So how is it that Microsoft Windows, with all the effort put into user experience design, does not seem to be able to measure up to Apple computers in terms of usability? There are probably many answers to that question, some of which involve stuff like creating a cult, appealing aesthetics, brand perception and legacy issues.

Owning the eco-system
One very important factor, I think, is summed up in the Mac vs PC commercial breakthrough. Mac and a therapist are trying to convince PC that it's not his fault that he's underperforming. The therapist says: "Unlike Mac, whose operating system and hardware are all made by the same people, your stuff comes from a bunch of different places. [...] Under those circumstances, who could expect everything to work together the way they should?"

This is a very interesting question, as consumer electronics are turning more and more into complex systems. The question is: how do you get all the parts of the system to work together seamlessly? I see two options: monopolize the eco-system or standardize it.

Monopolize the eco-system
If you look at the iPod/iPhone system it goes beyond just the hardware-software alignment that is mentioned in the commercial. Apple creates and/or controls the hardware (iPhone), firmware (iPhone OS), software (apps), connection software (iTunes), content delivery (iTunes Store) and software delivery (App Store). Owning the whole eco-system of a product makes it easier to create usable products as you can coordinate the application of user experience design guidelines, and deal with connectivity and interoperability issues. And though it might be argued that Apple's complete control over the eco-system might result in higher prices than an open market situation, consumers do get a better user experience for that price.

Standardize
Another way to at least get the different components of a system to work together - to ensure interoperability - is to standardize. As an industry you define a common standard. And stick to it. Think of for example USB plugs, Wifi signals, or compact cassettes. If you choose not join the standard, as Philips did with the VIDEO2000 video recording system, you run the risk of isolating your users from the rest of the system. VIDEO2000 users could not rent video tapes because they're medium was not the standard.

However, getting to a standard can be an excruciating process. It can require one system becoming so dominant it is the de facto standard (like CDs), an industry seeing a big advantage to standardization, or simply forcing it by law, as with the European Commission demanding standardization of mobile phone chargers. And even when interoperability standards have been established, some manufacturers may deliberately deviate from it - slightly - so they can claim to adhere to the standard (that's another check-mark on the box), but sales people will still have the argument that it might be better to purchase all equipment from this one manufacturer, because then you'll know for sure it will work.

Interoperability and/or UI consistency
However, standardizing for interoperability is one thing, but what about user interfaces? What if - for example - you want to run a Route66 personal navigation application on a Nokia mobile phone? Whose interface should be dominant? The Route66 interface that is optimized for navigation, and that users of Route66 software are used to, or the Nokia UI, in order not to break within-product UI consistency? I don't think you're going to solve that one through standardization. Monopolization works better. I think we can expect the TomTom iPhone App to adhere to iPhone design guidelines.

So am I in favor of monopolies? No. But I do see some bright sides.