We are, to a certain degree, unique, and thus, we demand level of uniquity in the products we use every day. This uniquity reflects our own inner complexities as human beings, it offers a response to our demands and desires, a way for us to be able to purchase products that offer features tailored to our needs. It’s easy to see where companies respond to these demands for uniquity, Apple, for instance, does so by offering a wide range of products in their iPhone line, creating space for models at every price increment with features fine tuned for a variety of different user groups. Even with approaches like this, though, standardization is neccesary, you can’t have 7 billion different iPhones, and thus the line between standardization and uniquity is one that must be carefully walked. It’s a difficult predicament; people want what they want, exactly what they want, or at least they think they do, while at the same time, the same exact people claim to support standardization practices that go against this core desire. Standardization is fine, even great if used within companies, I belive, it’s where standardization moves into vertical integration that flaws arise. Standardization across different firms often leads to poor product execution, as core components aren’t built for an exact purpose, but instead built for general purposes and thus aren’t better for antything. Such is the case with Android, or Windows for that matter, where standardized software destroys user expirences because of incompatible software and hardware designs. Standardization detracts when it limits the expressivness and utility of a given product.