"Why bother?"

Why bother making software actually do what people want, in ways they can understand - when you're no worse than the rest of the industry? Because

• you'll ship more quickly, avoiding endless late "problem reports"
• you'll sell a lot more
• you'll develop loyal customers
• you'll make the world a better place too.

Technology needs User-centred Design

They go hand in hand. For example, take secure email:

• Tech-only answer: a billion dollar industry to provide encryption technologies. However:
• User behaviour: people still want and need plain text emails, and people still make typing mistakes in addresses. So:
• Tech-only result, as currently: email is not secure. (How bad is the problem? Ask the CEO of Symbian Foundation, leew@symbain.org and, since Slash Design own symbain.org, our reply should tell you.) Instead:
• Tech- and Design- answer: spend the billions on tech, sure, but also spend a few bucks on code to check outgoing addresses for typos.

"We already have a UI/design team, actually"

Good - but the question is really, what kind of people are deciding the following:

• what the everyday feature set should be
• how simple the UI should appear to be, and
• (later on) what type of problems merit a fix or change?

Are they people who know how to focus on what's important to normal, non-technical users?

If so - great. (And you'll know, because you'll already be taking the market by storm.)

But if you're not taking the market by storm - chances are, as in almost all of the tech industries, these decisions are being taken by people who don't even realise that they're focusing on the 10% of technologically savvy users like themselves, not the 90% of normal people.

Of course, Bill's software just got more and more full of features people don't understand, and thus progressively more complicated for normal people to use. With a monopoly, you can get away with it.