No, it isn't. "Good user experience" is a just a fancy way of saying "people enjoy using it". Even if you can't fully articulate a rationale, you probably have a concrete idea about whether you enjoy or don't enjoy using a thing. A sharp knife has a better user experience than a dull knife. A cardboard box has a better user experience than plastic clamshells. It may not a thing you can point to, but the meaning is pretty easy to nail down, unlike "Freedom".

* to each his own, I say.*

You're not actually saying anything though. Of course people value different things, but unless you have some idea of what those things are, you may as well be talking nonsense, because you can't draw any sensible judgement on the value of an abstract concept over something concrete.

I think this is important--and not just something to dismiss with "to each his own"--because nebulous terms like "Freedom" are often used to mask actual concrete demands like the legal right to modify and distribute someone else's work. "Freedom" is an idea I can get behind, but when it's code for something that I'm not so sure I agree with, then there's a problem with people using the two interchangeably.

the winner is the guy who serves both A^B not AxorB

But that guy competes with the guy who serves A^C, and the guy who serves B^C, etc. You cannot possibly appeal to every possible demand, which is why we have competition.

But user experience is nebulous. The examples you give are obvious in the choice in which is better or worse, but, for example, I can't stand the blackberry interface because the fonts are ugly. now, someone who isn't a typography snob won't care. For me it has a poor user experience, but for others it does not.

> You're not actually saying anything though. Of course people value different things, but unless you have some idea of what those things are, you may as well be talking nonsense, because you can't draw any sensible judgement on the value of an abstract concept over something concrete.

What I am saying is that there is no accounting for taste. That a universal one-size-fits all judgment cannot be made.

> But that guy competes with the guy who serves A^C, and the guy who serves B^C, etc. You cannot possibly appeal to every possible demand, which is why we have competition.

I don't understand your point here. Clearly the winner is he who can satisfy A^B^C, and while perfection is an impossible goal, as entrepreneurs, we should strive to make as many happy customers as possible, given our constraints.

My point boils down to two things:

1) as users of phones, we shouldn't get all bent out of shape in determining which is the best phone. It's fun & we tend to want to justify our own purchases & there is a sort of rooting-for-our-team aspect to it, but in the end it's pointless. some people like the nebulous concept of "freedom", while others like the nebulous concept of "slick".

2) as entrepreneurs, it's silly to pick sides based on what we want out of a phone as a user. instead, things like whether or not a market exists so that you can make money or whether or not the device has the necessary capabilities to support your idea should drive the decision. Our own biases and preferences as users should be secondary.

That is a concrete thing. You can (and did) actually point to that as a reason for not liking the thing. You cannot point to "Freedom."

That a universal one-size-fits all judgment cannot be made.

Yes, and? That's obvious, and I said the same thing myself. What isn't obvious is what you mean with a term like "Freedom", which is why I bothered to point out that it was nebulous. Clearly you're not making a judgement based on "Freedom", which is abstract, but some actual thing or things which that codes for. So why speak in code?

Clearly the winner is he who can satisfy A^B^C

...I give up.

some people like the nebulous concept of "freedom", while others like the nebulous concept of "slick".

This is intellectual laziness in action. I hope that you will realize that someday, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time and mine on this thread.

Whether the user experience is worth giving up the ability to mix and match components can be measured easily: consider the value of each possible combination of components, and if the Apple combination has more value than other possible combinations, then it's worth it.

What I want as a creator is the freedom to design and build things the way I want to, and what I want as a customer is the freedom to buy and use products that are built from any number of design philosophies. If your design philosophy is so much better, let's see a combination of products built by that philosophy by as many vendors as you'd like that I'd prefer to my MacBook and iPhone. As it stands, Apple's design philosophy has made available to me a better product than I'd be able to buy otherwise. I'm not going to complain. They seem to know what they're doing better than their competitors, and I'm not fucking with that based on some damned ideology. Whether you brand that ideology with the name "Freedom" or "Puppies and Rainbows" or even "Eternal Bliss", it's just demagoguery.