Integrated vs. Modular experiences

I've been thinking a lot about product philosophies lately, particularly the tension between integrated vs. modular approaches.

I typically prefer integrated experiences, as they are usually more polished, more cohesive, and have a premium feel. Apple represents the gold standard here. But there are many other examples. Tesla owners praise the end to end experience across sales channels, infotainment, and service as the reason they bought and remain loyal customers, even as competition catch up technologically. When companies genuinely commit to and integrated experience and end-to-end quality, magic happens.

However, being a market incumbent changes incentives. As Apple has grown enormous and achieved a near-monopoly position in certain segments, a concerning portion of their profits now comes from rent-seeking rather than innovation. With limited competition and a strong hold on existing customers, their drive to innovate weakens.

Google and Android present a counterpoint. Initially, its modular approach created fragmentation that frustrated customers - I remember trying and quickly abandoning Android years ago after spending too much time configuring my phone for a seamless experience, rather than using it.

But things have evolved. Google's Pixel phones now deliver an Apple-like integrated experience across Google products. Meanwhile, Android OS remains open, allowing Samsung, Motorola and others to compete. This gives customers options and forces Google to keep innovating and polishing their integrated experience. If Pixel falters, users can switch - creating healthy competitive paranoia and innovation pressure.

The sweet spot between modular vs. integrated approaches may lie somewhere in between. A company offering an exceptional vertically integrated experience, with enough competitive pressure from the modular players to remain hungry.