At the time of announcement I generally publish this page out there and encourage vendors to update it:  https://wiki.midrange.com/index.php/Vendor_Statements_of_Support

Customers are also encouraged to update it with communication they have received from their vendor.

One HA replication vendor, which formerly was bragged on by Al Barsa for their commitment to new releases, was one that really dragged their feet.  They announced they were not going to be ready for temporal tables for 18 months after it was GA.  When I raised a public stink about this all the midrange magazines quickly had inserts from competitors announcing their readiness.  This was a simple change.  Of course, the holding company quickly purchased my 'from' and my 'to' solution.  But, so far, it looks like they've learned their lesson.

Change management was another example where we switched.  A little wailing and gnashing of teeth from the one developer who did the study on the original solution.  He's now enjoying his retirement.

I can see how both of these solutions would be easier than an ERP vendor.  Our ERP vendor was loathe to keep up at one time.  Especially since IBM announced way out in the future the issues which were going to crop up with 6.1 and this vendor was running rather dated hardware at the time and was doing their utmost to delay any hardware upgrades as long as they could.  I had one guy there who really went to bat for me.  Perhaps too hard.  I'm going to miss him.  This vendor seems more responsive lately.  Perhaps their financials have turned around (got that last buyout paid off?).  IBM publishes a link about them and what PTF's on IBM's end, and what mods are needed from the vendor, to support the current release.

I like your idea of putting it into the contract.

also to add on the subject of ERP vendors on IBMi :

Many ERP vendors that were once successful have lost their edge because they focus more on sales tactics than actual product innovation. Instead of reinvesting in R&D, they push expensive customizations and unnecessary re-platforming, making it costly to stay and painful to leave. Worse, some ignore IBM i’s roadmap altogether, leaving customers stranded with outdated solutions ( and customers don't know any wiser or are left with only two options between one choice) 

Hey Robert,

I couldn’t agree more with your letter. You’re raising the exact concerns that many of us in the IBM i ecosystem feel but don’t always say out loud. Maintenance fees should be reinvested into innovation, security, and future-proofing—not just funding the next acquisition spree.

IBM is transparent about its release cycles, and vendors have ample time to prepare. Yet, some still drag their feet, leaving customers scrambling to find workarounds or, worse, making tough decisions to switch vendors. The fact that smaller vendors often deliver value while larger ones rest on past successes is something I’ve also noticed.

This raises an important question: how do we hold vendors accountable?

• Public Transparency: Would a shared industry resource tracking vendor readiness for IBM i updates be useful? A forum, a wiki, or a rating system?
• Contract Terms: Customers should negotiate maintenance agreements that include commitments to timely updates and compatibility with IBM i’s latest releases and actually show that they are actively doing this with their software (make it transparent and visible). 
• Group Advocacy: The more customers/users speak up collectively, the harder it is for vendors to ignore. Maybe a formal user groups or association could put pressure on lagging vendors perhaps as a starting point.

I also echo your point on switching vendors—it’s always a challenge, but sometimes necessary. If you’re open to sharing, I’d love to hear more about your experience:

• What were the specific red flags that pushed you to change?
• What did the transition process look like?
• How do you evaluate new vendors to ensure they don’t repeat the same mistakes? (what is the iteration process from your experience and learnings)

Appreciate your insights and willingness to speak up on this.