=live }}</ref> In September 2005, U.S. District Judge [[James Ware (judge)|James Ware]] approved ''Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc.'' to proceed with monopoly charges against Apple in violation of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/andrews/bt/cmp/20050922/20050922slattery.html |title=Antitrust Suit Against Apple Over iPod, iTunes to Proceed |author-first=Donna |author-last=Higgins |publisher=FindLaw Legal News |date=2005-09-22 |access-date=2009-06-17 |archive-date=2009-07-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090723212454/http://news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fandrews%2Fbt%2Fcmp%2F20050922%2F20050922slattery.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

On June 7, 2006, the [[Norwegian Consumer Council]] stated that Apple's [[iTunes Store|iTunes Music Store]] violates Norwegian law. The contract conditions were vague and "clearly unbalanced to disfavor the customer".<ref>{{cite web |title=iTunes violates Norwegian law |work=Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman |url=http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11032467 |date=2006-06-07 |access-date=2006-06-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060625153735/http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/index.gan?id=11032467 |archive-date=2006-06-25 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The retroactive changes to the DRM conditions and the incompatibility with other music players are the major points of concern. In an earlier letter to Apple, consumer ombudsman [[Bjørn Erik Thon]] complained that iTunes' DRM mechanism was a lock-in to Apple's music players, and argued that this was a conflict with consumer rights that he doubted would be defendable by Norwegian copyright law.<ref name="ombudsman">{{cite web |author-last1=Thon |author-first1=Bjørn Erik |title=iTunes' terms of service vs Norwegian marketing law §9a |url=http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/asset/2406/1/2406_1.pdf |date=2006-05-30 |access-date=2015-05-02 |quote=English transcribed: ''The Consumer Council reacts to the observation that iTunes' DRM entails that the files can only be played on a few players, mainly Apple's own players. They furthermore believe that the terms of service's point 9b, where the customer among other things must agree not to circumvent or change such technical hindrances, is in conflict with the copyright law §53a(3). […] Copyright holders are by the copyright law entitled to decide if the work is to be made available, and in principle also how it is made available. […] Copyright can in my opinion not give the copyright holder right to demand all kinds of conditions when sold to consumers in generality.'' Norwegian original: ''Forbrukerrådet reagerer på at iTunes Music Stores DRM medfører at filene kun kan spilles på et fåtall spillere, hovedsakelig Apples egne spillere. De mener videre at tjenestevilkårenes punkt 9b, hvor kunden blant annet må samtykke til ikke å omgå eller endre slike tekniske sperrer, er i strid med åndsverksloven §53a(3). […] Rettighetshaverens enerett etter åndsverksloven gir anledning til å bestemme om verket skal gjøres tilgjengelig, og rettighetshaveren kan også i utgangspunktet bestemme måten dette skal skje på. […] Opphavsretten kan etter min mening ikke gi rettighetshaveren rett til å stille enhver form for betingelser ved salg til forbrukere i alminnelighet.'' |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304185517/http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/asset/2406/1/2406_1.pdf |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

{{As of|2007|05|29}}, tracks on the [[EMI]] label became available in a DRM-free format called [[iTunes Store|iTunes Plus]]. These files are unprotected and are encoded in the AAC format at 256{{spaces}}[[data-rate units#Kilobit per second|kilobits per second]], twice the bitrate of standard tracks bought through the service. iTunes accounts can be set to display either standard or iTunes Plus formats for tracks where both formats exist.<ref name="itunesplus">{{cite web |url=https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/30itunesplus.html |title=Apple Launches iTunes Plus |work=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=2007-05-30 |date=2007-05-30 |archive-date=2011-06-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110608084938/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/30itunesplus.html |url-status=live }}</ref> These files can be used with any player that supports the AAC file format and are not locked to Apple hardware. They can be converted to MP format if desired.{{clarify|date=June 2022}}

As of January 6, 2009, all four big music studios ([[Warner Bros.]], [[Sony BMG]], [[Universal Music Group|Universal]], and [[EMI]]) have signed up to remove the DRM from their tracks, at no extra cost. However, Apple charges consumers to have previously purchased DRM music restrictions removed.<ref name="iTunesChanges2009">{{cite web |url=https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-the-iTunes-Store.html |title=Changes Coming to the iTunes Store |work=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=2011-08-30 |date=2009-01-06 |archive-date=2011-09-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110904043716/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/06Changes-Coming-to-the-iTunes-Store.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Google ===

Although [[Google]] has stated its position in favor of interoperability,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://developers.google.com/talk/open_communications |title=Open Communications - Google Talk for Developers |date=2013-05-15 |publisher=Google Inc. |access-date=2015-05-04 |archive-date=2016-10-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161018105628/https://developers.google.com/talk/open_communications |url-status=dead }}</ref> the company has taken steps away from open protocols replacing open standard Google Talk by proprietary protocol Google Hangouts.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/google-abandons-open-standards-instant-messaging |title=Google Abandons Open Standards for Instant Messaging |date=2013-05-22 |publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]] |access-date=2015-05-04 |archive-date=2014-08-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140801173557/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/google-abandons-open-standards-instant-messaging |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.techtimes.com/articles/33037/20150217/you-have-no-choice-google-to-shutdown-gtalk-today-hello-hangouts.htm |title=You Have No Choice: Google To Shutdown GTalk Feb. 23, Hello Hangouts |date=2015-02-17 |publisher=TechTimes |access-date=2015-05-04 |archive-date=2015-04-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429105015/http://www.techtimes.com/articles/33037/20150217/you-have-no-choice-google-to-shutdown-gtalk-today-hello-hangouts.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Also, Google's [[Google Data Liberation Front|Data Liberation Front]] has been inactive on Twitter since 2013<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/dataliberation |date=2013-04-24 |title=dataliberation (@dataliberation) on Twitter |access-date=2015-05-04 |archive-date=2015-03-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150314043851/https://twitter.com/dataliberation |url-status=live }}</ref> and its official website, www.dataliberation.org, now redirects to a page on Google's FAQs, leading users to believe the project has been closed.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/vtoubiana/status/432866762682408960 |title=Vincent Toubiana (@vtoubiana) on Twitter |date=2014-02-10 |access-date=2015-05-04 |archive-date=2015-12-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151201193823/https://twitter.com/vtoubiana/status/432866762682408960 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/robdolin/status/494326709496188928 |title=Rob Dolin(@robdolin) on Twitter |date=2014-07-29 |access-date=2015-05-04 |archive-date=2015-12-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151201193922/https://twitter.com/robdolin/status/494326709496188928 |url-status=live }}</ref> Google's mobile operating system [[Android (operating system)|Android]] is open source; however, the operating system that comes with the phones that most people actually purchase in a store is more often than not shipped with many of Google's proprietary applications that [[antitrust cases against Google by the European Union|promote users to use only Google services.]]

===Cloud computing===
{{excerpt|Cloud computing issues|Vendor lock-in}}
===Other examples===

* Many printer manufacturers claim that if any ink cartridges, beyond those sold by themselves, are used in the printer, the warranty of the printer becomes void. [[Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.|Lexmark tried to go further]], making ink cartridges containing an authentication system, the purpose of which was intended to make it illegal in the United States (under the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]]) for a competitor to make an ink cartridge compatible with Lexmark printers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-979791.html |title=Lexmark invokes DMCA in toner suit |author-last=McCullagh |author-first=Declan |date=2003-01-08 |website=CNET |access-date=2013-07-07}}</ref> The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in 2004 that third parties replicating such devices purely to make their cartridges interface with printers does not in fact violate the DMCA.
* Test strips for [[glucose meter]]s are typically made for a specific make or model. Strips designed for [[roche|Accu-chek]] devices, for example, are incompatible with meters from other manufacturers. This lack of standardization can lead to problems especially in [[Developing country|developing countries]], where glucose meters and their associated strips are a scarce commodity. Some companies, despite claiming to have lifetime warranty on their products, stop making specific models and their respective strips so that even those who have a good functioning model have to buy a new model.<ref name="Babaria">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/opinion/a-haitian-boys-needless-death.html?_r=0 |title=A Haitian Boy's Needless Death From Diabetes |author-last1=Babaria |author-first1=Palav |author-last2=O'Riordan |author-first2=Aisling |date=2013-11-14 |work=[[New York Times]] |access-date=2014-07-17 |archive-date=2014-07-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140726130336/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/opinion/a-haitian-boys-needless-death.html?_r=0 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* The [[keurig#Keurig K-Cup brewing systems|K-Cup]] single-serving coffee pod system was covered by a patent owned by [[Keurig]], which is a subsidiary of [[Keurig Dr Pepper|Green Mountain Coffee Roasters]], and no other manufacturer could create K-Cup packs compatible with Keurig coffee makers without a license from Keurig. While the company does have patents on improvements to the system, the original K-Cup patents expired in September 2012.<ref name="wsj-kcuppatentdead">{{cite web |title=The K-Cup Patent Is Dead, Long Live The K-Cup |url=https://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2012/11/28/the-k-cup-patent-is-dead-long-live-the-k-cup/ |work=[[Wall Street Journal]] |access-date=2014-03-08 |archive-date=2018-11-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123223425/https://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2012/11/28/the-k-cup-patent-is-dead-long-live-the-k-cup/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Other [[:Category:Single-serving coffee|single-serving coffee]] brands, such as [[Nespresso]], also have proprietary systems.
* [[Lens mount]]s of competing [[camera]] manufacturers are almost always incompatible. Therefore, a photographer with a set of lens mounts of a certain manufacturer will prefer not to buy a camera from another manufacturer.
* [[Nvidia]], as of 2018, still only supports the proprietary [[Nvidia G-Sync]] despite the availability of the open [[Video Electronics Standards Association]] (VESA) standard Adaptive Sync technology ([[FreeSync]]). In January 2019, Nvidia announced that it will advance compatibility of its video cards with FreeSync-compatible monitors.<ref>{{cite web |author-last=Kerns |author-first=Michael |title=The (Unproductive) Battle of FreeSync and G-Sync |url=http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2373-op-ed-unproductive-battle-of-freesync-and-gsync |website=Gamer's Nexus |access-date=2016-10-11 |archive-date=2016-11-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161101205856/http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2373-op-ed-unproductive-battle-of-freesync-and-gsync |url-status=dead }}</ref>
*Some cordless tool manufacturers make batteries that fit only their own brand of tools, and often are not backwards compatible.  Often multiple brands are owned by the same company, and share tool designs and features, accessories and batteries are deliberately changed to make them incompatible.  An example would be [[Stanley Black & Decker]] which also owns or manufactures [[Black+Decker]], [[DeWalt]], [[Porter-Cable]], Mastercraft, and [[Craftsman (tools)|Craftsman]]. All use almost identical batteries, yet all have some feature designed to stop use in other tools.{{Citation needed|date=May 2022}}
*[[Dell]] laptops will 'throttle', or limit the processing speed available to the end-user, if genuine Dell OEM power supplies are not used with their devices (Users are presented with the warning: "The AC adapter type cannot be determined. This will prevent optimal system performance.").<ref>{{Cite web|title=How to Troubleshoot AC Adapter Issues {{!}} Dell US|url=https://www.dell.com/support/article/en-us/sln128918/how-to-troubleshoot-ac-adapter-issues?lang=en|access-date=2020-07-20|website=www.dell.com|archive-date=2020-07-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200720230951/https://www.dell.com/support/article/en-us/sln128918/how-to-troubleshoot-ac-adapter-issues?lang=en|url-status=live}}</ref>