Over the past 18 months, parts of the IT industry have been quietly rewriting the commercial rulebook. Several major vendors have shifted from the ability to purchase perpetual licences to multi-year subscriptions, often accompanied by steep price rises and rigid terms.
Not every technology vendor is following this path – but the impact of those who are is being felt everywhere. Even customers not directly affected are questioning what comes next. The result is a growing unease across the market, and a noticeable loss of trust.
For many organisations, this isn’t just a commercial frustration. It’s starting to affect how they plan, fund and even perceive technology investment.
The promise of subscription models was agility: the ability to access innovation quickly, scale up or down as needed, and smooth out spend. Now, in times of economic uncertainty, many businesses are experiencing the opposite.
We’re seeing multi-year lock-ins at higher cost, with limited flexibility to exit or renegotiate. Contracts that once rewarded commitment now penalise it. In some cases, prices have risen by double digit percentages year on year, outpacing both inflation and the value delivered.
That creates a fundamental contradiction. Technology change is accelerating, but the commercial frameworks surrounding it are becoming more rigid. CIOs and CTOs need to adapt architectures every few months to meet growing user demand and ensure the ability to support technical advancements, yet their vendors want them tied in for years.
The result is friction – internally between technology and finance teams, and externally between customers, partners, and suppliers.
Historically, long-term vendor deals came with a clear business case. The discount justified the commitment and the ROI was measurable. That logic has been eroded.
The move from capital to operational expenditure was meant to simplify budgeting. But for many organisations, it’s done the reverse. Recurring costs now rise annually, often without warning. SMEs, in particular, are struggling to absorb the cumulative impact of higher subscriptions. Even larger enterprises, backed by business analysts and financial business partners, are finding it harder to model multi-year IT costs with any confidence.
Service providers are feeling the strain too, caught between vendor policy changes and frustrated customers, managing expectations they didn’t set and terms they can’t easily influence. The service providers push for customer service is battling with the vendor’s focus on bottom line profit. The trust that underpins those long-term partnerships is being tested like never before.
CFOs are now playing a more active role in technology decisions – and rightly so, given the financial exposure. But as finance takes a stronger hand, the balance of priorities is changing.
The CFO’s lens is predictability, control and longevity. The CTO’s is agility, adaptability and capability. The current market forces these two perspectives to compete- when they would benefit most from alignment.
The challenge for every organisation is to rebuild that alignment. Without it, technology decisions risk being made defensively, not strategically, and based on immediate financial impact, not on long term market relevance.
It’s important to acknowledge that many vendors are still acting responsibly. But the behaviour of a few is damaging trust across the entire sector. Customers are more cautious, procurement cycles are lengthening, and every deal is under heavier financial scrutiny. Even vendors with good intent are finding themselves questioned more closely than before.
The unintended consequence is a slowdown in technology adoption – not because the technology isn’t ready, but because the commercial model no longer feels safe.
The market needs a reset – not a revolution, but a return to balance.
Customers want clarity, not complexity. They want the freedom to adapt without punitive lock-ins, and predictable costs that align to value delivered. They want vendors who understand that trust is built on transparency, not dependency.
At Roc, we see the path forward as one of shared responsibility. That means shorter mandated commitments on licensing, open renewal structures, usage-based pricing, reward and incentivisation for customer longevity – which is not only commercial but technically beneficial, and closer collaboration between technology, finance and procurement functions. It means empowering service providers to act as genuine intermediaries managing lifecycle value, not just licence transactions.
Technology moves fast. Commercial trust, once broken, takes far longer to rebuild.
If the industry wants to sustain innovation, it has to bring customers back to the table with confidence. That starts with fairness, flexibility and transparency values that should be as core to IT as uptime and performance.
Because at its heart, technology is about empowerment. And empowerment only works when customers are in control.
Chief Technology Officer (CTO)
Chelsea Chamberlin leads Roc’s Solution and Technology strategy, ensuring continual innovation and focussed partnerships which drive outcome based value for our customers. Chelsea’s background includes designing and delivering software and networking solutions within mission critical environments. Outside of work she is a green belt in Kick-boxing and mentor to young women paving careers in tech.
The Procurement Act 2023 marks a fundamental shift in UK public procurement, replacing broad principles with a new regime of prescriptive transparency. For contracting authorities managing parts of the UK’s £385 billion annual public spend, this legislation introduces a series of legally mandated, data-intensive reporting obligations.
From NHS ransomware attacks to the Royal Mail being frozen out of global operations, cyber threats are no longer theoretical – they’re national disruptions. As attacks grow more targeted, stealthy, and sophisticated, the UK Government is taking a bold step to plug the legislative gaps and put resilience on the boardroom agenda.
It may come as a surprise, but most cyberattacks don’t happen at 10 am on a Tuesday.
More often, they happen when your teams are offline: when your SOC is running on minimal staffing, when an alert gets buried under hundreds of others.
AI adoption in IT is not uniform. The most advanced tools often require significant investment in licensing, infrastructure and integration. As a result, access to AI capabilities is often dictated by budget, not just technical readiness and expertise.
If your data is exposed on the dark web, but you don’t know about it – can you still be held accountable?
Like many industries and sectors, AI and automation are already changing the structure of IT teams. Routine operational work that used to be handled by junior engineers is increasingly carried out by intelligent systems. That work hasn’t disappeared, it’s just being done without human involvement.
The cyber threat landscape has shifted. Fast.
That means the traditional SOC, reliant on manual triage and static rule sets, is falling behind.
Enter the AI-powered SOC. Not just a nice-to-have, instead a necessary evolution in how we approach cyber defence.
Most organisations expect attacks to come from the outside: a malicious payload, a phishing email, a brute-force attempt at the firewall. But in many cases, the foundations of those attacks were laid weeks or months earlier – quietly, invisibly – through data already circulating on the dark web.
The pace of technological change in IT has never been faster, but it’s becoming a double-edged sword. With businesses racing to unlock the benefits of AI, automation and cloud-native architectures, the gap between the art of the possible and the skillsets on the ground is growing.