I've now been a Mac user for 3 years. Before buying in to the Apple camp, I used Linux for computational work and Windows at home. My experiences with Apple products had typically been negative (why can't I properly maximize my windows?!?!?!?), and I had a philosophical opposition to their 'closed' ecosystem1. Then one day, based partially on the recommendations of co-workers, but also on somewhat of a whim, I bought a MacBook and became an Apple fan.
I still have a PC for playing the occasional, umm... videogame, but all of my work and most of my 'productivity' applications (such as writing this blog post) are done on my Mac. The reason is simple: I really enjoy using Apple's software. What all of my Mac-hating, Windows-using friends have always referred to as 'dumbed-down' interfaces, I now see as intuitive. There's a certain elegance and consistency of design among software on the Mac, such that you can immediately figure out how to do things on an application that you've never used before. As an example, take these screen grabs from two relatively similar pieces of software:
;)
The first program is Apple's iPhoto.
;)
The second is Google's Picasa 3.
Just looking at these two screen grabs, it's pretty clear to me that iPhoto is more sparse: There's less clutter on the screen, fewer information boxes, and fewer buttons sliders and toggles. Picasa has more functionality, but (and all of this is just my opinion, of course) that functionality is realized by continuously bolting more features (i.e., buttons and sliders) on top of an already clunky interface. iPhoto is also arguably more 'aesthetically pleasing', but again that's (common) personal opinion.
There are arguments for both views - Shiny interfaces are often undesirable when functionality is at a premium, after all. But I think that this specific example illustrates a larger problem: why is there so often a disconnect between the quality of the hardware we use as compared to the software running it? Or, for that matter, why do companies that produce very functional software (Picasa) often put little stock into developing their user exprience and aesthetics?
Another example: I got an HP printer-scanner combo thing last year with my new laptop and while it scans great images, the software that came with it is ABYSMAL. There are freeware programs that are so much better. You could repeat this example ad nauseum with various products that have come out over the years: digital cameras, cell phones, MP3 players, etc. Why does their in-box software suck so badly2?
Part of Apple's recent success is undoubtedly due to their concerted effort to improve both the quality of their hardware and their software. This is particularly evident on iOS devices, where the ecosystem encourages uniformity of design such that even very different apps 'feel' the same.
So I guess the real question comes down to that philosophical opposition discussed at the beginning of this post: 'freedom' seems intuitively better in some moral sense, but what if the 'walled garden' approach actually produces better and more stable systems? I'd rather have both options available, but now that computing is mainstream rather than the domain of basement-dwelling nerds, is expecting everyone to 'figure every new program out' reasonable? Can Apple be thought of as simply setting 'standards', something that can enhance a market in situations where too much competition leads to consumer confusion?
1It's debatable how closed the ecosystem of software has been on the Mac/Macbook side in the past, but it's become more closed with the inclusion of the App store on desktops. The new version of the OS coming out this year may close it off a bit more. On the mobile side (iPhone/iPad), the ecosystem is pretty much as closed as can be: You can't install anything not authorized by Apple without hacking the device.
2We can always say that these are often hardware companies and that software is a secondary consideration, I suppose. But someone, somewhere must've looked at some of these programs and asked 'are you serious?' The software for my old Sony mini-disc player felt like it had been made in a high-school programing course.