...is it better to have the guts on the outside where you can access them easily or on the inside where they are out of the way? The answer to that may depend on the observer and his or her usage.
Exactly. And that's why the "better" in "better integration" is a misnomer. It presumes that "more" equals "better", and as you point out so well, whether more is indeed better depends on the context.
As for the mechanical excellence of Losmandy mounts, I would say there are some weak areas.
The same can be said of any engineered system: compromises are a necessary part of every design. I chose the Losmandy because, at its price point, the practical effect of those compromises is minimized. As an engineer, I do prefer to invest in those systems that are found right at the point of diminishing returns!
Losmandy appears to be incrementally improving their mounts. For example, I'd read that the polar alignment scope's illuminator was poorly-designed, but my G11 was delivered with a new and better design. There's currently some indications that the worm supports are being redesigned, and if so, it will be interesting to see if those improvements make it into new stock mounts, or are available as an upgrade.
The mechanical aspects of these mounts are better-served by incremental improvements than by any radical redesigns. Integration as others have described it might likely require more use of cast components, and unless those were very carefully designed and constructed, such "improvements" would compromise other, more desirable, features of these mounts.
So I suspect we'll continue to see more evolutionary improvements in the mechanical components of Losmandy products, and if revolutionary upgrades are in the works, they would likely be found in the drive electronics.