The IoT world is expanding fast, but the ground beneath it is far from stable. Platforms shut down, companies pivot, and once reliable ecosystems can vanish overnight, turning working hardware into stranded assets. The idea of a “forever platform” no longer holds. Modern IoT architects must now build systems that can detach as easily as they connect.
In a landscape where platforms can disappear without warning, the only true stability comes from owning your data and maintaining the ability to move it anywhere, at any time.
This post covers the essentials that keep organizations in control of their data and devices: full-fidelity exports like JSON and CSV, migration-ready REST APIs, and audit trails that preserve trust during vendor transitions.
Using lessons from recent platform failures such as Gigaset, Osram Lightify, and Sigfox, with new rules like the EU Data Act 2025 and NIST IR 8259A, we outline what it takes to design IoT systems built to outlive their vendors.
The Volatility of the Connected Ecosystem
The IoT market grew on the promise of endless blue-ocean opportunity: new devices, new platforms, and a $11 trillion horizon. That optimism didn’t survive contact with the real world. Today’s landscape looks more like a Red Lake: crowded, competitive, and littered with platforms that never found sustainable business models.
Security failures, brittle architectures, and horizontal platforms that delivered little measurable value have pushed the industry from expansion into consolidation. During growth, speed and feature velocity mattered most. In consolidation, survival rises to the top.
Anatomy of a Shutdown
When a platform collapses, data exports are immediately incomplete or unusable. Devices that depend on the cloud become dead ends. A few recent failures illustrate how this plays out.
Gigaset (2024)
A prominent smart home and communication devices manufacturer, Gigaset’s insolvency instantly crippled its smart-home cloud. With no open API or local fallback, sensors and cameras turned into e-waste. The hardware still worked, but the cloud carried all the intelligence.
Amazon Echo Connect (2024)
Even tech giants prune product lines. When Amazon cut the Echo Connect, the hardware died with it. A small gift card couldn’t offset the fact that “too big to fail” doesn’t apply to niche IoT products.
Sigfox (2022)
A pioneer in Low-Power Wide-Area Networks (LPWAN), Sigfox’s collapse exposed the danger of binding hardware to a single network operator. A Sigfox radio can communicate only with Sigfox infrastructure, so when the network faltered, entire fleets of devices required physical replacement, which was a painful blow for large deployments.
These failures paint a clear picture that, without a planned exit path, even stable deployments can fail instantly.
The Psychology of Vendor Lock-In
Vendor lock-in is as much of a business strategy as a technical flaw. Vendors increase the friction of leaving, so the cost of migration stays higher than the cost of staying, even when the service erodes. You see this strategy on display in three architectural layers.
- Data lock-in: Data sits behind formats or dashboards with no true bulk export.
- Logic lock-in: Rules, triggers, and automations run on engines that can’t migrate.
- Identity lock-in: Devices rely on the vendor’s certificate authority, preventing reprovisioning elsewhere without physical access.
A “pre-nup” mindset breaks this pattern. Instead of assuming the platform relationship will last, you accept that it may not, and design the system so separation is clean, controlled, and inexpensive. That is how you get autonomy in a volatile ecosystem.
The EU Data Act 2025
From September 2025, the EU Data Act required companies to give users access to the data generated by connected devices. The law pushes back against vendor lock-in. It states that data must be provided in a format that is structured, readable by machines, and commonly used; exactly the kind of export that IoT systems often lack today. The rules apply to both consumer and business products, so for global companies that follow EU standards, compliance is no longer optional.
The Gold Standard for Exporting Data
Many business teams ask for CSV files because they open easily in Excel. But for long-term storage, accurate backups, and smooth migrations, architects need JSON. JSON fits how IoT systems actually work. It allows nested items, lists, and clearly defined data types, so all details of an asset, its history, files, and location stay together.
Most modern APIs and databases also support JSON directly, and migration scripts can load and map data with far fewer errors than with CSV. However, a true exit strategy is best with a Full Inventory Download. A complete package that preserves data, media files, and the structure connecting them. This package should include both CSV and JSON, and an offline HTML viewer in case of a shutdown.
API Access and Integration
A static export gives you a one-time snapshot. An API gives you ongoing, real-time access to your data and allows you to migrate gradually instead of rushing everything at once.
REST is now the main way IoT systems communicate. It replaced older methods like SOAP because it uses less bandwidth and works better with modern web and mobile apps. For architects planning long-term resilience, the quality of a vendor’s API matters more than anything else they promise.
A reliable API should include:
- Common HTTP methods like GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE, along with familiar response codes such as 200 or 404.
- Ability to pull or update one item at a time instead of downloading entire databases.
- Ability to ask for specific data that allows teams to move their system piece by piece.
Immutable Audit Trails and Compliance
When companies move from one IoT platform to another, the data chain of custody breaks. Teams end up wondering if anything was altered during transfer or if the old vendor had a breach. Immutable audit trails solve these problems by keeping a secure history of everything that happened up to the moment of exporting the data.
An audit log is only trustworthy if no one can edit or delete it. Immutability means every entry is locked the moment it’s written, even from admins or attackers. Industries that follow HIPAA, PCI-DSS, or SOX depend on tamper-proof logs. In IoT, NIST IR 8259A also recommends keeping secure records of device access for future audits.
Future Trends in IoT Asset Management Systems
The “Red Lake” consolidation we see in today’s IoT market will continue well into the 2030s. More changes are already taking shape.
Built-in Data Kill Switches
New laws will require vendors to include a simple “Data Eject” button to package all user data into a clean, portable file based on emerging international standards like ISO/IEC 21823.
AI-assisted Migration
Large language models can understand and translate different data structures, making it easier to move JSON-based exports into new systems without weeks of manual mapping.
Edge Sovereignty
With smarter edge hardware and on-device AI, systems become less dependent on constant cloud access and less vulnerable if a vendor shuts down.
Closing
Your operational data holds years of knowledge, testing, compliance work, and improvement. It’s one of the most valuable assets your organization has. Don’t lock it inside a system that won’t let you leave cleanly. True IoT maturity means expecting strong export tools and testing them often.
It means asking for API access even if you don’t need it right now, because you may rely on it in the future. It also means understanding that the platforms that truly believe in their value are the ones that make it easy for you to walk away.
The irony is that these are usually the platforms customers stay with the longest. Because the question isn’t whether your IoT platform will eventually change, it’s whether you’ll be ready when it does.
The post Building a Contingency Plan: Ensuring Data Resilience in Your IoT Asset Management System appeared first on IoT Business News.