A platform is a system of systems--an integrated, modular, and specialized technology foundation, which makes it possible to extend a published set of predefined components in a variety of ways, in order to create quickly and at lower costs new product experiences. Experience platforms also include, in addition to various technology foundations, a design system that blends seamlessly with the technology.

Familiar examples of computing platforms are those produced by Microsoft, Apple, and Google. A generic ecosystem of platforms is visualized in the following diagram:

A platform's ecosystem represents a chain of dependencies that bind the platform-maker to other companies and customers. The other companies sometimes tie their success and the success of their products to the platform's success by creating modules and components that enrich and support the platform, but depend on it for their operation.

Let's look at mobile apps, for example, in relation to the three dominant computing platforms--Microsoft, Apple, and Google. App makers must decide on the operating system for their product. If they want their app to be available on iPhones, they need to design according to the iOS specifications and the esthetics associated with the platform. Making the app available on all platforms, although a technically viable option, can be significantly more expensive to create and maintain, especially if the objective is to preserve the distinct user experience of each platform.

Once a platform decision is made, the app maker's focus is naturally on improving and evolving the app by adding new capabilities and enriching the user experience. However, this important effort is diluted because the app developer must also follow closely the ongoing changes in the underlying platform. Each update might cause unexpected problems with the app, and each new version of the operating system carries with it the risk that significant revisions to design and code would be required to maintain compatibility across new and previous versions of the underlying software and hardware platform.

As more companies adopt the platform, competition grows and prices go down. Customers evaluate the landscape of products supported by the platform and are influenced by price and design. The following is a generic chain of events:

• Companies X and Y each develop their technology platform. Let's consider Microsoft and Apple, for example. Each platform has its own set of technology infrastructure, components, and a distinct design system.
• Each of these platforms is also highly influenced by a distinct philosophy of experience design, which influences the approach to its architecture and use; for example, Apple's closed system versus Google's open system.
• Company A chooses to develop a productivity application using platform X, and company B decides to build a similar application but is committed to platform Y.
• The customer in the market for such a productivity application has the benefit of choice between two competing products. Often, the decision in choosing the product--A or B--relies solely on the experience that the underlying platforms--X or Y--support.

This is the reason why today, technology-platform vendors are investing so much in their experience design. They recognize that their competitive edge rests on providing a better user experience.

Although their platforms provide consumers with very similar types of experiences, each of these platforms offers its own branded design system for expressing products and deliver experience in hardware and software. Most importantly, though, the goal is to develop loyal fans. 

Loyalty is key in experience platforms, because usually platforms are not compatible with each other, and consequently, the customer must choose one and stick with it. Sometimes customers are not even fully aware that they are making a long-term commitment to a specific platform. This is the case with Apple, Microsoft, or Google experiences. Once the choice is made, the consumer is often tied to the platform's ecosystem because many related products, such as peripherals and accessories, must be compatible with the chosen platform.

The underlying framework of each design system is governed by tightly controlled specifications published by the platform's owner.

The preceding screenshot from Apple's website points experience designers to the company's hardware-specific Design Guides. Currently, Apple creates four distinct types of hardware platforms, and each has its own experience design system that is fused into the operating system so that the experience is optimized for the capabilities of that hardware. The following are interaction methods supported by Apples' hardware platforms:

• Desktop and laptop computers run macOS. The interaction experience is based on use of input devices such as:
  • Keyboard and mouse
  • Touch and gestures via the Touch Bar (on some new Macbook Pro models) and Touch Pad.
  • Voice commands
  • Attached tablets and styluses
  • Assistive technology devices, such as screen readers
• iPhone and iPads run iOS:
  • Touch and gestures via the device screen
  • External keyboard
  • Voice commands
• Apple Watch runs WatchOS. The interaction experience is based on the use of input devices such as:
  • Touch and gestures via the device screen
  • Voice commands
• Apple TV runs tvOS. The interaction experience is based on the use of input devices such as:
  • Apple TV Remote Control
  • Apple Remote App (via iPhone or iPad)

The user experience of products within each of Apple's hardware categories is tightly coupled with, and influenced by, the hardware. However, Apple, Microsoft, and other companies in similar situations work continuously toward delivering a consistent, unified experience across the entire spectrum of their hardware offering. These companies can do that because they control the platform.

The historic progression of platform design and its evolution shifts from generally available and free platforms, to platforms that are a part of the public domain, to platforms that are exclusive property of a corporation and require licensing and purchase.

These shift contributed in recent decades to the gradual raise in prominence of the open source movement, a movement which evolved as an alternative to commercial, proprietary platforms. Companies and consumers now can choose between commercial platforms and open source solutions, which are often significantly cheaper or even free.

The beauty of open source is that at least according to the movement's vision, its platform is open to the design community at large. Practically anyone who cares to work on it, can do so free of charge. The platform, loosely guarded and guided by active volunteers, evolves organically, with numerous contributions.

For some companies, choosing an open source platform is a simple business decision because they can avoid being financially or legally tied to a proprietary platform and its maker. Also, the opportunity to further extend the platform is compelling. Other companies are concerned that open source components might lack the internal coherence that is inherent to a commercially designed platform. Without design integrity, the end product might be infused with experience inconsistencies, resulting in frustrated customers.

Either way, platforms offer customers and users several important benefits, which are illustrated by the next example--the Kitchen Aid Stand mixer, shown in the preceding image. Since its introduction in 1919, the Kitchen Aid Stand mixer has become an iconic kitchen appliance. Over the years, the company added a plethora of attachments, which transform the mixer into an entirely different appliance, such as a juicer, meat grinder, pasta maker, cheese shredder, sausage stuffer, grain mill, and an ice maker.

Compared to other mixers in the market, the Kitchen Aid is expensive. Yet, the customers enjoy unique long-term benefits because they can endlessly expand their culinary range by purchasing attachments instead of purchasing multiple single-purpose appliances. Customers can save money and valuable countertop and cupboard space. The design element that makes this possible is not the mixer's unique esthetics, solid cast iron stand, or its powerful motor. Rather, it is an attachment hub, which extends horizontally forward from the tilt-head and passes powers from the motor to the attachment. This is no longer a mixer, but a food preparation platform, which extends its core component.

Experience platforms tend to be industry-specific, such as computing, automobiles, large appliances, and so on. In the automobile industry, car makers base the underpinnings of distinctive car models on a global platform. Each of these models offers a unique experience--the car type, dimensions, the exterior style and interior layout, materials used, and their grade of finish might all be different. The country, target audience, and price might be vastly different and yet, a closer look reveals the shared frame, engines, and other parts that are identical.

The preceding image shows Subaru cars--the Impreza, Crosstrek, and WRX--that share the same platform and many of the parts, but target very different types of customers. The following is a quote from a recent Subaru announcement about its latest global platform. The language used is very technical, but even without understanding the technical terms, you will be able to appreciate the significance of the platform for this company:

The vehicles in the previous image share a substantial number of components. These are manufactured by numerous vendors who design and manufacture thousands of components for the platform--from engine parts, to airbags, breaks, sound system, and so on.

In a global economy where manufacturing and designing are spread around the globe and partnerships among competitors are common, shared experience platforms make a lot of sense because development of an entirely new platform is extremely expensive. The companies save significantly on the "nuts and bolts", but compete on the experience manifested in the finished product's look and feel. The customer benefits too from products that are offered in a range of prices, but overall cheaper, and a wider variety of experience options.

The company that controls the platform is responsible for evolving it. If there is a defect in the design, there is a risk that the damage would cascade and impact the experience of everyone who is using a product based on the platform.

Historically, in the computing world, when companies wanted to create computing products, either hardware or software, they had to make a very deliberate choice among these options:

• Committing to a single platform--coming to the market with a software or hardware product that can only run on an Apple- or a Microsoft-driven platform, for example.
• Trying to offer cross-platform products that work with leading platforms--that meant the expense of having design and development teams that are familiar and the risk of developing what would be the same product.
• Taking the open source approach.
• Coming up with an entirely new platform of their own.

All things being equal--access to raw technology such as programming languages or computers, engineering skill, and business drive--the one major differentiator that influences the direction companies take these days is experience design; specifically, the fusion of modular experience design systems with their underlying platform, and the power of modularity to scale and support the evolution of new experience patterns.