[murphyslab]

No, you seem to be confusing "vendor lock-in" with "monopoly". The above isn't what is meant by "vendor lock-in". Here's a good explanation by Cloudflare:

> Vendor lock-in refers to a situation where the cost of switching to a different vendor is so high that the customer is essentially stuck with the original vendor. Because of financial pressures, an insufficient workforce, or the need to avoid interruptions to business operations, the customer is "locked in" to what may be an inferior product or service.

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/cloud/what-is-vendor-loc...

A practical example of vendor lock-in is an elderly aunt with mine who has an email address from her ISP. She isn't "contractually obligated" to continue using that email, nor the ISP. The ISP certainly doesn't have a monopoly on email. But the effort to switch from an email that she's been using for 15 years is very high for someone with weak tech skills. I'm probably in a similar situation with Gmail, as it's the primary contact by which most people know me. I can't take my Gmail address and port it; I have to create a new email and get people to update their address books.

[CydeWeys]

Well, whatever you want to call it, it's not monopoly, it's not illegal, and it's not even necessarily intended; it's just the nature of things that switching incurs costs. By this definition I too am "locked in" to my apartment, because even though my signed lease only runs through next year, if I want to leave I have to incur all the costs and hassles of moving.

But I don't really feel "locked in" to the apartment. Maybe it needs a better, more accurate phrase. "Switching friction"? That more accurately describes the situation than "lock in".