This is true. For most applications, consistency is a highly desirable trait. I’m sure most people have used a program that didn’t follow standard conventions and became extremely frustrated. Apple publishes a “standard” for designers so their applications appear like other Mac software (or reasonably so) to prevent users from being confused.

For many applications, there is essentially only one way of doing it. Consider spreadsheets; a table motif is about the only way they can be used effectively. At least, for 99% of projects.

I’m not denying that there may be better or different ways of doing the same thing, but you run into diminishing returns. Users have been trained for many years to accept a certain way of using computers. The biggest paradigm was moving form command line interfaces to GUIs. As mentioned in the article, the original GUIs were based off of PARC’s research. Realistically, they haven’t changed terribly much; they are still 2 dimensional, point and click interfaces.

Unless a program is doing something new or specialized, following the established format is more desirable. People know how to use spreadsheets, word processors, browsers, etc. Consider the backlash Microsoft had when it introduced the Ribbon interface w/ Office XP; though it may be better (that’s still a hot debate), people didn’t like it because it meant they had to relearn the program. One of the big gripes people have w/ switching to Macs is having to learn a whole new interface.

In general, copying software, especially if it’s in the same field as what you’re working on, is a good thing. Users are more comfortable with it and therefore more likely to give it a chance. That’s why OpenOffice looks so similar to MS Office; it’s easier for people to switch.