Customers are 'locked in' to a vendor's world of products and services in this business model, to the point where switching providers would entail significant costs or penalties. It's worth noting that the term 'costs' in this context does not exclusively refer to monetary costs; the time required to switch to a new option and learn how to use it may be just as relevant for customers. Numerous methods exist for tying customers to a business. They may be required to invest in new technologies, such as a new operating system, or to work with a specific insurance salesperson who has served them for a long period of time and is intimately familiar with them. The vendor's primary objective is to prevent interoperability with the competition in order to maintain customers' reliance on the company, brand, or supplier, thereby actively strengthening customer loyalty and promoting future repeat purchases. 

Due to the customer's previous purchases, his or her future choices and flexibility will be limited. While businesses are generally aware of switching costs, managing, and accurately evaluating them is extremely difficult. To persuade customers to continue purchasing products, the Lock-in concept can be used in conjunction with other schemes such as the Razor and Blade model. 
There are numerous variations on the Lock-in pattern. Contracts that require the use of a specific supplier, for example, are a fairly obvious example of this pattern. Another, more prevalent, type is invested assets that require subsequent purchases. This dependency is frequently established through technological constraints such as compatibility requirements or even patents. The latter may be critical to the concept of Lock-in. Ties can be formed simply by purchasing additional accessory products from a manufacturer, as customers will be unable to recoup previous investments if they choose to switch. Again, significant switching costs may be incurred as a result of required training and classes provided by a particular provider.

When and how to apply Lock-in:

Keeping existing customers is cheaper than creating new ones. This old marketing adage is the basis of the Lock-in pattern. You can implement Lock-in in three different ways. First, legally, by writing contracts with tough termination clauses; this is probably the most obviously off-putting Lock-in mechanism for customers, making it somewhat short-sighted. Second, technologically, by imposing lock-in effects on products or processes, preventing customers from easily switching suppliers or providers; this frequently occurs in conjunction with maintenance activities. Thirdly, economically, by establishing strong incentives that make customers reconsider switching suppliers or providers. Users who wish to exit iTunes will forfeit some of their previous music investment. While financial incentives for cumulative purchases are common Lock-in methods, more sophisticated mechanisms can be created by combining Lock-in with patterns such as Razor and Blade or Fiat Rate. 
To execute a lock-in strategy successfully, a number of factors must be considered. One critical factor is the commercial shelf life of a product, as switching costs decrease as the shelf life shortens. Additional criteria to consider include the ability to resell a product or offer a diverse range of complementary products. Whether this makes sense depends on the number of suppliers willing and able to provide them.
Well-known companies that use this pattern are Somfy and Nespresso.