I do think this camera is a good example of Sony showing a willingness to go off the beaten path and push boundaries, but would not point their UX as the reason why Sony is doing fairly well in the mirrorless race, lol. The E-mount Alpha series has been plagued with folks complaining about the UX with gripes starting with the OG A7, continuing with the A7III, and people are still complaining about the A7R V. It's basically a trope at this point. TBH I find the A7III and A9II menus much more intuitive than my old D40 and D5300, but I could be a weirdo.

IMO Sony did a few things right:

1. Purchasing Milnota's camera division in 2006, giving them a functional DLSR system to start from
2. Developing their Single-lens translucent system, which consisted of a pellicle mirror, electronic viewfinder, and phase-detection autofocus system. Some of these ideas weren't novel, but putting all three into a mainstream camera system certainly was and seems to have set them up well for their move to mirrorless. Micro Four Thirds was the first mainstream system (2008), but E-mount wasn't far behind (2010)
3. Mostly^1^ opening E-mount up for third party glass (^1^ see restrictions on burst rate with autofocus)
4. Their tracking autofocus, which debuted on the a6400, A9, and A7III, made focusing on moving things super easy

3 and 4 are the reasons why I shoot Sony these days. I don't really like the way their bodies handle and spent a decent amount of time seeking alternatives (I tried the OM-1, X-H2s, and Z6ii) but the A7III and now A9II proved far more consistent in getting the shot and the back catalog of first and third party glass is very welcome.