Kaspersky files anti-competitive complaints against Microsoft

If you have an incompatible antivirus installed it will be uninstalled and WD will be used instead. It's not as if all antiviruses will be removed. But once again his comments are msleading as he talks about WD being installed, when it is of course part of Windows and will be enabled if there is no other antivirus installed.

Surely it's much better to be using WD than to leave a system with no antivirus protection after removing incompatible antiviruses. Of course the user doesn't get noified that their antivirus will be removed, but they can always download the latest version and install it again after the upgrade, and it's good that MS is removing these antiviruses so they don't cause issues with Windows 10. If you are a Norton user you will get alerts prompting you to download and install the latest version of Norton after upgrading, every time Windows starts. It happened to me the other day, even though I had used Norton's removal tool to completely remove the antivirus before upgrading from Windows 7 to 10.

 

To add to my last post, as has been mentioned, surely it can't be hard for Kasperksy to crate a new version in time for new releases of Windows. If they were quicker to release product updates and if their products were able to download and install updates version when they were released, then this would not be no issues, as Kapsersly would not get removed when upgrading.

I have no idea if Kaspersky products do update when a new version is released. But to use AVG as an example, I often see old versions of AVG installed (e.g. I saw a computer last year running AVG 2013) on customer's computers, becuase in the past anyway, it was unable to update to new versions.

 

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2017/05/11/93681/

 

"Russian security software-maker Kaspersky has filed an anti-trust complaint against Microsoft with the European Commission...

The European Commission confirmed it had received the complaint..."

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40176599

"Kaspersky files antitrust complaint against Microsoft for disabling its anti-virus software

Kaspersky Lab has filed antitrust complaints in Europe against Microsoft. Kaspersky first filed a complaint against Microsoft with Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS), claiming that Microsoft is using its dominant position with Windows to push its own anti-virus software over competitor products with Windows 10. While Microsoft has made some product changes since the initial complaint, Kaspersky isn’t happy these are enough and has filed complaints with the European Commission and the German Federal Cartel Office recently..."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/6/1...trust-complaint-microsoft-european-commission

[Somewhat confusing given the ArsTechnica article in the OP. I assume that The ArsTechnica report was either incorrect or was about a general complaint about anti-competitive behavior, whereas the recent filing was a formal anti-trust complaint, perhaps specifically about disabling its software - per The Verge - or something like that.]

 

Kaspersky is in a very unique and interesting position, right? Precisely now is the time to start maneuvering to try to throw the hounds off its back. I don't buy the single-minded underdog concept for one New York minute. I just don't believe the motive for filing the complaint is all that--cof--- "pure."

psst: I hope K wins at least something, just cuz I don't like Mike.

 

I hope European Commission will give us the choice: Which AV do you want to install? Microsoft, Kaspersky, AVG, Avast, Bitdefender ...

 

Then Kaspersky must offer a free alternative like most other vendors.

 

Windows isn't free, but you don't pay extra (at least not directly) for the OEM version on a new system.

 

None of the home users would pay for a AV if they got an option to choose what solution to use if MS was forced to implement it.

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/20/microsoft_disabling_thirdparty_antivirus/

 

The headline on the The Register article are a hoax.

No, Microsoft did NOT admit to disabling third-party AVs.

Microsoft said that after thorough testing of third-party AVs, then the few third-party AV versions that was not compatible with the Windows 10 update, would be temporarily disabled during the update process and after that, then the end user would be directly guided to the new version of their third-party AV that was compatible with the Windows update.
This was done in partnership with the affected third-party vendors.

That is the correct way to do things.

Microsoft's way of doing this, ensures that the end user will have a fully working pc after the update.
Suspend products that will brick the pc if they are active during update, then update Windows, then guide end user to the updated third-party products that can function on the new Windows build.

Kaspersky wants their non-compatible old product to never leave the end users pc, then have Windows update, and when end users pc then become bricked due to the old version of the third-party AV - then Kaspersky just hopes that nobody ever finds out that it was their fault that peoples pcs no longer work.

This is REALLY not a situation anybody wants to find themselves in. Only Kaspersky apparently finds this appealing.
Who needs ransomware, when Kaspersky obviously puts so much pride into jeopardizing with their customers valuable data.

Quote from original Microsoft statement :

Direct link to the original Microsoft statement : https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com...cosystem-to-protect-our-windows-10-customers/

 

I agree with such procedure. If I remember correctly such procedures were not in place when Kaspersky first filed complaint in November 2016. Maybe things changed.

 

There is no way to clean uninstall WD so you can install a third party AV/AM solution in its place.

Most you can do is disable WD. Sounds like anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft - just the kind of thing it pulled off with its
Internet Explorer browser.

Expect that in editions of Windows 10 to be sold in Europe WD must be unbundled from the OS with an obvious way for users to remove it if desired - and install whatever AV/AM they prefer.

 

I somehow doubt that EU would go so far. WD is there to improve security of their users, so I don't see how EU would say MS to decrease security level for a lot of users.

Personally I prefer when apps are not integrated into OS and can be removed when user wish so. But as shown with each new MS' OS release, MS never followed "Less is more" logic.

 

It will be a retrocess, a involution, many people will get infected again because they dont care to install or pay to use third party antivirus.

Remember the pre-installed antivirus nightmare? They will expire and leave the user unprotected.

 

There's no need to uninstall it, Windows automatically disables WD when you install a third party antivirus.

 

The anticompetative thing is really a difficult philosophical argument if you look at it objectively. It would be analagous to car manafucturer saying we build cars not tires so an entire industry grows around tire manufacture. Then the car company decides to start manufacturing its own tires and regularly changes its wheels so only its tires fit properly. Some would say they have the right to do that, others would say its unfair.

 

Scary indeed. Also believe a lot of this is MS "phony baloney." A lot of Eset folks had issues after the Win 10 CU upgrade.

https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/microsoft-hits-back-at-av/

 

Should we as long time users of their O/S expect anything else and especially expect them to deviate from what is their norm? Of course not. Reading into the response answers always seem to clue us in on #1,2,3 etc. but from their own M$ form.

M$ always has and always seem as an include to such responses their own brand of malarkey aka:"phony baloney".

How it blows over, which it clearly will and probably sooner than later, will be the thing to keep an eye on to what to expect next.

 

Windows doesn't come with a warranty though like new cars, appliances etc. when things go boom.

However it does come with a patch schedule/

 

Sorry. I deleted my post -- was not an accurate analogy -- the car maker in my analogy was not making wheel hubs that ejected or punctured non-OEM tires.

 

I respect Eugene Kaspersky but i am unsure what his problem is in this case. It seems to be the main issue is that kaspersky gets temporary blocked if it can cause issues with the windows 10 upgrades which makes sense no one wants a bsod or unbootable os.
the other thing seems to be that Eugene says that his company doesnt have anything to test against before the new update is available which i feel is not accurate as his company should test against the insider builders to make sure it works before the stable build becomes available which would avoid Microsoft disabling Kaspersky as it would be compatible and not cause any issues.

 

This is all based on Intel and that because Russia is an enemy state , The DOD should nt be running Russian software. Political dissension. This is not only concerning Russia but China also.

 

I had KIS installed when that Windows Update rolled out. It uninstalled Kaspersky AND broke the license. I reinstalled and had to reactivate. I had no issues after doing so. I'm pretty sure his problem (Eugene Kaspersky) is similar to my problem with the situation. Something that seemed fine to me was broken and removed (it may have broken the activation first and removed it because it was "expired") causing lost time and inconvenience for seemingly no good reason. Maybe it was a mistake and I could forgive Microsoft if that was the case and they admitted to it. They do not seem to be doing so. Having experienced it firsthand, it seemed more of an anti-competitive move than anything else. As long as Microsoft stands their ground on this, I stand against them. That said, I do not care who the vendor was, could have been any. Their reasoning does not seem valid. I'm in favor of keeping everyone safe but my solution did not seem to have any legitimate issues.