> Maybe one of those people can explain why it's harder for Apple to develop for a single ecosystem on a closed platform then it is for someone like Canonical to develop on multiple ecosystems on an open platform?

I don't choose which products to buy based on how hard they were to make. All I care about is how well designed they are (aesthetically and functionally). I suspect that most customers are the same way.

> Or maybe they can explain why Apple shouldn't get credit for a final, polished experience?

Apple gets "credit" by profit: customers choose to buy their products, and they do so knowing that Apple is selling them for more than the raw cost of material inputs. This is good, because to make an honest profit (wherein all parties agree to a transaction voluntarily) is what everyone should try to do.

Companies should try to make the best products they can, which means making products that present the least hassle to users. Apple does this best because they honestly care the most about the user experience. And it's not just that it's harder to interoperate and make products work well - when the standard is badly misconcieved, no amount of effort to interoperate will make your product work well. So Apple is right in thumbing its nose at things that are either obsolete (floppies, flash, etc.), or just brain-dead (X-Windows). Apple is the one computer company brave enough to think in principle about what people will want in the future.

If this were so easy, why isn't everyone else doing it?