Are you going to suggest that your medical software doesn’t integrate with third party EMH/EMR systems? That your call center and sales team doesn’t integrate with Salesforce?
What about your dependency on Workday? ServiceNow? Your project management software? All of the Microsoft software?
Yes even VMWare. There is a reason that AWS has a VMWare offering.
Exactly my experience. Some services I manage are still entrenched in Big Co. Cloud, and it's a hell. This lock-in costs us additional money (thousands per year), but that amount is less than it would cost us to migrate those apps immediately.
Unix is cool not because it's a Unix, but because it's simple, aka Unix Philosophy.
The hairy stuff is when you get into the highly specific offerings for each SaaS platform. They all offer a ton of them and they can certainly be attractive for some cases (ie. Filehosting) or useless in others (there's a lot of stuff that amounts to "our version of cache/database" and little else) but that's where the lock-in issues tend to play up.
GCP is uniquely terrible though from what I've heard in terms of support lifespan and utter unhelpfulness in terms of communicating to their customers when some SaaS offering of theirs are on the chopping block.
The reality though is that most tech stacks aren't that complicated. Not every company is a venture capital "go big or go bust, we change the entire industry" darling (nor are they necessarily looking to grow that way, especially outside the SV bubble) or a government with 2000 different contracts and enough yellow tape + bureaucracy around those contracts that signing a new contract is just easier than possibly extending an existing one with new features.
For the rest of those tech stacks (which are definitely "enterprise", simply by definition, since they get used in companies and are bespoke enough to be their own tools), it's rare to see a stack more complex than the one I mentioned (backend, cache, db) unless a technical admin decided to play runaway with Azure/Google/Amazon because it's shiny and exciting.
In those cases, the vendor lock-in from using a bespoke AWS or Azure solution are absolutely worth it because if AWS or Azure are an active problem they also will have the manpower to migrate off of AWS/Azure. My suggestion/advice is for the other 99%. You still want AWS/Azure for CYA, the managed part (not having to deal with ops) and backups but you don't need all the extra solutions they offer.
It's why "you are not Google" is an advice that exists. Newbies often tend to assume that because [big company/VC startup] is willing to eat the potential risk of a lock-in gone awry that the [smaller company] they work for/founded is able to eat it as well. There's definitely a usecase for all the specific services that GCP/Azure/AWS offer. Chances are though that you're not working for a company where that's the case and the more conventional tools will do just fine.
(VC Startups tend to ignore that advice mostly because they have a lot of financial resources to spend upfront, so they think it's worthwhile/that they will hit that point where GCP/Azure/AWS services become a necessity compared to a traditional tech stack.)
Startups should use whatever technology that gets them to market fastest and the last thing they should be worried about is “lock-in”.
If they find product market fit and get customers, in normal times the money will come. Why worry about the “undifferentiated heavy lifting”?
Sure for Dropbox or BackBlaze, managing storage is their competitive advantage for instance.
But creating a AbstractFactoryRepositoryKeyValueFacade to avoid a DynanoDB dependency makes absolutely no sense.