Lenovo: A master class in successful scaling
Lenovo's 40-year journey from a cramped guardhouse in Beijing to global technology giant offers a compelling illustration of the seven qualities that enable scale-up success. ...
Strategy
Fair play: How to keep the door open when a product becomes a platform
One man’s harvest storm exposed the tech takeover of America’s heartland and raises the question of whether platform success should allow companies to close the door behind them.
Rapid read:
- John Deere transformed tractors into data-driven platforms, using sensors, AI, and a connected ecosystem to shift from selling machinery to delivering outcomes – creating unprecedented value for farmers but also increasing dependence on Deere’s digital infrastructure.
- Platform lock-in has created an ownership paradox, where farmers pay millions for equipment they cannot fully repair or control, prompting regulatory scrutiny and a landmark FTC lawsuit over Deere’s alleged repair monopoly.
- Interoperability standards – open data, diagnostics, and repair interfaces – ensure innovation and platform leadership do not evolve into market lockouts that undermine competition and farmer autonomy.
In the modern economy, leading products across industries are evolving into software-driven platforms because digital connectivity, data analytics, and automation now create far more value than standalone hardware ever could. Instead of delivering a one‑time product, companies are building ecosystems that integrate software, sensors, cloud services, and AI to provide continuous improvements, real‑time insights, and scalable add‑on capabilities. This platform approach strengthens customer relationships, enables recurring revenue, and supports smarter, more efficient use of resources, turning physical products into gateways for ongoing digital services and innovation.
However, this platform approach is creating an ownership paradox, where the company that builds the machine now also owns the software and holds the data, leaving the buyer with little choice but to stay within the seller’s ecosystem and remain dependent on them for any updates or repairs.
Take John Deere as an example. This nearly 200-year-old “tractor company” is today far more than that, having evolved over the last two decades into a smart industrial and ag-tech platform business that combines heavy machinery, AI, and data to improve productivity. The company no longer provides its customers with a tractor, but rather an intelligent value-creating ecosystem that links farmers, dealers, agronomists, and weather systems within a seamless network. With John Deere’s platform, farmers no longer have to take educated guesses about when to plant, how deep to plant, where to spray, and when to harvest. The John Deere platform gives them the answers that their grandparents could only have dreamed of.
This is all impressive when everything works – but what if it doesn’t? The story of Illinois farmer Jake Lieb highlights the risk. Lieb was unable to use his brand-new John Deere X9 1100 combine harvester to save his harvest from an impending storm because a sensor had failed, causing the central computer to freeze the machine. Lieb knew how to fix the minor issue, but the software had locked him out – only a certified Deere technician could reset it. That could not happen in the limited time he had to save his crop. The metal may be Lieb’s, but the code isn’t. John Deere still holds the key.
This is an example of what is happening across industries, where the company that builds the machine, writes the software, and holds the data, creating a loop that closes quietly, one update at a time. This enables John Deere to authorize only its own dealers to service a John Deere tractor’s digital brain because it holds the market power to do so. The farmer becomes a user, not an owner, even though they have paid a small fortune for the machine.
This digital lock-in led to a landmark FTC lawsuit over John Deere’s alleged repair monopoly. The lawsuit alleges that John Deere illegally leveraged its market power to control who can repair its equipment by keeping critical repair tools and software inside its dealer network, thus pushing farmers toward John Deere-authorized mechanics and driving up repair costs.
When John Deere turned farmers’ educated guesses into certainty, they were offering them something more valuable than steel, and this value comes at a cost that may be difficult to accept.
The repair battle isn’t only about tractors. It’s part of a broader reckoning across industries: smartphones, medical devices, and electric cars. Modern products come with software and digital components that manufacturers often lock down.
Tesla, for example, has been criticized for making it difficult for independent garages to service its vehicles. In this new world, ownership, even when the owner has paid in full, may feel more like a monthly subscription.
The question is whether that success should come with the power to lock the door behind them?
Does John Deere deserve its success?
I’ve discussed this case with executives from Europe and the US. The room always splits the same way. One camp says, “What is the problem? John Deere pulled off the impossible by transforming itself. They deserve the spoils! That is how the free market works. Winners win. Let the market run its course, with minimal regulation.”
From that perspective, Lieb made a business decision when he bought his John Deere combine: he gained amazing technology and convenience, and in exchange, he accepted John Deere’s terms of service. Don’t like it? Buy a Kubota.
But others look sorrowfully at Lieb scrambling into that 2004 tractor while his $900,000 machine sat locked in the field. The imbalance of power was all too clear between a lone farmer and a $100bn+ corporate titan.
The more I listened to both sides, the more I realized they were asking the wrong question. The issue isn’t whether John Deere deserves its success. It clearly does. The question is whether that success should come with the power to lock the door behind them?
“European regulators are now applying the same standard to the EV era.”
The interoperability answer
The clearest framework I’ve found comes from legal scholar Tim Wu. In his book The Age of Extraction, he makes an argument that sounds almost too simple: you don’t have to break up dominant companies; you just must make sure the door stays open. The word he uses is “interoperability.” That means that there are rules that keep platforms open enough that others can still build, still compete, still enter.
Consider the phone charger. For years, Apple insisted on its proprietary Lightning connector for iPhones, forcing consumers to buy Apple-specific cables and accessories. Europe decided that this was a pointless lock-in. In 2022, the EU approved a common charger rule. Starting 28 December 2024, new phones and many other small devices sold in the EU had to charge via USB-C.
Apple wasn’t about to abandon the European market, so guess what? The iPhone 15, released in 2023, quietly ditched Lightning. Suddenly, the charger for your Android phone worked for your iPhone, too.
Apple didn’t make this change out of kindness; it was compelled by standards. And Apple didn’t build “a Europe-specific iPhone” and “an America-specific iPhone.” It adjusted its design, and the effect went global. Maintaining two designs – one for Europe and one for everywhere else – wasn’t worth the cost.
European regulators are now applying the same standard to the EV era. Under the EU’s Batteries Regulation, from 18 February 2027, electric vehicle batteries (along with certain other large batteries) must carry a “battery passport” detailing their health and composition, and must be replaceable in defined ways, “without vendor lock-in.” The philosophy is simple: when standards prevent lock-in, customers can walk away, and competitors can enter.
So, what’s the USB-C equivalent for a tractor? I posed this question to several engineers last fall. They came back with three ideas.
- Data portability.Lieb’s combine collects yield maps, soil readings, and planting records every day: that data should follow Lieb. He should be able to export it to any platform, share it with any agronomist, and feed it into any competing system. It’s data about his land, generated by his labor. It shouldn’t be trapped in one company’s cloud.
- Open diagnostics.The error code that locked Lieb out of his own machine should be readable by any mechanic with the right training, not just a Deere dealer with proprietary software. If the combine can tell a Deere technician what’s wrong, it should be able to tell Lieb.
- Standardized repair interfaces.Just as USB-C created a standard port for charging, certain tractor components (sensors, connectors, diagnostic ports) could follow common standards that allow independent repair shops to service equipment without reverse-engineering proprietary systems.
None of this is to say that John Deere is evil for trying to maximize profit.
Ensuring the door stays open
None of this is to say that John Deere is evil for trying to maximize profit. To John Deere executives, everything they’ve done makes business sense. Their job is to generate returns for shareholders. And one could argue they’ve served farmers too, by giving them capabilities beyond their wildest dreams.
But it’s the job of policymakers to ensure the market stays fair and competitive, especially when a product becomes a platform. These days, everyone bemoans European regulations. Product approval is too slow. People call it red tape. But sometimes red tape is just standards. Europe figured something out: you don’t have to own a platform if you write the rules by which it runs. USB-C wasn’t invented in Brussels. Brussels just made it universal. Making two versions of a tech product is often too expensive, so when Europe sets a standard, the world follows.
You need not break up dominant companies. You need only ensure the door stays open. Interoperability sounds like jargon. It means others can still build, still compete, still enter. That’s all. After all, Lieb just wants to be able to fix his own tractor. Whether he can do that depends on who writes the rules, or whether anyone writes them at all.
Authors
Related
The cost of venture capitalism’s inherent gender (and other) biases
Deeply held assumptions about what a successful founder looks like and the financial consequences of these biases have been exposed by recent research. ...
Oona Hathaway, should we still believe in the global order?
Oona Hathaway on war, global rules, and why business leaders may regret staying silent as international law is violated....
The start of the deal: How to pitch your opening offer
Setting an ambitious anchor in a negotiation can deliver big rewards, but it can also risk disaster. Drawing on 90 studies, Martin Schweinsberg offers a framework for a more informed approach to...
Audio available
Learn Brain Circuits
Join us for daily exercises focusing on issues from team building to developing an actionable sustainability plan to personal development. Go on - they only take five minutes.
Explore Leadership
What makes a great leader? Do you need charisma? How do you inspire your team? Our experts offer actionable insights through first-person narratives, behind-the-scenes interviews and The Help Desk.
Join Membership
Log in here to join in the conversation with the I by IMD community. Your subscription grants you access to the quarterly magazine plus daily articles, videos, podcasts and learning exercises.