Microsoft's business plan of bundling technologies with the dominant consumer OS is inherently unfair to consumers.

How so?  It is really pretty simple.

Not all consumers are alike.  Their needs differ considerably.

Let's consider the bundling of network technologies.

Beginning with Windows 3.11 Microsoft began bundling network technologies with its consumer OS.  But, just how is this fair to consumers?  The short answer is that it is not.

Unbundling networking technologies from the OS is fair to consumers because 1) those consumers without a LAN could purchase an OS at a lower cost and 2) those consumers with a LAN all prefer to pick and choose the software they operate.

Unbundling network technology from the OS would permit a lower cost for the millions of individual consumers who use a computer at home.  Many small businesses do not need or use networking either.  They too could easily benefit.  Those companies that do use networking would benefit from networking technology not bundled with the OS (including Microsoft itself).  Networking is by its very nature a cross-platform or multi-platform capability. It is down right silly or stupid to think that a company would operate only one brand or version of operating systems.  Even Microsoft Corporation does not.  Microsoft bought HotMail.  HotMail runs on Unix.  So, either Microsoft can not network its own computers (Microsoft networking technology is not available for Unix) or they too must use more than one networking system in order to communicate.  All consumers would rather use only one system if they could.  No consumers wants a cross-platform technology available only on one brand of system.

So, is bundling networking technology with the OS unfair?  Yes.  Absolutely it is.

Try the following.  Complete the sentence below and try to explain how bundling technology with the OS is fair to consumers:

Bundling networking technology is fair to consumers because ... < your explanation of how and why bundling is fair goes here >...

Guess what?  I have been asking Microsoft supporters for over a year to complete the above sentence and not one has been able to do so.  You would think they do not know how to write an English sentence.  The problem is that they all know for a fact that bundling is unfair to consumers and each time they sit down and try to type out that sentence it becomes clear to even them that bundling is in fact unfair to consumers.

Go ahead.  Try it.  Bundling networking technology with the OS is fair to consumers because ... < your explanation of how and why bundling is fair goes here >....

Many Microsoft supporters claim this is equivalent to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?".   They say that because they find themselves incapable of completing the sentence.  But, that is not the real problem here.  The "beating your wife" question does imply an illegal act regardless if you answer the question "yes" or "no".  Therefore, the question itself is unfair (it has a pregnant predicate).  However, the fairness sentence has no such predicate at all.  It simply begins the sentence and permits anyone to explain how they think bundling is fair to consumers.  If they fail to do that, it is not the fault of the premise.  If Microsoft supporters can not complete that sentence it is only because either they believe that bundling is in fact unfair or they simply can not write well enough.  (It may not be unfair, right?) Since no one has ever completed the sentence, I assume the former (i.e. everyone thinks bundling is unfair to consumers).

The phrase "Bundling networking technology with the OS is fair to consumers because ..." makes no conclusion nor suggestion at all regarding fairness or illegality.  In fact, it begs for the writer to explain their own conclusions.

You can write similar versions of this sentence for the unbundling of just about every component of the Microsoft Windows 98 bundle.

Internet Technologies: Unbundling internet technologies from Windows 98 is fair to consumers because 1) those consumers that do not log onto the internet could buy a lower cost version of the OS and 2) those that do wish to use the internet can pick and choose the best internet software for their particular needs.  Thus, bundling internet technologies is inherently unfair to consumers.

Disc Compression and other Utilities: Unbundling disc compression from Windows 98 is fair to consumers because 1) those consumers who do not use disc compression should be able to buy a lower cost version and 2) those who do want to compress their data all desire to pick and choose the utility best suited for their needs (i.e. they may want disc compression compatible across NT and OS/2 as well as Linux).  Thus, bundling disc compression is inherently unfair to consumers as well.

The silly solitaire game: Unbundling the games from Windows 98 is fair to consumers because 1) those consumers who do not play silly games should be offered a lower cost version of their OS and 2) those that do play games all prefer to pick and choose the games they buy and play.  And, bundling the solitaire game is also inherently unfair.

The sentence works every time with unbundling and never works with bundling.

Therefore, bundling is inherently unfair to consumers and everyone seems to know that.

Those individuals who only wish to support the monopolist forcing the sale of the Microsoft brand of technologies always fail to complete the sentence.  Instead, they ignore fairness to consumers completely.  They know for a fact that bundling is unfair.