This article was written by Scott Freshman, Chief Operations Officer at Visionary Solutions, Inc. and originally published on rAVepubs.com.
The AV industry has changed substantially over the past decade as software-defined systems, networked media distribution and IP-based architectures have reshaped expectations for design and deployment. Today, integrators assemble systems from multiple manufacturers to create scalable environments tailored to each application. As a result, the ability for products to work together has shifted from a technical advantage to a fundamental requirement.
At the same time, a quieter countertrend has taken hold: me-cosystems. Some manufacturers promote closed, inward-facing product strategies that limit flexibility, primarily for commercial reasons rather than engineering considerations. A me-cosystem is built around a simple premise: “Our ecosystem performs best when you only use our components.” While this may simplify internal roadmaps, it often restricts integrator autonomy, narrows customer choice and introduces long-term uncertainty about the durability of a given platform.
We have already seen the consequences of overconsolidation. During the pandemic, the industry learned what happens when we depend too heavily on a single vendor. Many AV manufacturers simply could not ship products. Integrators were left unable to complete jobs, invoice customers or meet expectations — not because of design failures, but because supply chains lacked diversity.
Despite that history, some manufacturers are pushing even further toward prefabricated, closed design paths intended to make systems easy to replicate. That convenience comes at a hidden cost. As more of the design process becomes locked inside proprietary workflows, the role of the systems integrator steadily erodes. If every project is reduced to dragging and dropping components from a single vendor’s catalog, the market eventually asks a hard question: Why do we need integrators at all?
When me-cosystems flatten the craft of system design into assembly-line replication, customer flexibility disappears — and so does the integrator’s business model.
Historically, the AV industry has advanced through collaboration and openness rather than restriction. That philosophy forms the foundation of the we-cosystem. A we-cosystem says: “Your system should perform the way you want, using the products you choose.” It promotes interoperability, supports third-party development and empowers integrators and end users with control over how systems are configured. It also reflects how most projects are delivered today — by assembling diverse products into a cohesive, predictable system that meets the demands of each environment.
Interoperability sits at the center of that process, though it is often misunderstood. Interoperability does not mean interchangeability. It does not mean mixing endpoints from different vendors simply to reduce hardware costs. That approach rarely improves system outcomes and can compromise reliability.
The industry is not asking for a commodity reshuffle of encoders and decoders. What it is asking for are open control frameworks, transparent command structures, consistent automation logic and the freedom to build custom workflows. Interoperability delivers value when it enables predictable behavior across products, streamlines commissioning and preserves long-term flexibility as systems evolve.
Customers working with Visionary are not searching for the least expensive endpoint that happens to decode another manufacturer’s stream. They want systems that communicate reliably, integrate cleanly and can be expanded or updated without structural barriers. That is the promise of a we-cosystem.
A newer trend has further complicated the interoperability landscape. Some platforms now determine which third-party plug-ins or modules appear in their libraries based not on technical compatibility, but on competitive strategy. Devices that integrate successfully may still be excluded if they overlap with a platform’s roadmap or compete with native offerings.
This shift has subtle but significant consequences. When a previously available plug-in disappears from a library despite unchanged interoperability, integrators perceive it as a setback. Consultants question whether solutions remain approved. End users grow uncertain about a platform’s long-term stability. Commissioning slows as teams search for tools that were once readily available. In these cases, platforms unintentionally create support confusion and drift from neutral control environments toward systems shaped by internal product priorities rather than industry collaboration.
The issue is not competition — it is access. When plug-in visibility becomes a strategic filter instead of a technical one, transparency suffers in an industry built on predictable integration.
Visionary’s position is straightforward: Openness is not optional. We publish clear APIs, operate across ecosystems and maintain compatibility with major control and automation platforms. If a platform chooses not to publish one of our modules, our devices still integrate normally, and our commitment to interoperability does not change. To ensure integrators retain full control, we now host all modules directly on our website so they remain accessible regardless of platform decisions. Interoperability should not hinge on another company’s product roadmap.
As the AV industry continues its shift toward software-centric and network-based architectures, the platforms that endure will be those that enable choice, consistency and transparency. Systems that support open communication, predictable integration and long-term flexibility will define the next phase of industry development.
Me-cosystems restrict that progress.
We-cosystems reinforce the core principle of integration: selecting the right tools for each project and ensuring they work together without imposed limitations. The AV community benefits when products communicate freely, integrators maintain autonomy and control frameworks remain open.
Interoperable control — not commoditized hardware mixing — is the value the industry actually needs.
The industry does not need more closed ecosystems.
It needs a renewed commitment to openness and collaboration.
It needs a we-cosystem.
