Retiring your IOT Platform – What would Copilot think?

We thought we should have a little fun and see what Microsoft Copilot had to say about the recent Azure IOT Central retirement announcement. The output that it generated is below, and they take some good shots at themselves as to why you shouldn’t trust a proprietary platform like Azure for your enterprise IOT systems.

Even if Microsoft softened the announcement message a few days after the original announcement, these types of events must make system architects very nervous.
If you are implementing an asset tracking solution for your business, take a look at where the proprietary platform ‘lock-in’ affects you. Yes there are many feature-rich, asset tracking platforms available, but what happens when their business model changes? At best, they will dramatically increase the cost of ongoing platform functionality and upgrades, and at worst they will leave you stranded.

Coppernic believes in a customer-centric, open architecture approach to deploying enterprise asset tracking solutions. We deliver composable architectures with all the benefits that CoPilot describes below. And you will never be ‘locked in’. The keys are yours.

Contact Coppernic ( for more information.

Navigating the Azure IoT Landscape: Lessons from the Azure IoT Central Retirement

In a surprising move, Microsoft recently announced the retirement of its Azure IoT Central platform, leaving developers and businesses in a state of uncertainty. The decision, which was later partially reversed, underscores the critical importance of choosing the right architecture for Internet of Things (IoT) projects. Let’s delve into the details and explore the implications for companies investing in IoT solutions.

The Azure IoT Central Retirement Saga

On February 15, 2024, Microsoft dropped a bombshell: Azure IoT Central, a fully managed, cloud-based IoT solution, would be retired by March 31, 2027. The announcement sent shockwaves through the developer community, leaving ongoing projects in limbo. Developers were informed that after April 1, 2024, they would no longer be able to create new application resources, but existing IoT Central applications would continue to function and be managed1.

The suddenness of this decision highlights the risks associated with relying on proprietary platforms. Companies that had built their IoT infrastructure around Azure IoT Central faced an unexpected challenge. The situation also raises broader questions about the trade-offs between convenience and flexibility in IoT architecture.

The Perils of Proprietary Platforms

Proprietary platforms like Azure IoT Central offer convenience and ease of use. They abstract away complexities, allowing developers to focus on building applications rather than managing infrastructure. However, they come with inherent risks:

  1. Vendor Lock-In: When a company invests heavily in a proprietary platform, it becomes dependent on the vendor’s roadmap. Any sudden changes or retirements can disrupt ongoing projects and require costly migrations.
  2. Limited Customization: Proprietary platforms often limit customization options. While they provide pre-built features, they may not align perfectly with a company’s unique requirements.
  3. Lack of Transparency: Companies have limited visibility into the inner workings of proprietary platforms. This lack of transparency can hinder troubleshooting and optimization efforts.

The Case for Open Architectures

Open architectures offer an alternative approach. Instead of relying on monolithic platforms, companies can build their IoT solutions using modular, interchangeable components. Here’s why this approach makes sense:

  1. Flexibility: Open architectures allow companies to mix and match components from different vendors. If one module becomes obsolete or underperforms, it can be replaced without disrupting the entire system.
  2. Interoperability: By adhering to open standards, companies ensure that their devices and services can communicate seamlessly. This interoperability is crucial as IoT ecosystems expand.
  3. Reduced Risk: An open architecture reduces the risk of vendor lock-in. Companies can choose best-of-breed solutions for each layer of their IoT stack.

Composable Architecture: A Pragmatic Approach

Composable architecture takes the concept of modularity further. It involves breaking down an IoT solution into smaller, reusable components—akin to assembling Lego blocks. Each component performs a specific function (e.g., data ingestion, processing, visualization) and can be easily swapped out or upgraded.

Key benefits of composable architecture include:

  • SCALABILITY: Companies can scale specific components independently, adapting to changing demands.
  • AGILITY: Composable systems allow rapid experimentation and iteration.
  • COST EFFICIENCY: By reusing existing components, companies avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.


Microsoft’s Azure IoT Central retirement serves as a wake-up call for companies investing in IoT. While proprietary platforms offer convenience, they come with risks. Open architectures, especially composable ones, provide the flexibility needed to navigate the evolving IoT landscape. As companies plan their IoT strategies, they must weigh the allure of convenience against the long-term benefits of openness and modularity.

In the end, the choice between proprietary and open architectures isn’t just about technology—it’s about future-proofing business investments in a rapidly changing world.

Contact Coppernic to learn more…