Vendor lock-in isn't something anyone, especially at C-level should be ignoring. Yes, there are things to be gained and money to be made,but one should always have some sort of alternative,just in case. I happen to be in a business,which 100% relies on one vendor,which keeps hiking up prices every year way above inflation.
The flip side of vendor lock-in — at the megacorp level, anyway — is the “one throat to choke” principle; sure, it might be hard to migrate off AWS/Azure/IBM, but (a) your technology investments have a timespan measured in decade-long iterations; and (b) what you really want is to ensure reliable operations for your enterprise. Sure, you may be stuck with cloud vendor x for the next ten years, but at least you know who to scream at if the infra goes south — preferably someone who can mobilize enough engineers to get you back up and running right now.
Having said that, if you’re a small company where cloud budgets are a significant portion of your overall spend, or a tech company that has a defensive need to be able to migrate providers, YM will definitely V.
Is "migrating from Oracle" the Enterprise equivalent of nuclear fusion? We're always 20 years away from production nuclear fusion, Enterprises are always a few quarters away from migrating out of Oracle %list_your_appliance_here%?
At the end of the day they need to increase revenue by adding customers or by increasing revenue per customer. Once the market is saturated they either buy competitors or they raise prices or try and sell you additional services...
