Treat Distribution Access as a Product Dependency

A product can be useful, popular and technically sound, yet still disappear from a customer’s reach overnight. An app can be removed after a government order. An AI product can climb an app-store ranking and then be blocked by another platform. An operating system can tighten access because a new class of agents creates risks that did not exist when the original permission model was designed.

These developments look like policy or distribution stories. I think they expose a product management problem: too many roadmaps assume that access will continue on today’s terms.

Teams generally treat app stores, messaging platforms, browser extensions, cloud marketplaces and third-party integrations as routes to market. Once established, they fade into the background. The roadmap focuses on customer functionality while continued access to the customer is treated as a commercial constant.

It is not a constant. It is a dependency controlled by another party.

This becomes more important as products move closer to existing customer habits. An agent inside a text conversation may avoid the friction of convincing someone to open another app. An embedded assistant can benefit from context already held by the host system. A marketplace listing can shorten procurement. These are real advantages, but the product is borrowing its position from a channel owner.

The closer the integration, the greater the borrowed value and usually the greater the dependency. A permission change can remove important functionality. A revised policy can make an acquisition channel uneconomical. A dispute between companies can interrupt access even when customers still want the product. Regulation can remove an entire market from one day to the next.

I would not respond by avoiding platforms. That would trade a concrete growth opportunity for abstract independence. I would make the dependency visible and manage it with the same seriousness as a critical technical service.

In roadmap reviews, I want to know what percentage of acquisition, activation and recurring use depends on each external channel. I also want to know which customer value survives if that channel disappears. These are different questions. A product may have diversified acquisition but still depend on one operating-system permission for its core experience.

The practical test is simple: if our largest external channel became unavailable next month, what could the team preserve without rebuilding the product?

That question changes prioritisation. A direct customer relationship becomes more than a marketing objective. Exportable customer data becomes more than a compliance feature. A web experience, API or alternative integration may look inefficient when judged only by current usage, but valuable when judged as a route to continuity. Even customer communication matters: if the host platform is also the only way to contact users, the company does not really own the relationship.

This does not mean funding duplicate versions of everything. Most companies cannot justify that. It means making small, deliberate investments in portability. Keep identity separate where possible. Avoid storing essential context only inside a host environment. Test whether users can move their setup. Maintain at least one communication path that is not controlled by the primary distribution partner. Run a small experiment on an alternative channel before it becomes urgent.

It also changes how I evaluate growth. Fast adoption through one platform can look like strong product-market fit while hiding fragile access. I would separate evidence of customer demand from evidence of channel durability. Customers may genuinely value the product and the business may still be one policy update away from losing them.

Product managers are often asked what they are actually responsible for. My answer increasingly includes the path between the product and the customer. It is not enough to define value, build the right experience and track the right outcomes. We also need to understand who can interrupt delivery of that value.

Distribution is part of the product architecture now. If another company can switch off the relationship, that dependency belongs on the roadmap before it becomes a crisis.