Been long outraged at this kind of lock-in problem, wherever it is found. My first thought on reading this kind of article is "what a great opportunity for a startup".
Then, I immediately realize that there are likely no VCs that would fund such a thing.
It seems that every (ok, a vast majority) new business models that gets funded either start with or soon add some kin of lock-in even when completely unnecessary. they tout it as a "cloud" feature, but in reality it is just a DRM lockup.
The real problem is VCs and founders failing to truly compete on features, and instead trying to compete on network effects and lock-in to build an extractive business model -- just lock 'em in and charge the highest rent/rates you can.
Then, I immediately realize that there are likely no VCs that would fund such a thing.
It seems that every (ok, a vast majority) new business models that gets funded either start with or soon add some kin of lock-in even when completely unnecessary. they tout it as a "cloud" feature, but in reality it is just a DRM lockup.
The real problem is VCs and founders failing to truly compete on features, and instead trying to compete on network effects and lock-in to build an extractive business model -- just lock 'em in and charge the highest rent/rates you can.