Why did MSFT pick I/O's BAPI?
What's the attraction? Here are the salient differences between BioAPI and BAPI:
(1) BAPI is ready now, and BioAPI isn't to be ready for months.
(2) BAPI's partners are minor compared to the BioAPI Consortium partners.
(3) BAPI is a MSFT-specific API, and BioAPI is designed to be cross-platform.
So let's go through the list, one at a time:
(1) Is it critical for Microsoft to go with the more developed API? MSFT has said it wants to promote the biometric marketplace, so on the surface this choice makes sense. The problem is, BAPI vendors are still incapable of providing cost-effective solutions, and have not been visibly field-testing applications -- by comparison, Identix is really on the cusp of significant deployments. (Identix can become BAPI-compliant in about the same time period that BioAPI can be completed and Identix can be BioAPI-compliant, so there is no BAPI time-to-market advantage there for Microsoft.) What does it really matter to MSFT whether the biometric marketplace can be accelerated by a few months? MSFT's main business won't be biometrics.
(2) Further, why would Microsoft choose to develop a biometric market with Authentec, Veridicom and Sony (all I/O partners) if they are at least a year, probably two, behind IDX in ability to sell and deploy hardware and applications? Why would MSFT choose to freeze or slow IDX deployment in favor of second tier technologies? That doesn't make sense if they are intending to have biometrics roll out quickly.
(3) Here's why: Microsoft's business is selling operating systems and platforms, not the applications that go with them. BAPI is MSFT-dependent, and any application industry that develops using BAPI will be usable only on Microsoft platforms, and not usable on Linux or UNIX platforms. BioAPI is very consciously platform-independent, and intended to run on all platforms. The BioAPI alliance includes a number of members such as Compaq, IBM, Identix, and the US government, that do not want to be tied to only the Microsoft O/S. Their hostile reaction to the I/O deal is evidence of this larger struggle.
Microsoft sees biometrics as one more potential advantage in maintaining the Windows monopoly. This marketplace is controlled today by Microsoft, but three years from now Microsoft has to worry about losing its grip. If biometrics is important to the Internet and users, it is important enough to bind to the Microsoft operating system.
That's the fight.
What if Microsoft senses it is losing the BAPI fight? It can't demand that BioAPI stop being cross-platform, but it can hope to divide and conquer. Microsoft could move on Identix, either by replacing SecureSuite with a BAPI BioLogon (hoping that IDX pulls the marketplace with it), and/or by taking a major equity position in IDX. I don't see how Microsoft gains by going after PC makers here, or any other biometric company.
And, of course, this kind of fight probably doesn't go unnoticed by the Justice Department or the antitrust judge. We may be getting swept up into this larger fight. |
