The concept that you should be able to move your data and be free from vendor lock-in in the cloud should be, and is, a shared objective causing little contention. What this portability means and how it is accomplished is subject to different views and interpretations with varying levels of burden and possibility.

Data portability, the ability to move data between vendors, is at its heart a question of open standards and APIs. Those factors are what makes data portable between providers. But portability of data in some minds also includes portability of functionality. While maximizing the utility of transferred data in new and different environments is also a shared goal that can be aided by industry-led, market-driven consensus-based open standards; it is not as straightforward as data portability.

An important way that companies differentiate both products and services is through developing and implementing new features and functions. If requirements of portability were too broadly interpreted, there might be pressure to assure that there was a unitary and global feature set and functionality. This would result in an undue constraint on innovation and would limit the entrance of new and niche players looking to enter the market and serve specific sectors or subsets of needs. This potential problem is best addressed in internationally recognized standards fora where common frameworks and open standards can help create an fluidity and interoperability across environments, without creating undue constraints on innovation or market dynamics.

Some commentators take concepts of portability even further, looking for uniformity in the contract terms and SLAs. Again this presupposes that one unitary contract model and SLA would make sense across myriad offerings, or that such a system of uniformity would provide greater benefit than terms and requirements more tailored to the nature of the information, requested services and players involved.

Furthermore, these concepts of homogenous environments are seen as desirable by some, without any consideration of the sophistication and relationship between the parties. While some benefits may exist for such approaches in mass public offerings, they are not appropriate for business-to-business environments where parties are likely to be more experienced, and services likely more tailored to specific needs.

Lastly, it should be noted that cloud providers, like ICT vendors in general, are anxious to provide as compelling a set of services to their customers as possible, with a view to integrating more services over time and moving from vendor/customer relationships to that of strategic partners. There are great benefits to both sides when such strategic partnership arrangements develop, but to be credible those relationships take time and effort to develop on both sides.

Understanding needs and possibilities, developing synergies and processes that work well for both parties all take time and effort. The more tailored this relationship becomes, the higher the likely switching costs related to changing service providers. Therefore, these “sunk costs” of strategic partnership are a reflection of business fact and necessary to the relationship; they do not constitute unreasonable lock in.

So, portability is great, both conceptually and as a principle, but in operation we can’t afford to lose site of the fact that sometimes you want more choices than a black model T.

Joseph Alahadeph, Vice President, Global Public Policy and Chief Privacy Strategist for Oracle, is involved in cloud policy issues across a number of business associations as well as regional and multilateral organizations.