Interoperability; Some vendors have the unmitigated gall to try and keep their systems proprietary. When they refuse to make code or training available to others, competition will have difficulty achieving interoperability and customers will not be able to move too far from the vendor and their own profitability is secured. Competition is greatly reduced. Capitalism at its finest.
A long, long time ago in a land far away, 4 vendors in the minicomputer and PC markets attempted to do just about the same thing. Wang, Data General and Digital Equipment were almost totally proprietary. Interoperability was little more than a dream. Proprietary would secure success. The fourth company was the leader in the PC world. They also were not able to communicate with competitors and vice versa. For years, IBM compatible meant the difference between success and failure. Why? Try profit. If you control a market and can keep others away, profits remain high. After a time, as with IBM there will come a time that giving up the proprietary nature of the product will cause an increase in sales and profits.
Throughout the 80’s and 90’s IBM’s competitors and some large users complained bitterly about all four company’s proprietary nature. The 3 minicomputer companies “bet the farm” that they could succeed by being proprietary. IBM did the same. The rest is history. One won and three lost.
Epic is in the same boat as those four. Being proprietary is increasing their profitability currently. As time progresses will Epic decide that the time is right to allow the competition access to their product and code and, like IBM, will they do it at the right time to remain the market leader. Any bets?