there are no benefits to be had by integrating new features into the OS. Integration on a chip results in benefits such as lower cost, lower power requirements, higher speed, and a smaller form-factor. Integration into an OS, however, is simply a marketing issue.
I hope DOJ doesn't follow this line of logic, because if they do they'll have their heads handed to them on a platter.
How about the following benefits to the consumer:
1. Not having to buy separate components, load them separately on the machine, make sure they work together and the like, but just plug it in, turn it on, point, and click.
2. Not having to pay for two separate distribution networks, resulting in at least fractionally lower prices.
3. Knowing that an OS and browser, for example, will work together seamlessly and have the same user interface and user commands (leaving aside for now the issue of "hidden APIs").
Those are just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.
Maybe these are all what you would call "marketing issues." Nevertheless, they are real benefits to the consumer that arise from bundling. And I haven't even gotten into the issue of *price*, which, of course, is the real nub of the issue in the browser integration part of the lawsuit.
Any good software designer will tell you that properly written software should be modular, and if it is really and truly integrated (as opposed to bundled with a marketing spin of being "integrated"), then it is poorly designed.
integrate (Œn'tŒ-grƒt') verb
integrated, integrating, integrates verb, transitive
1. To make into a whole by bringing all parts together; unify.
2. a. To join with something else; unite. b. To make part of a larger unit . . .
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
While I am not by any means an authority on software design, my understanding is that IE *is* modular, and that when you join those modules together, you get an *integrated* product, called IE. And when you join IE to the OS, you get another integrated product, called Windows 98. Furthermore, products like Quicken, for example, actually incorporate, and/or make calls to, various modules in the IE product. That's why they made it modular, so they could let other companies incorporate IE technology into their own products.
The only "benefit" that can be had from software "integration" is for Microsoft, not the customer.
To the extent that Quicken can, for example, incorporate components of IE into its product, instead of having to reinvent the wheel, that saves consumers money. To the extent Quicken can make calls off the browser APIs, instead of having to use their own libraries, that also saves money.
If the products are separated, then there is no assurance that the APIs Quicken needs will be there when the calls are made, so Quicken will need to replicate the functionality represented by those APIs in its own product.
Now, you could direct Microsoft to include all the necessary APIs in the OS and not the browser. But then the government is designing software.
Perhaps Microsoft is just playing games with semantics. The word "integrated" can be taken to simply mean "included with", whereas "integral" means "cannot be without". But I am using the word "integrated" above to be equivalent to "integral", which is what most people take it to mean when entering this discussion. Otherwise, bundling could be considered integration, and this whole conversation would be as meaningless as Microsoft's interpretation of the consent decree.
Keep in mind that there is no exception for "integrated products" in the Sherman Act. So these semantic games have less relevance than they did in the Consent Decree suit. |
