Re: In any commercial relationship, ... profits must ... be placed above customers' interests
"Only a company in a monopoly position or with a strong lock-in can afford to annoy their customers and MS did that extensively."
Well that's a really good point about MS, at least their GUI problems suggest they've not focussed as hard on customer experience as Apple, and maybe that's because they've not been as pressured to compete. That said, if we consider whether Apple competes - maybe it doesn't, because it's in the luxury goods sector: people queue up to burn their dollars at the fruity altar. So it may be difficult to compare it properly with MS.
You've changed the point I made by omitting "long-run" and "in an either-or scenario". You're right about commercial relationships sides finding a common interest, but that doesn't address the point I made. Your previous post appeared to feature the premise that it was possible for companies to ultimately, i.e. in the long run, put the customer's interests above their own. That's fallacious.
There may be convergences of interests, as you say, but outside of the luxury goods sector, these are fought over fiercely in the marketplace and aren't defined until the customer / seller agree a price between them. The minute it is clear to a company that its activities must ultimately cost them more than they will get back, i.e. no longer be profitable, they're no longer a commercial entity. For this reason, the whole of their existence they must fight the customer to establish price points as favourable to themselves as possible. Likewise the customer.