Kaspersky files anti-competitive complaints against Microsoft

i believe in both but i still think that when a OS vendor allows you to make profit from it, you should be grateful instead of suing it.

Let see if MS blockade KIS to work on Windows, who will crybaby

guest wins (again)

 

I don't think Kaspersky thought this through.
A security vendor that are against security - unless we pay Kaspersky.

The growing trend of ransomware must have made them lose focus on what they where doing.

 

I agree, our opinion doesn't really matter. Authorities have to decide about this one

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...-against-microsoft.389901/page-2#post-2631649

IMHO, the same pro-competition policies would apply to an anti-malware solution. Microsoft simply has too large a share of the PC OS market to allow it to structure it's OS so as to preclude the use of a legitimate, non-malicious, non-harrasing, third-party program.

(According to one source Microsoft held 89.23% of the OS market in April 2016.*)

IMHO, the above would extend to an instance where Microsoft has no built-in or add-on program of it's own that performs the same function, task, purpose of the third-party's software.

Microsoft will never be allowed to, nor would it be foolish enough to attempt to be, the arbitter of which third-party software vendor will be allowed to survive.

Whether or not it has done so with it's implementation of WD, the appropriate legal authorities will be the final arbitters of that -- right or wrong.

[ I had accepted "We agree to disagree," but I felt compelled to write this post. Sorry. ]

*
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-first-time-in-years-windows-7-falls-below-50

 

Yes exactly, some people are missing the point. Nobody is complaining about new OS protection technologies that makes it harder to modify the kernel and to exploit the Windows kernel. I think there is a big chance Kaspersky will win the case. I also think that M$ is once again pushing things, just look at what they are doing with Windows 10 Enterprise. They have bundled it with Win Defender ATP which is directly competing with other enterprise security products.

https://blogs.windows.com/windowsex...-windows-defender-advanced-threat-protection/

 

Agreed, I think some people are missing the point. If it was valid for Netscape to be complaining because IE was bundled and Real Player complaining that Windows Media player was bundled, this is the same thing. Actually, this is worse because like has been stated, I've had Windows Update uninstall my Kaspersky and replace it with Defender without saying a word about doing so. And for no valid reason since it worked fine after I reinstalled it. That coupled with Microsoft changing my default programs repeatedly without my consent (making Edge the default browser, default PDF viewer, etc.) I feel that Microsoft is in the wrong here. Feel free to agree or disagree as you wish.

 

LOL, totally forgot about Real Player. But what you described about Win Defender and Edge doesn't sound too good. It would annoy the heck out of me. And BTW, I have to correct myself, Win Defender ATP will not come bundled with Win 10 Enterprise, but it's clear to me that if they make the regular Win Defender more popular, companies will be more enticed to upgrade to Win Defender ATP, choosing it over other third party security tools.

 

IMO that's probably their long term plan. WD will be free for personal use, that will have to share their data, companies will have to pay for protection (possibly with included "advanced features"). That way MS will try to get the money that companies pay to 3rd party AV vendors.

 

Kaspersky has published another rant against Win 10, and I fully agree. But I do wonder about how good Kaspersky AV is when it comes to respecting users privacy.

https://eugene.kaspersky.com/2016/11/25/a-tricky-choice-out-of-few-alternatives/

 

Well, I'm from Russia. And I don't like Kaspersky (company and product). Not for its KGB roots (while I don't respect KGB at all) but for it's being too heavy. I don't use it (well, I don't use any other AV of IS too).
But this time I should say I'm on the Kaspersky's (Eugene and company) side. Why?

My, user's, intention is to manage my PC, my hardware and software by myself. So Win10 behaviour to decide, what I should use better, all this auto-switching off and even autodeletion - is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. WinDefender isn't an option in no way. More resource-hungry than even new free Kaspersky (my eternal reference standard of heavy app) and one of the poorest protection rates - and this is 'native' OS part?! What the non-sense!

Well, I want my software choice remain MY. Always. Without exceptions. OS and PC are just my tools. As well as apps. And all the responsibility for how I use all of them - it's my responsibility. Not MS or Kaspersky's one.

And if I want do get WD or some other built-in app fired - I'm in my own rights here. Don't even think to decide instead of me.

So, I see MS doesn't respect me (instead it supposes me to be an average noobie-idiot by default). But does it violate antimonopoly rules? I found Kaspersky's reasons convincing enough at least to raise the question.

I cannot expect the real independence and unbiased decision from russian court. I will wait for EU's one.

 

Windows will only delete an antivirus if you're upgrading to Windows 10, and your current antivirus is incompatible. I have no problem with this, as an incompatible antivirus can cause problems. Let's say for example you had an antivirus which did not work with Windows 10, and Windows did not delete it when upgrading to Windows 10. Now, what if you start getting BSOD's or other issues in Windows 10, due to the incompatible antivirus? The average user is not going to realise that the antivirus is causing the problems, and blame Windows 10, and then no doubt they will start telling people not to upgrade to Windows 10 because it crashes.

If your current antivirus is compatible with Windows 10, it won't get removed when upgrading. For example I recently upgraded a computer from Windows 7 to Windows 10, and the installed Norton antivirus product, survived the upgrade and still worked fine in Windows 10. In the past I have seen Norton products being deleted, but once the upgrade finished, I was prompted to download the Norton product again.

The performance impact of an antivirus varies greatly from one computer to the next. For some users, Windows Defender is very light. While the detection rates could be better, it doesn't matter. If you feel that Windows Defender is not adequate, all you have to do is install a third party antivirus and it will be disabled.

Microsoft is not forcing anyone to use Windows Defender.

 

Well, roger_m, you assume this like it isn't forcing and I mean it do force.

Eugene describes very different cases from what you've wrote - and they are mass-confirmed. Not the upgrade from 7 to 10 is the only problem point but even almost every W10 major update.
And there are a number of unfair techniques to lead users to be switched from 3rd parties to MS stuff like WD:

and more

and more

and more once again!

Isn't forcing Really?

I just keep silence about other software deletable by Windows own decision - for 'incompatibility'.
Well, you think about dummies, Microsoft? So give me an option to say I'm not the one. And provide me some 'advanced user mode' - and all will be OK between us.

 

I can't recall ever seeing a prompt to turn on WD when I've had another antivius installed. In my experience WD will only be enabled after uninstalling a third party antivirus, or if the other antivirus isn't running. I upgraded a Windows 7 computer running Norton, to Windows 10 last week. After the upgrade, Norton was still installed and working, and WD was not enabled.

Not only that, but Microsoft has no reason to for users to ditch their third party antivirus and use WD instead, as WD is free and is not a source of income. It is in their interests for Windows users to have a malware free PC which is why WD comes with Windows and is enabled when there is no third party antivirus installed, but I can see no reason for them to care if you're using their own av or not.

 

Some people are missing the point that I should be able to install whatever AV I want (not that it's impossible, but you get my point) and that companies should be able to easily run their programs on the OS.

 

I agree with your point, and I don't see any wrong doing from the part of MS or Kaspersky even though I tend to think that MS has the right to move on with its own developments, third party AVs should stick to MS pace and not the other way round.

As for WD, I'd be very happy to use it but on my two fast notebooks (see my signature) there is a noticeable difference in performance between WD and Avira which is confirmed in most tests (although performance tests can't be very accurate as it often depends on software environment)

 

We don't know what they plan for future. If I speculate they surely see a lot of money in AV market and just have to figure out how to get to it. Slowly taking over AV market and starting to charge for protection could be one way of doing it.

 

It is in Microsoft's interest to have a free antivirus, to help keep users safe, so I highly doubt they would stop including WD for free. I guess there is the possibility that they could introduce a premium version which you need to buy a suscription for. In my opinion this would be unlikely. But of course this is also just speculation, and time will tell.

 

I have seen with my own eye's M$ many popup's on our work enterprise fleet advising that WD is turned off and to enable it.

This mostly happen's when the resident AV needs to be restarted to update the AV software to a newer version.

 

They kind of are, and that is the point that set this whole thing off. I had Kaspersky installed when I updated to the Anniversary build and Microsoft uninstalled it and put Defender in its place. I reinstalled KIS and it seemed to work as well as it did before the update.

The point here was never that either company 'didn't want people to use another product' as much as they (Microsoft) were ripping out other paid products and replacing them with their own. I can even understand that if they felt there was a valid reason to remove a paid product with no warning that they would not want to leave you unprotected, but the whole thing seemed like the wrong approach. I felt I should have at least been notified that they were going to remove my existing product. This is the complaint. Or at least mine. The lack of a choice.

 

It was just a matter of time untill the fat-cat security vendors would start moaning and groaning about the Win10 onboard security suite.

As if the "average" user cares about cranky 3rd party security vendors and that`s what MS should care about i.e.the average user.

Hope MS tells KIS to KMA.

Regards Eck

 

Yes, I agree with you on that. It would be nice to get a notification saying that your security software is incompatible wth Windows 10 and will be removed.

 

It appears Microsoft has made some changes to address Windows 10 AV monopoly claims after contacting Kaspersky to work on a number of improvements in this area. Eugene apparently said “They are listening to us and they made a few changes. It's an ongoing process. Of course if Microsoft agrees to all our requests we will not file it.”

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kaspersky-microsoft-idUSKBN17R234

 

Yes sure... little Emsisoft can make it; but the giant Ka$per$ky cannot...come on gimme a break...

Replaced...? sure...if you do a clean install

This one is gold
Why ask, it is built-in, there is no installation. I don't remember Ka$per$ky complaining about Win7 Windows "PUP" Defender, ah yes it was not a rival at that time...

They are whining because they lose incomes, Average Joe doesn't need their product anymore...

 

Good news
I hope that Windows 10 will become even more transparent about changes that occur during updates and upgrades (changing default apps, uninstalling software...). Definitely a move in right direction.