COMMENTARY--If you took away Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Windows Media Player, would what remained still be Microsoft Windows? What would happen if those programs were replaced by Netscape's browser, Eudora's e-mail client, and RealNetworks's RealPlayer?
Thanks to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, we may find out. I'm not ready to say it is likely that the final ruling in the Microsoft antitrust case will require the company to unbundle Windows from some of its core components. But the Windows Lite scenario seems increasingly plausible, ever since Kollar-Kotelly gave the nine states still pursuing the case access to the operating system's source code.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if Windows became more of just an operating system and less of a feature-rich computing platform? How would the marketplace react?
This less-filling, less-calories Windows Lite operating system would, presumably, be offered to PC hardware manufacturers. The OEMs could use it to differentiate their PCs by creating an almost Microsoft-free desktop.
One thing that could happen would be that software and services companies might pay for their products to replace the Microsoft original equipment on new machines. When desktop icons became available for sale, we saw AOL and other companies buying their way onto the desktops of new computers through deals with the PC manufacturers.
I am not sure how much AOL Time Warner would pay to buy Netscape's way onto new PC hardware, but I also haven't done the numbers or factored in what it would be worth to AOL to have a little less Microsoft in the world.
FREED FROM the hegemony of Microsoft apps, PC hardware vendors would be able to more closely follow Apple's lead in building applications to help sell their machines to consumers. Apple's iTunes, iMovie, and iPhoto are key selling points for Macs over Windows machines.
Of course, there's a big downside--for all of us. If the PC companies go too far afield, they risk eroding the Windows standard that has done so much to universalize the personal computing experience. Out-of-the-box thinking may be a good thing, but only in small doses. The chaos that could result from an unbundled Windows might do customers a lot more harm than good.
I've yet to see the feds make any real case that Microsoft left consumers any worse off. There is a misguided notion that somehow consumers would be much better off had Netscape not suffered at Microsoft's hand. Or that we'd be that much closer to computing nirvana had Microsoft failed to weave so many features into its operating systems.
Well, I was there. And Netscape would have succumbed regardless. The reason? Microsoft did more for customers--not more to them. What happened to Netscape--and remember, it was Netscape's misfortune that got this case started--isn't any different than what has happened throughout the PC industry's history.
THE IDEA of bringing additional elements into the operating system as a way to provide more value isn't Microsoft's concept alone. Does anyone remember the days when you had to buy--and install--memory cards, serial cards, modem cards, terminal adapter cards, and Ethernet adapters? How about sound cards and multimedia kits?
All these products used to be big business. This PC aftermarket shriveled when the hardware OEMs started adding all these components into the base package. Why did PC makers embrace this route? Gee, because it was easier for customers and, yes, it allowed them to obtain incremental revenues that otherwise might have gone directly to component makers. Did PC prices go up because of this? Don't make me laugh.
Apparently, this sort of industrial Darwinism is just fine when applied across an industry by one group of companies taking out another. But when a single company does this--Microsoft, in our example--it becomes a federal case.
But only sometimes. See, while Microsoft was taking out Netscape, it also killed off a group of companies that provided the TCP/IP networking software that became a staple of the Windows OS and a key element in the popularization of the Internet, which made Netscape possible. I did some consulting work for a TCP company back then, and what happened once Microsoft weighed in wasn't pretty. But that's how the marketplace works, and customers got a good deal because of it.
THERE IS NO DOUBT that Microsoft played hardball with Netscape. The Internet's sudden surge caught Microsoft flat-footed. It reacted at its competitive best. I don't question that abuses took place. But are customers worse off? Of course they aren't.
Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into the operating system because it was the best thing for customers--as well as for Microsoft. It bundles an e-mail client for the same reason. The same is true for Windows Media Player.
Customers like the Windows bundle, and I hope it doesn't go away. Having a browser brought into the operating system is no different than building modems into new PCs. Both are excellent ways to serve--not screw--consumers. Microsoft's bundling, which hasn't cost customers a cent, has brought tremendous value to computing and made the widespread adoption of Internet technology possible. And for this Microsoft deserves praise, not scorn.
