The possibility of a library lock-in -- as with most technology advances -- would likely be a short first-mover advantage. Before you know it, vanilla versions will show up by producers who go vender neutral. Technology tends to open up after an initial proprietary advantage.
And often when a library is created it allows certain variables to be changed and/or adjusted and other variables have to be considered constant. So even though it might be helpful to expand in some areas it can actually limit concepts in a different direction. As well as the comments from Alex regarding becoming too focused or specialized for one vendor.
However, I have to admit I would love a vendor to suggest creating a special library for all of our parts/systems that would allow us to work more effficiently.
I think it probably depends on the vendor and the approach they're taking. I'm not 100% certain, but I think Maplesoft's support of the Modelica standard probably helps alleviate some of the lock-in because it is a broader, industry wide standard so there is likely more opportunity for cross pollination.
How much of an issue for users is library lock in? In other words, getting too deep into one vendor because you've invested so much into either their components and libraries and/or third party tools/libraries etc.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.