What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 1)

Organizations using 20+ proprietary cloud services can migrate to another provider in under 6 months

What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 2)

Cloud provider pricing remains stable or decreases for locked-in customers over 5-year periods

What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 3)

Managed service adoption does not correlate with reduced negotiating leverage in contract renewals

When should you avoid cloud lock-in gradient?

You're building a product where provider independence is a competitive requirement. Your cloud spend already exceeds 15% of revenue and is growing faster

What are alternatives?

Cloud-agnostic stack: Kubernetes + Terraform + open-source databases — portable by design. Selective proprietary adoption: Use managed services only where the time savings clearly outweigh the lock-in cost. Multi-cloud for critical services: Run core workloads on two providers — higher complexity but real negotiating leverage

Catalog

T005

Technology

Cloud Lock-in Gradient

HIGH(85%)

February 2026

4 sources

Context

Engineering teams adopt managed cloud services to move faster. The first service is a pragmatic choice — why build a message queue when SQS exists? Then comes DynamoDB because it integrates neatly. Then Lambda because it's serverless. Then Step Functions for orchestration. Each decision is locally rational. But the cumulative effect is a system so deeply coupled to one provider that migration becomes a multi-year, multi-million dollar project. The lock-in doesn't happen in one decision — it's a gradient, each step making the next proprietary choice easier and the exit harder.

Hypothesis

What people believe

“Using managed cloud services saves engineering time without creating meaningful lock-in.”

Actual Chain

→

Each proprietary service makes the next one easier to justify(70-80% proprietary service adoption within 3 years)

└

IAM, networking, and monitoring deeply coupled to provider

└

Engineers develop provider-specific skills, reducing portability

└

Architecture decisions assume provider-specific capabilities

→

Switching costs compound non-linearly(Migration cost doubles with each year of adoption)

└

Data gravity — terabytes of data in proprietary formats

└

Egress fees designed to make leaving expensive

└

No portable equivalent for many managed services

→

Provider gains pricing leverage(Annual price increases of 5-15% become non-negotiable)

└

Contract negotiations become one-sided — you have no credible exit threat

└

Reserved instance commitments lock in spend for 1-3 years

→

Innovation constrained to provider's roadmap(Architecture limited by what provider offers)

└

Can't adopt better tools if they don't exist in your provider's ecosystem

└

Provider deprecations force unplanned migrations within their ecosystem

Impact

Metric	Before	After	Delta
Proprietary service adoption	1-2 services	15-30 services	+1000%
Estimated migration cost	Weeks of work	$5-50M and 2-4 years	Prohibitive
Annual cloud cost growth	Projected 10%	Actual 20-35%	+100%
Negotiating leverage with provider	Competitive	Minimal	Lost

Navigation

Don't If

•You're building a product where provider independence is a competitive requirement
•Your cloud spend already exceeds 15% of revenue and is growing faster

If You Must

1.Use portable abstractions (Kubernetes, Terraform, PostgreSQL) for core infrastructure
2.Limit proprietary services to non-critical, easily replaceable components
3.Maintain a cloud exit plan document — update it quarterly
4.Negotiate egress fee waivers and price caps in multi-year contracts

Alternatives

Cloud-agnostic stack — Kubernetes + Terraform + open-source databases — portable by design
Selective proprietary adoption — Use managed services only where the time savings clearly outweigh the lock-in cost
Multi-cloud for critical services — Run core workloads on two providers — higher complexity but real negotiating leverage

Falsifiability

This analysis is wrong if:

Organizations using 20+ proprietary cloud services can migrate to another provider in under 6 months
Cloud provider pricing remains stable or decreases for locked-in customers over 5-year periods
Managed service adoption does not correlate with reduced negotiating leverage in contract renewals

Sources

1.
Andreessen Horowitz: The Cost of Cloud
Cloud costs consume 50%+ of revenue for many SaaS companies, repatriation could save 30-50%
2.
Flexera State of the Cloud Report 2024
Cloud waste estimated at 28% of total spend, vendor lock-in cited as top concern
3.
Gartner: Cloud Lock-in Risk Assessment
60% of enterprises identify single-cloud dependency as a top-5 technology risk
4.
37signals: Why We're Leaving the Cloud
37signals saved $7M over 5 years by repatriating from AWS — only possible because they limited lock-in

I001 T001 T002