I loved this anecdote from Jesse Walden’s post about the ownership economy:

(…) When BitTorrent first became popular, Netflix was still mailing DVDs in the mail. Meanwhile, the peer-to-peer technology enabled consumers to access music, movies, software, and video games instantaneously, as if the files were already on their hard drives. By 2004, BitTorrent comprised one-third of all internet traffic.

Consumers’ passion for torrenting signaled that they wanted to access the world’s media at their fingertips, but for many, BitTorrent wasn’t a user-friendly experience; trackers were moving targets, cluttered and difficult to navigate.

One person who saw an opportunity through the noise was Daniel Ek, founder of Spotify. As CEO of µTorrent, one of the most popular BitTorrent clients, Ek understood that piracy wasn’t about stealing—it was about access. The winning formula was providing access to the world’s music in a clean, well-designed product.

It is true that most users value access over decentralization (i.e. ideology), see Moxie’s post as a starting point. In contrast to how Web 2.0—and Spotify—operates though, with Web3 there can be a lot of interfaces/front-ends for one back-end.

I think it's important to differentiate between Web3 front-ends/interfaces and Web3 back-ends. The back-end will (hopefully) be very decentralized, so that for example when the front-end provider is delisting an asset or deplatforming a party, they can just "switch" (in lack of a better term) to another provider, because their actual assets are their own, i.e. when OpenSee freezes NFT assets on their platform, users can still interact with and trade them on other platforms (Coinbase's soon-to-be launched NFT marketplace will work this way as well).

We need interfaces—clean, well-designed products—with great user experience though to onboard the millions of people. The front-end "war" is just about to start.