Apple has a better interface because Jobs almost always creates his own independent and integrated architecture. iPod, Mac, and iPhone almost always are completely under Apple control, deployed with a combination of Apple hardware and software, and keep product development (mostly) under a single roof.

Microsoft has always been a part of a broader ecosystem, where other players (including legacy) are actively involved and are innovating on various components that they specialize in. Therefore, Microsoft’s in-house innovation and experience appears to lag Apple’s, but Apple’s own in-house stuff tends to jump out to an early lead and then stall as the multiple players in Microsoft’s ecosystem all improving their own piece drive cost savings and performance that tends to sum up to something better than what Apple can offer alone.

We haven’t seen this in iPod/MP3 yet, but we certainly did see Apple leapfrogged in the PC wars and it looks like it may happen again in Smartphones.

So a design question for entrepreneurs is: do you go with the integrated walled garden that moves the initial needle, or do you let pieces of the system go and let other parts of the ecosystem take credit and make your piece seem a bit clunkier…but grow your overall space faster? What’s hip/cool may not be the best monetization strategy out there…and each approach seems suited differently for market creation vs. fast following.