The more complex the solution, the easier it is to lock it in permanently. People don't want to learn a new complex thing. Note that this means the minimal complexity (or close to it). If you implement something that could be simple, and you make it complex, someone else will come along and make it simple and kick your ass at market.

Imagine you've got a warehouse automation system (this is not an example of a $25 million dollar business, just an example of a problem that has no simple solutions) that is ten times as efficient for employees as the current pad-and-paper solution. If you arrive first and lock in that industry with the market leaders in owning warehouses, you don't have to worry about a competitor coming along five years later with a system that is eleven times more efficient than pad-and-paper and that costs 20% less than your system. It cost the company a half a million dollars to train all of their staff to use your system. It'd be crazy to migrate.

So...not a monopoly, but a comfortable lock on a significant portion of the market.

You do know that there are thousands of companies in the warehouse automation space, right? And that "pad and paper" (whatever broad brush that is supposed to mean) isn't really used anymore for anything but small warehouses that wouldn't be a profitable target for warehouse automation software? And that there aren't any "market leaders" that own most of the warehouses...you'd have to lock up thousands of the biggest companies even before you got to 10% market share?

I understand the point you're trying to make, but that was a terrible example. Even then, I don't agree with the answer. Complexity isn't a deterrent to market, otherwise some company would have locked up international import/export by now. The market's response to complexity isn't typically a monopoly but rather very fragmented hyperspecialization (which is the case for both international import/export and warehouse automation).

What people are suggesting here is very well studied in economics: it's called a natural monopoly. And suggesting that you just focus on building a natural monopoly is about as facile as suggesting you just become a billionaire. Building a natural monopoly takes a mountain of time, money, and expertise. It's way harder to build a natural monopoly than it is to build a $1B business that has to compete.

It was a hypothetical example. I know nothing about warehouse automation (though I know it is not using pad-and-paper as I assumed any intelligent reader would understand I was making up a hypothetical world where warehouse automation didn't exist yet), but I know it's complex and I know that if a company with a lot of employees trains them in a complex system, the odds of them changing that system are very low.

And, as I said above: It's not a monopoly. But, it is a comfortable place to exist profitably without a lot of risk of losing your customers.

Also, you've wholly missed my point about complexity. Some problems are hard because of external, uncontrollable, unpredictable, complexity. Import/export is that kind of complexity. I'm talking about predictable complexity. Again, to come back to warehouse automation as an example, which you hate, but makes my point. A warehouse has a lot of moving parts (people, machines, inventory, shelves, whatever TF), but it is finite and is a mostly closed system. The inputs and outputs usually match up, and you can predict what's going to happen with ins/outs and all the people and things that make the things move in and out. It is complex because it is large and there are a lot of people involved and many of them would need to be trained to use any new system that automates it. It is not, however, chaotic, and involving many competing factions, like import/export.

Unpacking that a bit, training costs are to do with interface complexity (in the sense of "necessary" complexity) due to integration with other systems, and other information. i.e. it's not 100% automated; you can't just press a button. It's more "amplification", where you must be trained and practised to use it effectively - a tool for skilled labour. If you're super-successful, yours becomes a de facto standard, which others copy (usually, you still command a premium; but for the life-style idea here, we'd want to avoid that).

This might be included as "installation" costs, along with and engineering integration with other information systems, Related is the organizational purchasing process, expensive for larger transactions: determining requirements, evaluating alternative vendors and solutions, sign-off from legal and upper management, and so on. Change itself is disruptive, there'll be teething problems, other systems will have to adapt, and other knock-on effects apart from training itself. These are one-off costs that you'd prefer not to incur again, unless there's a very large benefit (your example of 10x is worth it, but not (11/10)x).

All are switching costs.

Within that "fragmented hyperspecialization", might there not be good examples of the psuedo-monopoly ("comfortable lock") of the type SwellJoe describes?

You will most likely need to work on maintaining your monopoly, but having a monopoly position in a small market allows you to extract above average profits without attracting competition. This is the path to quiet success.

From a lifestyle perspective it is much better to be a small fish in a small pond than a big fish in big pond filled with sharks.