IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Patent Wars and Antitrust Forum / Not just IT.
Post #152,930
by Andrew Grygus
Picture of Andrew Grygus
4/28/04 4:29:28 PM
Reply
New Not just IT.
I can't think of any equipment manufacturer from Caterpillar on down that doesn't try to get lock-in for parts, services and even upgrades.

The medical testing equipment at labs I deal with - I always wondered how these rickety outfits could afford that fancy equipment, so I talked to a lady from Bechman.

She said the machine we were setting up listed at a quarter of a million, but the lab didn't actually pay for it. What they did was sign a contract that they have to buy all the reagents, supplies and services from Bechman. The way out of their previous contract was to upgrade to the latest model. Now that's lock-in in spades.

One of the clients who complains about my high charges accidentally left a Bechman service invoice exposed. A low level Bechman tech charges $250/hr including travel time.

You didn't think Microsoft actually "innovated" lock-in did you?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
Post #152,936
by ben_tilly
4/28/04 4:48:06 PM
Reply
New No, not JUST IT
But the ease of achieving lock-in is much higher with IT than in many other areas of business.

For instance a restaurant-goer isn't locked into any particular restaurant. Ford is not generally locked in to any particular parts supplier.

That other areas of business want to achieve lock-in is natural. When Coke is in a position to nail a restaurant that sold Pepsi as Coke, they force them to only sell soft-drinks from Coca-Cola. Nice profit opportunity there. Your airline is trying to do the same with a frequent-flyer program.

And when you get to other technology businesses, the same dynamics that drive it in IT are at work.

However software is special. Software lock-in tends to be harder to avoid, and other business factors (such as significant per unit manufacturing costs) are missing, making management of lock-in a more significant dynamic than otherwise.

As for your snide comment about Microsoft, I'd hope you would give me more credit than that. Or did you think that I didn't know that Microsoft learned directly from IBM?

Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
     Windows sucks, we know it, and you're locked in - (lincoln) - (23) - April 23, 2004, 10:36:40 AM EDT
         I believe that, "Well, DUH!", is the proper response. -NT - (n3jja) - (12) - April 27, 2004, 08:58:43 PM EDT
             WOW. - (folkert) - (10) - April 27, 2004, 09:14:19 PM EDT
                 Oh, always around. - (n3jja) - (9) - May 4, 2004, 08:18:16 PM EDT
                     What are you doing now? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (8) - May 4, 2004, 08:22:19 PM EDT
                         Let me put it this way. - (n3jja) - (7) - May 4, 2004, 08:32:44 PM EDT
                             Teacher? -NT - (imric) - (4) - May 4, 2004, 08:40:38 PM EDT
                                 I'd laugh, but.... - (n3jja) - (3) - May 4, 2004, 08:45:27 PM EDT
                                     *chuckle* Yeah 3 years'd give you tenure - (imric) - (2) - May 4, 2004, 09:10:46 PM EDT
                                         Should be there. -NT - (n3jja) - (1) - May 4, 2004, 09:48:02 PM EDT
                                             Cool. -NT - (imric) - May 4, 2004, 10:26:19 PM EDT
                             You want fries with that? - (ben_tilly) - (1) - May 4, 2004, 09:04:17 PM EDT
                                 I'd probably make more money there. -NT - (n3jja) - May 4, 2004, 09:46:52 PM EDT
             Oi. (new thread) - (pwhysall) - April 28, 2004, 02:16:30 AM EDT
         Just remember that if Microsoft follows economic theory... - (ben_tilly) - (9) - April 27, 2004, 09:33:36 PM EDT
             In that case... - (jb4) - (8) - April 28, 2004, 09:29:48 AM EDT
                 Uh... You were being sarcastic, right? -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - April 28, 2004, 09:33:57 AM EDT
                     YES...and NO - (jb4) - (1) - April 28, 2004, 09:35:15 AM EDT
                         Fe-y? -NT - (Another Scott) - April 28, 2004, 10:41:51 AM EDT
                 Only if you believe that competitors will do better - (ben_tilly) - (4) - April 28, 2004, 11:28:14 AM EDT
                     Until I read your last paragraph, I was gonna say... - (jb4) - (3) - April 28, 2004, 01:17:57 PM EDT
                         After reading that response I am forced to say... - (ben_tilly) - (2) - April 28, 2004, 02:15:27 PM EDT
                             Not just IT. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - April 28, 2004, 04:29:28 PM EDT
                                 No, not JUST IT - (ben_tilly) - April 28, 2004, 04:48:06 PM EDT

Maybe this is what seafood will do in a thousand years.
92 ms