Not sure about this, I think the vendors were happy with their own proprietary code, agents and backends because the lock-in ensures that switching costs (in terms of writing all new code) are very high.
That hasn't been what I've seen from the contributors.
If anything I think the backends were kinda slow to adopt.
this is going to come off as being fussy, but 'implement' use to refer to the former activity, not the latter. which is fine, meanings change, its just amusing that we no longer have a word we can use for 'sitting down and writing software to match a specification' and only 'taking existing software and deploying it on servers'
Operational versus builder jargon.
It's still implementing. Someone has taken the specifications and implemented the software, and then someone else has taken the software and implemented a solution with it.
This has been the case for ages. Sysadmins use "implement" to mean "install software on servers and keep it running", coders use "implement" to mean "code stuff that matches a spec/interface". It's just two worlds accidentally using the same term for a different thing. No meanings are changing. Two MS certified sysadmins in 1999 could talk about how they were "Implementing Exchange across the whole company".